           

      

 

 

.. H... ‘.-.......‘. _. 7 ‘ ’nv .. . 4w.-‘o.. .,........ ' _-‘ —‘ H "U v V V . I

~
.

a

u ' I V .

. - I ‘

. , _ V

, ‘ . . . . .. - .. '- p
‘ . . . H V .. . . -
a , V . . . .
.. . .--.‘- A... ,, . n4- ' -“"’~“ "

               

llllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllll'lll

1293 00700 3902

THESIS

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

-AA~

    

' ‘ WV 7“-" "1'

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Hemisphericity and Jungian Typology

presented by

Daniel G. Mosher

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M.A. Jegree in Psychology

 

 

 

 

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
"-

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

HEMISPHERICITY AND
JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY

BY

Daniel G. Mosher

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1985

ABSTRACT
HEMISPHERICITY AND JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY
BY

Daniel G. Mosher

This study explored hypothesized relationships between
hemisphericity and Jungian typology. The Human Information
Processing Survey (HIP) and the Singer-Loomis Inventory of
Personality (SLIP) were administered to 117 undergraduates,
later classified by sex and as "hard" and ”soft” academic
majors, who were compared for typological and hemisphericity
differences.

Despite serious psychometric weaknesses observed in
both instruments, the findings partially supported the gen-
eral hypothesis of linkages between hemisphericity and
Jungian typology. The strongest connections were the predic-
ted correlations of Right Hemisphericity with Intuition (E =
.32, p<.001) and Thinking (£’= -.30, p<.001). Unexpectedly,
however, there were no significant linkages to Left Hemis-
phericity.

Notable support was found for two basic tenets of
Jungian psychology: (a) the bipolarity of the functions of

Thinking vs. Feeling (r = -.50) and Sensation vs. Intuition

(E = -.44); and (b) typal sex differences (men scored sig-
nificantly higher on Extraverted Thinking, Extraverted Sen-
sation, Thinking, and thraversion, while women significant-
ly exceeded men on Introverted Feeling, Introversion and
Feeling). Further improvements in both measures appear

crucial for a more definitive appraisal of their linkages.

To my sister Sue, with love.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people that I am indebted to for making
this project possible. I would like to give special thanks
to my chairperson, Dr. John Hurley, who has been so helpful
through all phases of my graduate career. If this project
has been a success, much of the credit must go to him.

Dr. Joseph Reyher, who has shared my excitement for
research, was always there with a word of encouragement and
a helpful suggestion.

I also want to thank Dr. Elaine Donelson who, through
her insightful comments and shared interests, made this work
much the better for her influence.

Others that I wish to thank include: Dr. Mary Loomis
for her very special help; Marty Cosgrow, who was an invalu-
able aid in data collection and analysis; Dr. Louis Wilson
for our many helpful discussions; Dean Sandell, who was so
generous with his graphics expertise; and Sandra DeSantis
for her excellent typing.

And finally, I wish to thank my wife, Diann, who has
been so supportive throughout this whole project. She has
shared my excitement and sense of accomplishment, and also
my disappointments and fears. Her many sacrifices made this
all possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Hemisphericity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Jungian Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Relationship Between Hemisphericity and
Jungian Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Design and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . 18
Hemisphericity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Jungian Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Hemisphericity and Jungian Typology . . . . . . . 25
Sex Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Differences in College Major . . . . . . . . . . 35
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
The Functions and Right Hemisphericity . . . . . 38

The Functions and Left Hemisphericity . . . . . . 41

iv

Attit
Sex D
Colle
Other
Impli
APPENDICES

A.

REFERENCES

ude and Hemisphericity . . . . . . . .
ifferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ge Major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

cations O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Comparison of Left, Right Brain
Dichotomies and Rational/Nonrational
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spearman Correlation Coefficients for
HIP Survey and SLIP . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Representative Sample of

HIP Left Hemisphere (LH) Items and
SLIP Thinking Items . . . . . . . . .

43
44
45
46

47

49

50

51

52

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

LIST OF TABLES

Means, Standard Deviations and Norms
for HIP Survey Subscale Scores . . . . . . .

Spearman Correlation Coefficients for
HIP Survey and SLIP Attitude and Function
scores 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O I O 0

Classification of Participants According
to Hemispheric Preference . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations for SLIP
Subscale Scores (N = 117) . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Mean Hemisphericity Scores
Between Thinkers and Intuitives (df = 52). .

Comparison of Mean Function and Cognitive
Mode Scores Between Left and Right Dominant
Hemispheric Individuals (df = 44) . . . . .

A Comparison of Mean Hemisphericity Scores
Between Introverted Nonrationals and Extra-
verted Rationals (df = 47) . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Expressing the
Relationship Between Sex and Hemisphericity
for Sensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Differences Between Males and Females
for Hemisphericity, Attitude, Function,
and Cognitive Mode Scores (df = 115) . . . .

Mean Differences Between Hard and Soft
College Majors for Hemisphericity, Attitude,
Function, and Cognitive Mode Scores

(df = 106) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

PAGE

19

20

22

23

28

30

31

33

34

36

LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Covariance of Significantly Associated HIP

Survey (LH & RH) and SLIP (T, F, S, & N)
Measures 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 42

vii

INTRODUCTION

Hemisphericity, a development of recent trends in brain
research (Springer & Deutsch, 1981), and Jungian typology
(Jung, 1971) are both theories of human information process-
ing, or cognitive style. Each deals with the receiving and
processing of information within the individual. In addition
to their functional similarity, the constructs of hemispher-
icity and Jungian typology appear very similar from a
theoretical and definitional standpoint (Rossi, 1977;
Stevens, 1983). If this can be verified empirically, it
would further validate both theories and expand their poten-
tial application. The purpose of this study was to examine
the relationship between these seemingly separate and
distinct though conceptually similar, measures of cognitive
style.

Hemisphericity

 

Asymmetries in hemispheric function were first discov-
ered in the nineteenth century through the study of the
differential effects of injury to the left and right halves
of the human brain. Interest in this topic increased
dramatically after the split-brain operations of the 1960's

and led to a rapid growth in research seeking to character-

1

2
ize these differences and their implications for human
behavior (Sprinter & Deutsch, 1981).

As a result of this expanding interest in brain hemis-
phericity, there is considerable documentation associating
the left hemisphere in most individuals with verbal, sequen-
tial, and analytic modes of cognition, and the right hemis—
phere with visual, spatial, intuitive, and synthetic modes
(Galin & Ornstein, 1972; Sperry, 1974; Springer & Deutsch,
1981). An exception to this pattern can be seen in left
handers, about 15 percent of whom show right-hemisphere
control of speech and another 15 percent who show bilateral
control (Springer & Deutsch, 1981).

There are also data indicating that it is possible to
identify individual differences in the tendency to rely more
on one cerebral hemisphere than upon the other in processing
information (Bever, 1975; Bogen, Dezure, Tenhouten & Marsh,
1972; Ornstein, 1972). While not all studies have confirmed
this (Arndt & Berger, 1979), Kinsbourne (1982) concluded
that there was some division of labor between the hemis-
pheres and that attempts to capture the essence of this
dichotomy in a simplifying formulation, such as hemispher-
icity, are justifiable.

The most frequently used methods of assessing hemis-
phericity have relied on lateral eye movements (LEMs) and
dichotic listening. But there have been problems with both
methods. There are concerns that dichotic listening typical-

ly underestimates the incidence of left-hemispheric Speech

3

in right handers, that strategy may contribute to perfor-
mance, and that reliability has been lower than expected
(Springer & Deutsch, 1981). Similarly, in a review of the
evidence linking LEMs to hemispheric asymmetry, Ehrlichman &
Weinberger (1979) noted that the relationship is weak and
indirect, based primarily on the investigator’s conceptions
of what constitutes a left or right-hemispheric question.

As an alternative, Torrance and his co-workers
(Torrance, Reynolds, Riegel, & Bell, 1977) developed a self-
report instrument to assess hemisphericity or style of
processing information. Originally called Your Style of
Learning and Thinking (SOLAT), this instrument is now known
as the Human Information Processing Survey (HIP Survey) and
was selected for use in this study. There is a growing body
of literature documenting the HIP's reliability and validity
(Taggart & Torrance, 1984).

Jungian Typology

 

According to Jung's theory of psychological types
(Jung, 1971), there are two opposite but complementary
attitudes, introversion and extraversion. The extraverted
attitude is an outward focusing of attention, or libido,
toward objects, people and the environment. The introverted
attitude, on the other hand, is an inward turning of the
libido toward the subject. Introverts attend more to ideas,
concepts, impressions, feelings, and images. Davis and
Johnson (1983) sum up the differences well:

Introverts are oriented predominantly to the
subject as the basis of their consciousness, while

4

extraverts are oriented more to the object as the

basis of their consciousness. . . . For the intro-

vert, experience always appears mediated by his
experiencing of it. . . . What the extravert
experiences at any given moment is felt to be more

directed by the sights or sounds themselves. . . .

The distinction between extraverts and introverts

must be viewed from the perspective of differing

perceptions or ways of processing information. It

is not that introverts do not like people or with-

draw. What introverts do with information result-

ing from interactions with others distinguish them

from extraverts (p. 151).

In their study, the authors found that when the con-
tents of subjects' consciousness were assessed using a
paging device, the data showed that introverts were more
likely to make reference to words denoting processing (e.g.,
awareness, impressions, image, experience, etc.). Extra-
verts, on the other hand, were more likely to make reference
to time and objects. These findings were consistent with
Jung's distinctions between introverts and extraverts.

In addition to the two basic attitudes of introversion
and extraversion, there are two pairs of functional types.
One pair (sensation and intuition) receives information and
the other pair (thinking and feeling) processes and evalu-
ates that information. It is these two processes perception
and evaluation) that relate Jung's system to cognitive
information processing theory besides being a theory of
personality.

Sensation and intuition are modes of perception. They
are irrational or nonrational functions in that they act

solely as receivers of information. They do not evaluate,

interpret or judge. Sensation Operates through the five

5
senses and is tangible and concrete, whereas intuition is
perception via unconscious means or processes.

Thinking and feeling are the reflective or judging
functions. They are rational functions in that they are
methods of evaluating information acquired through one of
the modes of perception. In the case of thinking, the ques-
tion is whether something is valid or invalid, reasonable or
unreasonable, logical or illogical. On the other hand, feel-
ing judgments are not concerned with validity but with
whether something is important or unimportant, valuable or
worthless. They are a personal statement of values. It is
important to note that Jung used the term feeling to mean
value judgments, not affect. This is very similar to the
class of feelings or ”affective judgments" that Zajonc
(1980) refers to in taking a position similar to Jung on the
independence of feeling and thinking.

Jung's theory of psychological types was based on the
assumption that thinking and feeling were bipolar Opposites,
as were sensation and intuition. According to this bipolar-
ity assumption, the more highly developed one of the func-
tion pairs became, the less developed would be the OppOSite.
Thus, if one's dominant functional type is rational (e.g.,
thinking) then one's inferior (least developed) function
should tend to be the opposite--in this case, nonrational
(e.g., sensation).

The two most widely used measures of psychological type

are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962) and the

\

6
Gray-Wheelwrights Jungian Type Survey (Wheelwright, Wheel-
wright & Buehler, 1964). The former has received consider-
able study and some validation (Metzner, 1980; Myers, 1980),
and the two tests correlate highly with each other (Myers,
1962). Both instruments use a forced-choice format based on
Jung's bipolarity assumption. This means that one must
choose between thinking and feeling items and between sensa-
tion and intuition items. For example, as one selects more
thinking items, the number of feeling items is necessarily
less. This prevents thinking and feeling, or sensation and
intuition from appearing as the two most highly developed
functions and builds in a negative correlation between the
paired functions.

One study found that when scaled items replaced forced-
choice items, 61% of the subjects scored a different
superior function and 48% did not have an inferior (least
developed) function that was the hypothesized opposite of
their superior function (Loomis & Singer, 1980). These
results did not prove that Jung's observations of opposing
tendencies between function pairs was incorrect. They
suggested, rather, that it is not impossible to transcend
the bipolar opposites and that in some personality profiles
the functions may be independent. Consequently, several
investigators (Loomis, 1982; Metzner, 1980; Metzner, Burney
& Mahlberg, 1981) have pointed out the need for a new
perspective for viewing and measuring Jung's typology. As a

result, the Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP)

7
was deveIOped as an independent measure of psychological
type (Singer & Loomis, 1984) and was selected for use in the
present study.
Relationship Between Hemisphericity and Jungian Typology

Jung's rational and nonrational functional types appear
to be closely related to hemisphericity. Both approaches to
cognitive style are based on dichotomies. When Jung's (1971)
dichotomies for describing these two functional types were
compared with dichotomies describing left, right brain func-
tioning (Bogen, 1969; Springer et a1., 1981), there was a
very close match between the rational type and the left
brain and the nonrational type and the right brain (see
Appendix A). Both the rational type and the left brain were
described as intellectual, thinking, rational, objective and
directed. The nonrational type and the right brain, on the
other hand, were described using terms such as sensation,
intuition, perception and existential.

Furthermore, in a discussion of recent psychological
research on hemispheric functioning, Rossi (1977) also
assigned Jung's attitude of extraversion to the left hemis-
phere and introversion to the right. He went on to state:

Traditional scholarship strongly documents the

view that the right side of the body (controlled

by the left hemisphere) is associated with extra-

version, the dexterous interaction with the exter-

nal world, while the left side of the body (right

hemisphere controlled) by contrast is associated

with the sinister, the dark and introverted (Jung,

1971). '

Jung's rational functions of thinking and

feeling are evidently left hemispheric while the
irrational functions of sensation and intuition

8

are more closely associated with the right hemis-

pheric functioning. Thinking and feeling [value

judgments] are both rational functions that

require the use of the verbal and logical func-

tions of the left hemisphere. The irrational func-

tions of sensation and intuition, on the other

hand, are more perceptual and thus more closely

related to the synthetic functioning of the right

For the most part, Stevens (1983) agreed with Rossi's
designations, except Stevens separated the feeling function
into two components: an affectual component localized in the
right hemisphere and an evaluative or judgment component in
the left.

Rossi (1977) also pointed out that there is some empir-
ical support for the relationship between hemisphericity and
Jungian typology. The relationship of the nonrational func-
tion of intuition to the right hemisphere is supported by a
study in which Nebes (1974) found that the right hemisphere
excelled "in the performance of at least one cognitive
Operation--generating from partial or fragmented information
a percept of the whole stimulus” (p. 163). This ability to
synthesize the whole from the part could be the basic
process underlying Jung's definition of intuition as one of
the basic functions of the psyche, namely, the perception of
the possibilities inherent in a situation (Jung, 1971).

Additional evidence for the link between hemisphericity
and Jung's typology comes from Fischer's (1975) research on
consciousness. He found that 90% of his college student

subjects who volunteered for experiments to explore ”inner

space” scored as introverts with intuition as their dominant

9
function (INFP) on the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. Fischer
stated that

"Given our present state of knowledge, the INFP
score seems to denote volunteers with preferen-
tially right-hemispheric involvements and
interests, whereas high scores on the extraversion
(A), down-to-earth sensation (S), thinking (T),
and judging (J) scales [extraverts with thinking
as dominant function] on the MBTI point to left-
hemispheric predominance (called secondary process
by Freud)" (p. 218).

Hypotheses

 

On the basis of the definitional, theoretical, and
empirical considerations discussed above, the following
hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis I: Introversion and the nonrational

 

functions (sensation and intuition) should be positively
correlated with right hemispheric information processing and
negatively correlated with the left hemispheric processing.
In addition, extraversion and the rational functions
(thinking and feeling) should be positively correlated with
the left hemisphere and negatively with the right.

Hypothesis II: Rational individuals (those classified

 

as thinkers or feelers) should have higher mean scores for
left hemisphericity than nonrational individuals (those
classified as sensates or intuitives) and that nonrationals
should have higher right hemisphere scores than rationals.

Hypothesis III: Left hemisphere dominant individuals

 

should have higher rational function and cognitive mode
scores and right-dominant individuals should score higher on

nonrational functions and cognitive modes.

10

Hypothesis IV: When attitudes and functions are

 

combined, introverts with a dominant nonrational function
(sensation or intuition) should score significantly higher
on right hemisphericity than on left hemisphericity.
Conversely, extraverts with a dominant rational function
(thinking or feeling) should score higher on left hemispher-
icity than right.

In addition to these primary hypotheses, this study
also examined the relationship between hemisphericity and
Jungian typology and subjects' sex and choice of college
major. There is some evidence to suggest that males tend to
be more lateralized for verbal and spatial abilities and
women show greater bilateral representation for both types
of functions (Springer & Deutsch, 1981). If this is the
case, there may be sex differences in hemisphericity scores.
And both hemisphericity and Jung's typology have been
related to choice of college major (Bakan, 1969; Myers,
1980). This study attempted to replicate Bakan's (1969)
findings that right hemisphere dominant individuals were
more likely to choose "soft" college majors and left-handed
dominant individuals more likely to select ”hard" college

majors.

METHOD

Participants

 

Participants in this study consisted of 117 college

students from an introductory psychology course. The group

was made up of 57 males and 60 females. Each person received

supplemental credit toward course grades for participating.

Materials

 

The instruments used in this research are described

below:

1.

The Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality (SLIP).
The SLIP is the newest of the instruments based on
Jung's typology (Jung, 1971). It provides scores
for each of eight functional types or cognitive
modes based on Jung's two attitudes of Intro-
version and Extraversion and the four functions of
Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition
(Singer & Loomis, 1984). The relative development
of the eight cognitive modes within an individual
represents that person's cognitive style. The SLIP
offers a major improvement over other Jungian
instruments such as the Gray-Wheelwright (Wheel-
wright et al., 1964) and the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (Myers, 1962) in that it uses scaled

ll

12
items rather than a forced-choice format as noted
above. This lack of constraint allows Opposite
functions such as Thinking and Feeling to be
measured independently, whereas with the earlier
instruments the choice of one of these bipolar
opposites automatically resulted in the rejection
of the other. Using equivalent forms, reliability
coefficients ranged from .73 to .80 for the four
functions and were .85 and .83 for Introversion
and thraversion, respectively. The internal
organization of the SLIP items was examined by
factor analysis (Singer & Loomis, 1984). In the
principal component analysis, two factors emerged
that were rational (judging) factors and two other
factors emerged that were nonrational (perceptual)
factors. The first factor, labeled Judging
(Reflective), accounted for 7.70% of the variance.
The second factor accounted for 6.98% of the
variance and was labeled Judging (Active). Factor
3 accounted for 6.86% of the variance. This factor
was labeled Perceptual based on the item content.
Factor 4, labeled Perceptual (Affective),
accounted for 4.73% of the variance. The four
factors that emerged were in accord with Jung's
theory and gave indirect support to the construct
validity of the four functions; two judging/

reflective (Thinking and Feeling) functions and

13
two perceptual (Sensation and Intuition) func-
tions. The present version of the SLIP was then
developed by evaluating each item on the basis of
this and several other factor analyses and
rewriting those items with low or imcompatible
factor loadings. The predictive validity of the
SLIP was examined in a study investigating the
relationship between cognitive styles and artistic
styles (Loomis & Saltz, 1984). As predicted,
Extraverted artists produced more figurative,
representational art, whereas Introverted artists
produced more nonfigurative, abstract art. The
study also found predicted differences in style
between artists with Rational and Nonrational
cognitive styles. Rational artists tended to
produce art that incorporated recognizable
elements and was arranged in conformance to
rational expectations. Nonrational artists, on the
other hand, were likely to produce art which
incorporated unusual elements and was arranged
unpredictably. In sum, while the SLIP appears to
be organized along interrelated dimensions consis-
tent with Jung's typology, evidence supporting its
validity is limited, based primarily on a single
predictive study (Loomis & Saltz, 1984).

Human Information Processing Survey (HIP Survey).

 

The HIP Survey (formerly Your Style of Learning

14
and Thinking--SOLAT) was develOped by Torrance et
a1. (1977). It consists of 40 items and measures
Right hemisphere (RH) specialization, Left hemis-
phere (LH) specialization and integrative (IH)
style using a multiple-choice format. Normative
data from Taggart and Torrance (1984) are shown in
Table 1. Since its development, there has been an
increasing number of studies supporting the con-
struct validity of the HIP Survey. Many of these
studies have been reviewed and summarized by
Taggart and Torrance (1984). A number of research-
ers using the present instrument and its predeces-
sors (Forms A and B of SOLAT) have explored the
problem of construct validity by administering the
instrument to occupational or disciplinary groups
hypothesized to have a particular preferred infor-
mation processing style. One of the largest of
these studies was conducted by Schwartz and
DeMattei (1982) with responses from 15,470 ani
magazine readers. They found that RH scores were
associated with artistic occupations. The category
of occupations that included psychologists, home-
makers and athletic coaches also tended to score
higher on RH. Occupations involving the investiga-
tion of physical, biological and cultural phenom-
ena tended to score high on LH. In a similar

study, Ghosh (1980) found that mathematically

15
gifted students preferred LH processing, and the
musically and artistically gifted showed a very
distinct RH preference. While studies such as
these are numerous, this "bootstrapping" approach
to validity is weak from a psychometric standpoint
and the validity of the HIP survey remains to be
clearly demonstrated.

Design and Procedure

 

The participants were informed that this study con-
cerned cognitive styles and that they would be asked to com-
plete two psychological scales. In an effort to minimize
demand characteristics and subject roles (Kazdin, 1980), the
participants were assured that any information disclosed
would be held confidential and that there were no right or
wrong answers to the items of these inventories.

The HIP Survey and the SLIP were then administered
along with detailed instructions on how to complete the
instruments. The order in which the instruments were admin-
istered was counterbalanced to control for any possible
order effects. Participant's sex and choice of college major
was also recorded. A trial run was conducted, with ten par-
ticipants, in an effort to discover potential problems
before the main study was carried out. No difficulties were
encountered.

Scoring
The HIP Survey raw scores for LH, RH, and IH were con-

verted to standard scores using the conversion table pro-

16
vided in the HIP manual. The standard score was calculated
so that the mean value equaled 100 and the standard devia-
tion equaled 20. An individual was identified as LH-
dominant, RH-dominant, or IH-dominant if the corresponding
standard score was equal to or greater than 120. If no stan-
dard scores equaled or exceeded 120, the person was clas-
sified as Mixed (MH).

The SLIP provided scores for each of the eight cog-
nitive modes by allowing participants to score each item on
a scale Of 1 to 5 (1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = about
half the time, 4 = usually, and 5 = always). Raw scores can
be misleading for the SLIP because of response sets. For
example, one individual may consistently use only the high
end of the scale (e.g., 2'5, 3'5, 4'5) and another individ-
ual may use only the low end (e.g., 0'3, 1'8, 2'5). The
latter individual would appear less developed than the
former for a given cognitive mode due solely to style of
response. For this reason the raw scores were converted to
percent scores. Each scale's raw score was divided by the
total of the raw scores for all eight scales to get a per-
cent score. Thus the percent score for each scale indicates
the relative strength of the individual's cognitive modes.

Scores for the four functions were computed by summing
the two corresponding cognitive modes. Thus, the Thinking
score was derived by summing the Introverted Thinking and
Extraverted Thinking scores. The same procedure determined

total scores for Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition. A score

17
for Introversion was calculated by summing the four Intro-
verted cognitive modes. Similarly, a score for Extraversion
was computed by summing the four extraverted cognitive
modes. An individual was classified as Introverted or Extra-
verted on the basis of which of the two scores was higher.
Individuals were similarly classified as Thinkers, Feelers,
Sensates, or Intuitives on the basis of their highest func-
tion score.

Participants were also classified as ”hard" major,
"soft" major, or no preference on the basis of their repor-
ted college major. An attempt was made to use a clas-
sification system as similar to Bakan's (1969) as possible.
For purposes of this analysis ”hard" majors included math-
ematics, biology, engineering, economics, physics, account-
ing and pre-med. "Soft" majors included psychology, polit-
ical science, English, history, communication, advertising,

business and pre-law.

RESULTS

Hemisphericity

 

Means, standard deviations and normative data for the
HIP Survey are shown in Table 1. Participants in the present
study had significantly higher mean raw scores for LH (t =
2.58 [439], p<.01) but significantly lower mean scores for IH
(t = -4.07 [439], p<.001) than the norms from Taggart and
Torrance (1984). These significant t-values may reflect real
differences in the two populations. The population sample
for the present study consisted of undergraduate college
students, whereas the norms from Taggart and Torrance came
from a general sample of adults. Therefore, the HIP Survey
scores from the present study may not be directly comparable
to the existing norms.

The intercorrelations between the three HIP scales are
shown in Table 2. The highly significant negative correla-
tions (p<.001) between RH, LH, and IH were a result of the
HIP Survey's forced-choice character. For example, as one
chose more LH answers, the number of RH and IH choices was
necessarily less; thus the -.47 average intercorrelation.
This means that on the average, 22% of each measure's var-
iance is confounded with each of the other measures. There-

fore, in its present format, the HIP Survey yields somewhat

18

19

.vmma .mocmuuoe a uncomma eouu coxmu mump

o>wume

Hoo.vm«t
Hoovmt

uoz ”muoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«ano.vu m.m m.mH me.>H mn.am 45.4 mH.¢H omumoomocH
om.a o.m N.NH vv.ma ow.¢oa mn.v mo.mH unmﬁm
emm.m ¢.¢ m.HH ww.ma mo.voa m>.v mn.~a puma

I am coo: am now: am coo: mamom

u mmuoom 3mm mmuoom Oumccmum mmuoom 3mm
Avmm u z. Anaa u z.
moocmuwmwﬂa wEuoz Npsum ucommum

mouoom mHmOmnom >o>usm mH: How mEuoz cam mcoﬂumﬂ>oo Oumpcoum .mcmoz .a canoe

20

 

 

.M now Ho. xn >Hmﬂuﬂse “Oouuﬂso coon o>mn mameﬁooo "muoz

mo.vmo

Ho.vm

Hoo.vmm

. mean can moon Ha: Ha Oman mmm mu cowuﬂsuca

mean . mmmu ca mu m NH new- o coﬂummcmm

0H- mmm- . mom- e- A SH. cad ma- mcﬂﬂmmm

mom- 0H mom- . oom oomu nqm mom: 4 mcaxcﬂza

HH- m- 5. com . coal 5 N. a- coﬂmum>muuxm

HH m n oomu coal . n. N v coﬁmum>ouucH

mad: NH Han new 5 ml . oven mvmn wuHOwnocmmHEom coumumoucH

mmm nvmu omH mom- m- m was- . mac- suﬂoﬂumgamﬂsmm unmam

m. 0 man 4 a: v mam: mavu . wuaoﬂumndmaemm been
oasocH meow Home xcﬂna m H :H mm mg

 

cam mosuﬂooa qum cam >m>osm aHm not mucmﬂoﬁmumoo

wQH MOW COHUUCDm

coﬂumaouuoo coauoomm .N magma

21
limited data and this qualification needs to be considered
when evaluating the present results.

Table 3 shows the classification of participants
according to hemispheric preference based on a standard
score of 120 as described earlier. As indicated, a majority
(55%) did not demonstrate a distinct preference and were
classified as Mixed Hemisphere (MH). The finding appears
supportive of Levy's (1985) contention that we all depend on
intimate collaboration between hemispheres and the popular
myth that individuals are "left brained" or "right brained"
is based on a misinterpretation of the facts.

Jungian Typology

 

Table 4 contains means and standard deviations for SLIP
raw and percent scores. The intercorrelations between SLIP
attitude and function scales are presented in Table 2.
Intercorrelations for the cognitive mode scales are shown in
Appendix B. Because the SLIP is an ordinal scale, nonpara-
metric Spearman correlation coefficients were used as sug-
gested by Siegel (1956) even though histograms of SLIP per-
cent scores showed reasonable approximation to normality.

The -1 correlation between SLIP's Introversion and
Extraversion attitudinal indices was a result of the manner
in which the two scores were derived. Employing the present
percentage transformation, each individual's Introversion
and Extraversion scores sum to 100 percent because they were

computed by summing all eight cognitive mode percent scores

22

Table 3. Classification of Participants According to

Hemispheric Preference

 

 

Hemisphere Number Percent
Left 26 22
Right 20 17
Integrated 7 6
Mixed _§4 _55
Totals 117 100

 

23

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for SLIP Subscale
Scores (N = 117)

Raw Scores Percent Scores
Scale Mean SD Mean SD
Introversion 194.51 21.10 52.85 1.77
Extraversion 173.74 19.80 47.22 1.86
Thinking 93.71 11.55 25.48 1.92
Feeling 92.04 10.48 25.00 1.67
Sensation 91.01 10.62 24.75 1.33
Intuition 91.45 13.06 24.84 1.90
Introverted Thinking 49.79 6.71 13.55 1.26
Introverted Feeling 47.63 5.89 12.93 1.21
Introverted Sensation 49.45 6.03 13.43 .92
Introverted Intuition 47.64 7.27 12.94 1.23
Extraverted Thinking 43.92 5.84 11.93 1.16
Extraverted Feeling 44.45 5.99 12.07 1.11
Extraverted Sensation 41.56 5.57 11.33 .96
Extraverted Intuition 43.81 6.83 11.90 1.13

 

24
as described earlier. Thus, if one's Introversion score is
60, their Extraversion score must be 40.

The intercorrelations between SLIP's four functions
(see Table 2) are not artifactual in the sense that each
response was free to covary with the others; there were no
forced-choices. For example, because each Thinking item was
rated independently, Thinking and Feeling had no built-in
relationship. Therefore, the significant (p<.001) negative
correlations between Thinking and Feeling (-.50) and between
Intuition and Sensation (-.44) support Jung's (1971) assump-
tion that Thinking and Feeling, like Intuition and Sensa-
tion, were bipolar Opposites.

The unusual pattern of virtually all negative inter-
function correlations in Table 2, with an average r = -.39,
appears the product of three major factors: the bipolarity
assumption just discussed, the Rational/Nonrational function
hypothesis, and SLIP's internal inconsistencies and weak-
nesses.

The present work hypothesized that Thinking and Feel-
ing were Rational functions and would therefore be expected
to be positively correlated. But apparently bipolarity was
a much stronger influence as evidenced by the resulting neg-
ative correlation. Similarly, Sensation and Intuition were
hypothesized to be Nonrational functions and positively cor-
related. But again bipolarity seems to have been the
stronger relationship as reflected by the negative correla-

tion. The Rational/Nonrational hypothesis, however, does

25
appear to be partially expressed in the findings as indica-
ted by the negative correlation (-.60, p<.001) between
Thinking and Intuition and the negative correlation (-.33,
p<.001) between Feeling and Sensation. Absent, however, were
the anticipated negative correlations between Thinking and
Sensation and between Feeling and Intuition.

SLIP internal inconsistencies and flaws may also have
contributed to this unusual pattern of interfunction rela—
tionships. These inconsistencies were evident in the inter-
correlations between the eight cognitive modes (see Appendix
B). For example, Introverted Thinking is positively
correlated (.31, p<.001) with Extraverted Thinking, but
there was little correlation (.05) between Introverted
Feeling and Extraverted Feeling and also between Introverted
Sensation and Extraverted Sensation (.05). Furthermore, SLIP
appears heavily biased towards Introversion. When partic-
ipants were classified as Introverts or Extraverts on the
basis of their Introversion and Extraversion scores, 108
were classified as Introverts, whereas only 6 were Extra-
verts and 3 had tie scores. The major point is that SLIP
flaws may have affected not only the measured relationships
between the functions, but also those found between
attitude, function and hemisphericity.

Hemisphericity and Jungian Typology

 

Hypothesis I stated that Introversion would be pos-
itively correlated with RH and Extraversion positively cor-

related with LH and stands rejected. Table 2 showed only

26
trivial Spearman correlations between HIP measures and
SLIP's Introversion and Extraversion scales.

Hypothesis I also predicted that the Nonrational func-
tions (Sensation and Intuition) would correlate positively
with RH but negatively with LH and received a mixture of
support and refutation. The prediction that the Rational
functions (Thinking and Feeling) would correlate positively
with LH but negatively with RH also received partial sup-
port. Table 2 showed that as predicted, RH was positively
correlated (.32, p<.001) with Intuition and negatively cor-
related (-.30, p<.001) with Thinking. Although statistically
significant, these correlations accounted for only about 10%
of the variance in the relationships. Contrary to Hypothesis
1, however, Feeling correlated weakly and positively (.19,
p<.05), but Sensation negatively (-.24, p<.01) with RH.

It was suspected that the bipolar relationship between
the two Nonrational functions (Intuition and Sensation) and
between the two Rational functions (Thinking and Feeling)
may have created a spurious relationship between RH and the
Feeling and Sensation functions. To test this possibility, a
partial-correlation between Sensation and RH was computed
while controlling for the effects of Intuition. Similarly, a
partial-correlation between Feeling and RH was computed
while controlling for Thinking. The resulting partial-
correlations were .08 and .09, respectively, neither of
which was significant at p<.05. These findings suggest that

the correlations between Sensation and RH and between

27

Feeling and RH may have been a spurious result of the strong
interfunction bipolar relationship.

No function correlated significantly with LH (see Table
2) in the manner predicted in Hypothesis I. Although no
predictions were made concerning IH, it linked negatively to
both Thinking and Sensation (p<.01 and p<.05, respectively).

Hypothesis II predicted that persons classified as
Rational (SLIP Thinkers or Feelers) would have higher mean
LH scores than persons classified as Nonrational (SLIP
Sensates or Intuitives) and that Nonrationals would have
higher RH scores than Rationals. Hypothesis II was partially
supported. Eight one-tailed E-tests were conducted to com-
pare mean RH and LH scores between Thinkers (N = 32) and
Sensates (N = 8), Thinkers and Intuitives (N = 22), Feelers
and Sensates (N = 20), and Feelers and Intuitives. Because
no predictions were made regarding IH, two-tailed ﬁttests
were used to compare these mean differences. Table 5 shows
that as predicted, Intuitives had significantly (p<.01)
higher mean RH scores than Thinkers. In addition, Feelers
had higher mean RH scores than Sensates (N.= 110.00 & 89.75,
§Q = 21.85 and 15.57, respectively). Although the E-value
was large enough (3 = 2.38[26], p<.025, one-tailed), these
results could not be considered significant because of the
one-tailed test, apparently used erroneously. No other group
comparisons resulted in significant mean differences.

It was expected, as stated in Hypothesis II, that LH-

dominant individuals would have higher Rational function and

28

Table 5. Comparison of Mean Hemisphericity Scores Between
Thinkers and Intuitives (df = 52)

 

 

 

 

Thinkers Intuitives Differences
N = 32 N = 22
Hemisphere Mean SD Mean SD 3
Left 106.19 20.66 99.96 21.54 1.07
Right 96.69 16.35 107.73 13.59 -2.61*
Integrated 96.70 15.73 93.00 20.64 .74

 

*p<.01, one-tailed

29

related cognitive mode scores, while RH-dominant individuals
would score higher on Nonrational functions and associated
cognitive modes. This hypothesis received partial support.
In general, LH-dominant individuals tended to have slightly
higher mean scores for Thinking and Sensation functions and
cognitive modes (see Table 6), whereas RH-dominant individ-
uals tended to have somewhat higher mean scores for Intu-
ition and Feeling functions and cognitive modes. However,
only the mean differences for Introverted Thinking and
Introverted Intuition reached significance (p<.025, one-
tailed and p<.001, one-tailed, respectively). The modest
tendency for LH-dominant individuals to have higher mean
scores for Sensation and RH-dominant individuals to have
higher mean scores for Feeling was contrary to expectations.

Hypothesis IV stated that when attitude and function
were combined, Introverts with a dominant Nonrational func-
tion (Sensation or Intuition) would score higher on RH than
Extraverts with a dominant Rational function (Thinking or
Feeling). This hypothesis was supported (see Table 7). Con-
versely, it was predicted that Extraverts with a dominant
Rational function would have higher mean scores for LH than
Introverted Nonrationals. As Table 7 shows, these results
were not significant (p<.05), although the mean difference
was in the predicted direction.

Sex Differences

 

Two-way analyses of variance were used to test for

interactions between sex and hemisphericity with attitude,

30

Table 6. Comparison of Mean Function and Cognitive Mode
Scores Between Left and Right Dominant Hemispheric

Individuals (df = 44)

 

Left-Dominant Right-Dominant

 

 

 

Individuals Individuals
N=26 N=20

Function/Cognitive Mode Mean SD Mean SD 1};
Thinking 25.15 1.85 24.75 2.02 .71
Feeling 25.08 1.62 25.45 1.64 -.77
Sensation 24.85 1.32 24.65 1.39 .49
Intuition 24.88 1.86 25.35 1.73 -.87
Introverted Thinking 13.38 .94 12.75 1.21 2.00*
Introverted Feeling 12.92 1.20 13.15 1.14 -.65
Introverted Sensation 13.58 .95 13.35 .99 .79
Introverted Intuition 12.86 1.11 13.65 .99 -2.43**
Extraverted Thinking 11.77 1.27 12.00 1.21 -.62
Extraverted Feeling 12.15 1.19 12.30 1.08 -.43
Extraverted Sensation 11.27 1.04 11.30 1.13 -.10
Extraverted Intuition 12.00 1.13 11.70 1.30 .84

 

*p<.025, one-tailed
**p<.001, one-tailed

31

Table 7. A Comparison of Mean Hemisphericity Scores Between
Introverted Nonrationals and Extraverted Rationals
(df = 47)

 

Introverted Nonrationals Extraverted Rationals

 

 

N = 44 N = 5
Hemisphere Mean SD Mean SD L
Left 105.34 19.47 108.20 25.69 -.30
Right 105.75 13.99 89.00 14.80 2.52*
Integrated 89.98 19.41 102.60 24.89 -1.34

 

*p<.01, one-tailed

32

function and cognitive mode as dependent variables; between
sex and function with hemisphericity as the dependent var-
iables; and between sex and attitude with hemisphericity as
the dependent variables. Table 8 shows a significant
(p<.05) interaction between sex and hemisphericity for the
dependent variable Sensation. An examination of simple
effects revealed that IH classified females had significant-
ly (E = 4.10[1], p<.05) higher mean Sensation scores than IH
males. The means and standard deviations were 26.00(.82) and
24.00(1.00), respectively, for the two groups. On the other
hand, Mixed Hemisphere (MH) classified males had signif-
icantly (E = 5.84[l], p<.025) higher mean Sensation scores
than MH females. The respective means and standard devia-
tions for the two groups were 25.09(1.28) and 24.31(1.31).
No other statistically significant interactions were found.

Table 9 summarizes the mean differences yielded by 17
two-tailed t-tests performed to test for main effects
between males and females for hemisphericity, attitude,
function and cognitive mode. As indicated in Table 9, males
had significantly higher scores for Extraversion, Thinking,
Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Sensation. Females, on
the other hand, scored significantly higher on Introversion,
Feeling, and Introverted Feeling. Although no specific
hypotheses had been formulated regarding sex differences,
these results appear to fit the stereotypical descriptions
of males as being more Extraverted and Thinking oriented,

while females have often been described as tending to be

33

Table 8. Analysis of Variance Expressing the Relationship
Between Sex and Hemisphericity for Sensation

 

 

Source of Variation SS df MS F

Sex (A) 8.15 1 8.15 4.87*

Hemisphericity (B) 1.98 3 .66 .39

A x B 13.82 3 4.61 2.76*
Error 182.19 109 1.67

 

*E<'05

34

 

 

Table 9. Mean Differences Between Males and Females

for Hemisphericity, Attitude, Function, and

Cognitive Mode Scores (df = 115)

Nglgg Females
N 57 N = 60

Hemisphericity/
Attitude/Function/
Cognitive Mode Mean SD Mean SD 4;
Integrated Hemisphere 92.67 17.65 90.90 17.45 .54
Extraversion 47.98 1.88 46.50 1.53 4.64***
Thinking 25.89 2.02 25.08 1.75 2.32*
Sensation 25.02 1.36 24.50 1.27 2.13*
Extraverted Thinking 12.32 1.24 11.57 .96 3.66***
Introverted Thinking 13.58 1.34 13.52 1.12 .27
Extraverted Sensation 11.68 .97 10.98 .83 4.21***
Extraverted Feeling 12.10 1.17 12.05 1.06 .18
Left Hemisphere 103.75 20.48 104.33 19.38 -.16
Right Hemisphere 103.77 19.13 105.38 18.98 -.46
Introversion 52.26 1.82 53.40 1.54 -3.65***
Feeling 24.53 1.62 25.45 1.61 -3.10**
Intuition 24.81 2.12 24.87 1.68 -.17
Introverted Feeling 12.44 1.15 13.40 1.08 -4.67***
Introverted Sensation 13.33 .91 13.52 .93 -1.08
Introverted Intuition 12.91 1.48 12.97 1.10 -.23
Extraverted Intuition 11.89 1.10 11.90 1.18 -.03

 

*p<.025
**p<.01
***p<.001

35
more Introverted and Feeling oriented. There were no signif-
icant (p<.05) sex differences found for hemisphericity.

Differences in College Major

 

The present study failed to replicate Bakan's (1969)
findings that RH-dominant individuals were more likely to
choose ”soft" college majors and LH-dominant individuals
more likely to select "hard" college majors. The classifica-
tion used in this study resulted in 12 out of 19 RH-dominant
individuals having "soft" majors, but only 5 out of 24 LH-
dominant individuals had "hard" majors. A 2 x 2 contingency
analysis yielded a nonsignificant Chi Square of 1.35.

Table 10 summarizes the significant mean differences
between "hard" and "soft" majors for hemisphericity,
attitude, function, and cognitive mode resulting from 17
two-tailed E-tests. Because of the exploratory nature of
this aspect of the study, p<.10 was used to test for signif-
icance. "Hard” majors had higher mean scores for IH, Extra-
version, Sensation, Extraverted Thinking, and Extraverted
Sensation. "Soft" majors had higher mean scores for Feeling
and Introverted Feeling. Although not highly significant,
these results leave the impression that ”hard” majors tended
to be Extraverted with strong Thinking and Sensation func-
tions, whereas "soft” majors tended to be Introverted with a
more highly developed Feeling function.

The relationship between sex and major was also

examined. Of the 37 ”hard" majors, 25 were male, whereas 45

36
Table 10. Mean Differences Between Hard and Soft College
Majors for Hemisphericity, Attitude, Function,
and Cognitive Mode Scores (df = 106)

 

 

 

Hard Major Soft Major
N = 37 N = 71

Hemisphericity/Attitude/
Function/Cognitive Mode Mean SD Mean SD t
Integrated Hemisphericity 96.27 19.08 89.39 15.76 2.00**
Extraversion 47.62 2.05 46.93 1.74 1.85*
Thinking 25.97 2.21 25.35 1.77 1.59
Sensation 25.03 1.32 24.95 1.20 1.73*
Introverted Thinking 13.71 1.37 13.56 1.23 .54
Extraverted Thinking 12.27 1.37 11.79 1.03 2.06**
Extraverted Sensation 11.62 .92 11.14 .89 2.61***
Left Hemisphere 100.70 19.64 105.65 19.83 -1.23
Right Hemisphere 103.27 21.28 105.52 18.12 -.58
Introversion 52.59 1.96 53.04 1.62 -1.27
Feeling 24.57 1.85 25.23 1.55 -1.96*
Intuition 24.65 1.64 24.80 1.94 -.40
Extraverted Feeling 11.92 1.19 12.14 1.07 -.98
Introverted Feeling 12.65 1.32 13.08 1.16 -1.77*
Introverted Intuition 12.83 1.07 12.94 1.34 -.42
Extraverted Intuition 11.81 1.08 11.86 1.16 -.21
Introverted Sensation 13.41 1.01 13.45 .82 -.25

 

*p<.10
**p<.05

37
of the 71 "soft" majors were females. A 2 x 2 contingency

analysis yielded a Chi-Square of 9.35, significant at p<.01.

DISCUSSION

Measures

As discussed in the preceding section, significant
weaknesses were identified with both the HIP and the SLIP
measures central to this study. HIP's forced-choice nature
yielded hemisphericity measures that averaged only 56 per-
cent nonconfounded variance. While the SLIP was not forced-
choice, it still manifested notable internal inconsistencies
in some intercorrelations between its cognitive mode scores
and also appeared importantly biased toward IntroversiOn.
Despite these serious psychometric problems, several weak to
modest linkages between hemisphericity and function were
identified. The strongest relationships found in the present
study were the bipolar relationships between the functions
and these accounted for about 11 to 36 percent of the var-
iance. The hemisphericity and Jungian typology linkages were
weaker, at best accounting for 10 percent of the variance.
The Functions and Right Hemisphericity

The results partially supported the general hypothesis
of linkages between hemisphericity and Jungian typology.
This relationship appears to be strongest between RH and the
Thinking and Intuition functions. The following results sup-
ported this conclusion: a) the highly significant (p<.001)

38

39
positive correlation between Intuition and RH, and the
highly significant (p<.001) negative correlation between
Thinking and RH; b) the finding that Intuitives had higher
RH scores than Thinkers; c) RH dominant individuals had
higher Introverted Intuition scores than did LH-dominant
individuals; d) Introverted Nonrationals had higher RH
scores than did Extraverted Rationals. In addition to these
hypothesized findings, RH correlated unexpectedly and pos-
sibly spuriously with Feeling (positively) and Sensation
(negatively).

These results partially replicated Sibley's (1980)
findings at Ball State University using the HIP Survey and
the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Assessing 90 under-
graduate and graduate college students, Sibley reported that
RH showed the following weak correlations: Thinking (r =
-.15, 2E)! Feeling (r = .17, p<.05), Sensation (r = -.19,
p<.05) and Intuition (r = .22, p<.05). Thus, two independent
studies have identified a congruent pattern of weak linkages
to RH.

One possible explanation for the unexpected direction
of the correlations between RH and the Sensation and Feeling
functions is that the bipolar relationship between the two
Rational functions (Thinking and Feeling) and between the
two Nonrational functions (Intuition and Sensation) may have
created a spurious relationship between RH and the Feeling
and Sensation function. For example, the small negative cor-

relation (-.24) between RH and Sensation may be the result

40
of the larger (-.44) inverse relationship between Sensation
and the Intuition function, which is positively correlated
(.32) with RH. If this were the case, then the correlation
between RH and Sensation would be expected to approach 0
when Intuition is held constant. This is exactly what hap-
pened. A similar outcome occurred when a partial-correlation
was computed between RH and Feeling while controlling for
Thinking. Similar spurious relationships likely played an
even greater role in Sibley's study because the MBTI instru-
ment that was used had implicit bipolar relationships
between Thinking and Feeling scores and between MBTI Intu-
ition and Sensation scores.

Another possible explanation for the unexpected rela-
tionships between RH and the Sensation and Feeling functions
is that the hypotheses of the present study were incorrect.
Sensation may actually be a Rational function and Feeling
may be Nonrational.

The most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from
Sibley's and the present findings is that both the Rational
Thinking function and the Nonrational Intuition function are
related to RH as predicted. But Jung's bipolarity assump-
tion appears principally responsible for the relationship
between RH and the Feeling and Sensation function. Further-
more, the question of the Rationality or Nonrationality of
the Feeling and Sensation functions and their relationship
to hemisphericity require further study and clarification.

The strongest present evidence supporting the concept of

41
opposite Rational and Nonrational functions were the signif-
icant (p<.001) inverse relationships between Thinking and
Intuition (r = -.60) and between Feeling and Sensation (r =
-.33) (see Figure 1).

The Functions and the Left Hemisphere

 

Perhaps the most puzzling outcome was the lack of sig-
nificant (p<.05) linkages between LH and any Of the func-
tions or cognitive modes. Using the MBTI, Sibley (1980)
reported the following series of correlations between LH and
Thinking (r = .10), Feeling (r = -.10), Sensation (r = .46,
p<.005) and Intuition (r = -.48, p<.005). The only present
evidence supporting a relationship between Jungian typology
and LH was the finding that LH dominant individuals had
higher Introverted Thinking scores than RH—dominant
individuals.

Perhaps limitations of the SLIP and HIP contributed to
the lack of a clearer relationship with LH. However, a
cursory comparison (see Appendix C) of the individual items
constituting the SLIP Thinking and the HIP LH measures that
were expected to be related, revealed much content similar-
ity in these items. Both Thinking and LH items included ref-
erences to planning, organizing, and a step-by-step analysis
in problem-solving details. Their major difference was more
frequent references to verbal processing in the LH items.
This marked content similarity between items raises the
issue of to what extent the differences between the HIP

Survey and the SLIP were conceptual versus semantic in

42

.mmHEOOOAOOHOH mo numeouum O>Humﬁmu
mouooﬂoca mmmcxoﬂnu maﬁa .mcoﬂumﬂouuoo O>Hummmc 302m mmcﬂa :mxoun
.wcoﬁumﬂmuuoo m>ﬂuﬂmom 305m mocﬁﬂ Oﬁaom .mmusmmmz Az .m.m .ev mHAm

cam And a mm. >m>usm mnx coumwoomw< aaucm0wmacmﬁm mo mocmﬂum>oo

.H ousoﬂm

 

43
nature. Are hemisphericity and Jungian typology actually
separate but related systems or are they the same system
being described with different words? Only further research
can answer this question.

Another possible explanation for the absence Of LH cor-
relates may be sample bias. In recent years, much popular
information has been released about hemisphericity and
left/right brain functioning (Levy, 1985). It is conceivable
that there may be a bias in the college student population
used in this study toward appearing more intuitive and
”right-brained." The intuitive, right brain functions may be
more in "vogue" now than the rational, thinking, "left-
brained" image that has been pOpular in the past. This con-
sideration is worth investigation. One approach would be to
measure participant's self-image or attitude regarding cog-
nitive style and see if it is related to their responses. If
self-image or attitude was an extraneous variable it could
be controlled using partial-correlations.

Attitude and Hemisphericity

 

The lack of significant linkages between Introver-
sion/Extraversion and hemisphericity may be due to flaws in
SLIP's measures of Introversion and Extraversion. As men-
tioned earlier, when participants were classified on the
basis of their SLIP Introversion and Extraversion scores,
108 were classified as Introverts whereas only 6 were Extra-
verts and 3 had tie scores. Classification on the basis of

dominant cognitive mode (e.g., an individual whose dominant

44
cognitive mode was Introverted Thinking would be classified
as an Introvert) resulted in 97 Introverts but only 12
Extraverts with 8 ties. Thus, the SLIP appears biased
towards Introversion. SLIP's authors (Singer & Loomis,
1984), explicitly cautioned users that the instrument is an
experimental edition and will need further revision as more
validational data accumulates. Therefore, while the present
SLIP edition appears an advance over the MBTI in measuring
the functions, additional improvements in the SLIP's
measurement of Introversion and Extraversion appear needed.
Consequently, the present study permits no conclusions
regarding the relationship between attitude and hemispher-
icity. Sibley's (1980) study did not include measures of
Introversion and Extraversion.

Sex Differences

 

One of the most notable findings of the present study
was the detection of strong individual differences in typol-
ogy between males and females. The present males had signif-
icantly higher mean scores for Extraversion, Thinking,
Extraverted Thinking, and Extraverted Sensation, whereas
females had higher Introversion and Feeling, and Introverted
Feeling scores. Sibley (1980) also reported higher mean
Thinking scores for males and higher mean Feeling scores for
females.

These findings offer interesting support for observa-
tions made by Jung (1971) and others (Stevens, 1983) that

Thinking and Sensation tend to be more dominant in men,

45
whereas Feeling (Introverted Feeling in particular) and
Intuition tend to be more dominant in women. They also sup-
port Wyckoff's (1974) contention that there are socialized
differences in scripts between men and women. According to
Wyckoff, men are programmed to conform to life scripts in
which they are rational, thinking persons, while women are
reinforced for being nonrational and feeling. This raises
the question as to what degree these findings reflect real
differences in social scripts between the sexes and to what
extent these cultural biases may have been incorporated into
the SLIP and MBTI. The fact that similar results were
Obtained with two different instruments would tend to sup-
port the concept of real differences in typology and life
scripts between males and females. Further research is
needed to clarify this issue.

College Major

 

The pattern of obtaining predicted outcomes for RH but
not for LH was also relevant to the partial replication of
Bakan's (1969) report. Like Bakan, the present study found
that RH-dominant individuals more often selected ”soft”
majors. Unlike Bakan, however, the present study did not
find that LH-dominant individuals chose "hard" majors more
Often than others.

Methodological differences may partially account for
this discrepancy. Bakan used direct observation of the
direction of lateral eye movements as his hemisphericity

indicator, but the present study used the self-report HIP

46

Survey. Studies comparing the HIP Survey with the Conjugate
Lateral Eye Movements (CLEM) test have either failed to find
significant linkages (Riegel, 1980) or have found only a
partial relationship (Alberts & McCallum, 1982). Additional-
ly, the present classification of ”soft” and "hard" majors
was not identical to Bakan's. For example, the present study
classified Business majors as "soft," while Bakan's sample
had no Business majors. While some relationship between hem-
isphericity and choice of college major appears likely, more
research is needed to resolve these methodological issues.

On the other hand, there is considerable documentation
of the relationship between Jung's typology and career
choice (Meyers, 1980). In fact, the battery of tests that
career and vocational counselors give to clients often
includes a measure of Jungian typology, indicating its popu-
larity. The present finding that "hard" majors tended to be
more Extraverted and prefer Thinking, while "soft" majors
tended to be more Introverted and have higher Feeling
scores, appears reasonable. But these results may also have
been due to women being more attracted to ”soft” majors
while males were more attracted to "hard" majors. A compar-
ison of Tables 9 and 10 shows a similar pattern of signif-
icant mean differences for females and ”soft" majors.
Further clarification of this relationship and its meaning
was beyond the sc0pe of the present study.

Other Findings

 

The detection of strong inverse relationships between

Thinking and Feeling and between Sensation and Intuition,

47
when these functions were allowed to covary freely with one
another, was evidence supporting the validity of Jung's
bipolarity assumption. Past studies (Singer & Loomis, 1984;
Mahlberg, 1982) have questioned the universality of the
bipolarity issue by finding that individuals with a dominant
Thinking function sometimes do not have Feeling as their
inferior function and vice versa. The same was found for
Intuition and Sensation. While it is clear that these func-
tions are not always polar Opposites within the individual,
the present study supports Jung's general contention that
there are two pairs of bipolar functions, Thinking/ Feeling
and Sensation/Intuition.

Implications

 

Hemisphericity and Jungian typology focus on the indi-
viduals receiving and processing of information and thus
relate to nearly all aspects of living. Both theories of
human information processing or cognitive style have found
important application. Hemisphericity has been applied in
such diverse areas as problem solving (Doktor, 1978), learn-
ing styles (Reynolds & Torrance, 1978), creativity (Tor-
rance, 1982), and management training (Herman, 1981; Lynch,
1982). Reviews by Meyers (1980) and Carlyn (1977) show that
Jung's typology has been used in educational, vocational and
marriage counseling, in research on learning styles, in
screening applicants for jobs, in selecting applicants for
college and professional schools, and in predicting aca-

demic success. Furthermore, hemispheric functioning has

48
been related to classical psychodynamic conflicts and
processes such as dissociation and denial (Galin, 1974). And
both hemisphericity and Jungian typology have been proposed,
but not yet tested, for use in matching therapist and tech-
nique to the client in psychotherapy (Quenk & Quenk, 1982;
Rossi, 1977).

The present work is an early step in exploring the
linkage of these two notable theories. As this relationship
becomes clearer, these two constructs could be used together
to better match an individual's cognitive strengths and
weaknesses with his or her present tasks and future goals.
In addition, further clarification of the relationship
between hemisphericity and Jungian typology could lead to
the development of a more fully integrated and useful theory

of human information processing.

APPEND I CES

APPENDIX A

COMPARISON OF LEFT, RIGHT BRAIN DICHOTOMIES
AND RATIONAL/NONRATIONAL FUNCTIONS

49

APPENDIX A

A Comparison of Left, Right Brain Dichotomies (Bogen, 1969,
Springer & Deutsch, 1981) and Dichotomies Describing Jung's

 

 

Rational/Nonrational Functional Types (Jung, 1971)

Jung's Jung's

Rational Nonrational
Left Brain Functions Right Brain Functions
Intellectual Thinking Sensuous Sensation
Intellect Thinking Intuition Intuition
Rational Rational Perception Perception
Objective Objective Existential Existential

Directed Directed

 

APPENDIX B

SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR
HIP SURVEY AND SLIP

5()

no.vm

 

 

.3“...
t coauunucn cauuo>ouuxu
no~.c u eouao-cow vauuo>uuuxu
do.) ea... c uc‘.oou ocuuo>ouuxu
oun.n nvm. .~.u a oeaxcush vouuo>ouuxu
ova. own.u o_~.u son.) I :oquaauc— vauuo>ouueu
o~n.u no. uo~.o u-.a ~O.u a couuo-eum vauuo>0uue~
mo.a nv~.o mo. nom.n ~o.n mo.| u usa~uou venuo>0uac~
can.u an. n¢~.l o—n. nov.I mo. no~.u o ocuxeuzh vauuo>0uu:_
one. no..- -.I uvv.u can. con.o ~o.u emm.n u couuaaueu
an... amp. nc~.- .o. nm~.- awe. on..- ~_. as..- - :o.uaocom
oc.- o~n.u «we. a.... v~.- o~.- ooh. cam.- o~.- emm.- . ecu-ooh
so..- oo~. nm~.a can. no..- so.. on..- com. ooo.- o.. aom.- . o:.x:a:n
now. own. adv. on. adv.l cmv.| nov.| o_.| —~.I mo.) hc.l Oo~. I :oquuo>auuuu
no~.u awn. nu..- u~m.u Gav. omv. mov. cu. _~. mo. so. Oo~.I o.~u i :Ownu0>0uu:~
o..- o-. -.u on~. oc~.- so.- we.. no“. aa~.- -. ~_.u n.~ so. no.- u RSSUAuoaaahnoa ecu-coo»:—
nnw. u-.a no. u-.r nvm. m_.n OO~. nm~.: o~.. nv~.u boa. eon.i mo.n No. ovv.u a >uauquocnuqloz anon:
«o. oo. ~o.n so.l no.| dd. n~.I cu. mo.t co. n~.0 cc. vo.I vc. avm.l eav.l I auuuuuozanatoz yum;
2m mm mm Bu 2— m— m— h. uqaucn mcwm ~m~m xcuze m — =~ z: :4

 

qum use mm>usm AH: you mucoﬂoﬁmwoou coﬂumﬂouuou cmeumomm

m xHozmmm<

APPENDIX C

COMPARISON OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE
OF HIP LEFT HEMISPHERE (LH) ITEMS
AND SLIP THINKING ITEMS

51

 

uoﬂ>ocon >5 mmcmno H mm
Mammxe cum3ou ou :mHQ mﬁﬂmc m as new

mcﬂnumcm >59 H
muowmn m3OH> m.:omummwOHmm on» umpﬂmcou

wmo ocﬁuusm coma o>mn H
ocﬁNHcmmuo cam quaccmﬁm can no osom on

wamom
we Oum3ou :OHmmoumoum moumlwnlmoum
m ocﬂﬂuoo cam mo>ﬂuOOnno we amaumao

mcoc on ou mpooc pon3 wauooxm
cﬂmmem can uo>o oxmu ou ocooeom wcocm

mOapaquum umm cam
uomnoum uxm: woo swam Op maﬁa on» om:

Amvv

.mm.

Amy

Anav

Amoav

.mav

mcﬂccmﬂm cam ocﬁumcuo coooucu
haaooﬂumsoummm Gamma ou wowoum

ummn mxuoz
zoﬂn3 mcwumuumcoeoo Ono muOOOOuQ
Hmuo>om mcwummeoo :oﬁumEuOMOA
man an cmocooamcﬁ :muwo umoe
em .mucmemmﬂuuw>pm mewsmﬂ> cwnz

mmﬁuﬁ>wuom HmOOmuom
cam mem muwcmmuo 0» bag» om:

xﬁﬁmwucosqom mmcwnu onwcmmuo ou oxﬂq

wCOHUUDhumCH H MQHO> Hmwmhm

haamoﬂumwﬁmmu spam on can Ono:

Amm.

Amav

AmH.

AHHV

AON.

Am.

 

Aumnesz EmuH.
wsouH ocwxcﬂna qum

.umnesz souH.
memuH mg mHm

mewuH mcﬂxcﬂna mﬂﬂm cam mEOOH
Ana. ouozmmﬂeom puma OH: HO onEmm w>wumucmmwumom mo OOmwnmmEOO

U xHozmmmﬂ

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alberts, F.L., Jr., & McCallum, R.S. (1982). Information
exchange: The relationship among three measures of
cognitive style. Clinical Neuropsychology, 3(2), 70-71.

Arndt, S., & Berger, D.E. (1979). Cognitive mode and asymmetry
in cerebral functioning. Cortex, lg, 78-86.

Bakan, P. (1969). Hypnotizability, laterality of eye movements
and functional brain asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, gg, 927-932.

Bever, T.G. (1975). Cerebral asymmetries in humans are due to
the differentiation of two incompatible processes:
Holistic and analytic. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 263, 251-262.

 

 

Bogen, J.E. (1969). The other side of the brain: II. An
appositional mind. Bulletin of the Los Angeles
Neurological Society, 34, 135-162.

 

Bogen, J.E., DeZure, R., Tehnouten, W.D., & Marsh, J.F.
(1972). The other side of the brain: IV. The A/P ration.
Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, g1,
49-61.

Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 5;,
461-473.

Davis, L.T., & Johnson, P.J. (1983). An assessment of
conscious content as related to introversion-
extraversion. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
3(2), 149-168.

Doktor, R.H. (1978). Problem solving styles of executives and
management scientists. TIMS Studies in the Management
Sciences, g, 123-124.

Ehrlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1978). Lateral eye movements
and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical review.
Psychological Bulletin, gs, 1080-1101.

Fischer, R. (1975). Cartography of inner space. In R.H. Siegel
& L.J. West (Eds.), Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience
and Theory (pp. 197-239). New York: Wiley & Son.

 

52

53

Galin, D. (1974). Implications for psychiatry of left and
right cerebral specialization. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 33, 572-583.

 

 

Galin, D., & Ornstein, R. (1972). Lateral specialization of
cognitive mode. Psycholoysiology, 3 (4), 412-418.

 

Ghosh, J.A. (1980). A comparison of cognitive styles of
mathematically, musically, and artistically talented
adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33,
5789-A (University Microfilms No. 80-10584).

Herman, N. (1981). The creative brain. Training and
Development Journal, 33 (10), 10-16.

 

Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological Types (R.F.C. Hull, Trans.).
Collected Works (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. (Original work published 1921.)

Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Research design in clinical psychology.
New York: Harper & Row.

Kinsbourne, M. (1982). Hemispheric specialization and the
growth of human understanding. American Psychologist, 33,
411-420.

Levy, J. (1985, May). Right brain, left brain: Fact and
fiction. Psychology Today, pp. 38-44.

Loomis, M. (1982). A new perspective for Jung's typology: The
Singer-Loomis inventory of personality. Journal of
Analytical Psychology, 31, 59-69.

 

Loomis, M., & Singer, J. (1980). Testing the bipolarity
assumption in Jung's typology. Journal of Analytical
Psychology, 33, 1-6.

 

 

Loomis, M., & Saltz, E. (1984). Cognitive styles as predictors
of artistic styles. Journal of Personality, 33, 22-35.

Lynch, D.J. (1982). Brain strategies: Applications for change
and innovation. Training and Develgpment Journal, 33 (8),
62-68.

Metzner, R. (1980). Correlations between Eysenck's, Jung's,
and Sheldon's typologies. Psychological Reports, 31,
343-348.

Metzner, R., Burney, C., & Mahlberg, A. (1981). Towards a
reformulation of the typology of functions. Journal of
Analytical Psychology, 33, 33-49.

 

 

54

Meyers, I.B. (1962). The Meyers-Briggs type indicator. Palo
Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Meyers, I.B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

 

Nebes, R.D. (1974). Dominance of the minor hemisphere in
commissurotomized man for the perception of part-whole
relationships. In D.M. Kinsbourne and W.L. Smith (Eds.),
Hemispheric disconnection and cerebral function (pp.
155-164). Springfield: C.C. Thomas.

 

Ornstein, R.E. (1972). The psychology of consciousness. San
Francisco: Freeman.

 

Quenk, A.T. 8 Quenk, N.L. (1982). The use of psychological
typology in analysis. In M. Stein (Ed.), Jungian analysis
(157-172). LaSalle: Open Court.

 

Riegel, T.R. (1980). Laterality of high school students and
its relation to convergent and divergent abilities.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 5798-A
(University Microfilms No. 80-10620).

Reynolds, C.R. 8 Torrance, E.P. (1978). Perceived changes in
styles of learning and thinking (hemisphericity) through
direct and indirect training. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 33, 247-252.

 

Rossi, E. (1977). The cerebral hemispheres in analytical
psychology. Journal of Analytical Psyghology, 33, 32-57.

 

Schwartz, 8., 8 DeMattei, R. (1982, February). Mind: PSI-OI
report. Omni, pp. 160-161.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Silbey, V. (1980). Hemisphericityiand performance on the
Meyers-Briggs. Unpublished manuscript, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.

 

 

Singer, J. 8 Loomis, M. (1984). The Singer-Loomis Inventorygof
Personality. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

 

 

Sperry, R.W. (1974). Lateral specialization in the surgically
separated hemispheres. In F.O. Schmitt 8 F.G. Worden
(Eds.), The neurosciences (pp. 5-19). Cambridge: MIT
Press.

 

Springer, S.P. 8 Deutsch, G. (1981). Left brain, right brain.
San Francisco: Freeman.

 

55

Steiner, C.L. (1974). Scripts people live. New York: Grove
Press.

Stevens, A. (1983). Archetypes. New York: Quill.

Taggart, W. 8 Torrance, E.P. (1984). Human Information
Processing Survey. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing

Service.

 

Torrance, E.P. (1982). Hemisphericity and creative
functioning. Journal of Research and Develgpment in
Education, 33 (3), 29-37.

 

Torrance, E.P., Reynolds, C.R., Riegel, T., 8 Ball, 0. (1977).
Your style of learning and thinking, forms A and B:
Preliminary norms, abbreviated technical notes, scoring
keys, and selected references. Gifted Childguarterly,
33, 563-573.

Wheelwright, J.E., Wheelwright, J.H., 8 Beuhler, J.A. (1964).
Jungian type survey: The Gray-Wheelwright test. San
Francisco: Society of Jungian Analysts of Northern
California.

Wyckoff, H. (1974). Sex role scripting in men and women. In
C.S. Steiner (Ed.), Scripts People Live (pp. 165-175).
New York: Grove Press.

Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no
inferences. American Psychologist, 33, 151-175.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllWNWllllHI“WWII“W"WWW
31293007003902