A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY OF THREE ENNEAGRAM PERSONALITY

INVENTORIES AND THE VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY

by

PHILLIP M. SHARP, B.B.A., M.S.

A DISSERTATION

IN

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Approved

Accepted

May, 1994

IK

* ( if L

© 1994, Phillip Mark Sharp

I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses appreciation to the members of the

dissertation committee who devoted their valuable time to

this project. Each of them played an important role as

educators during my tenure with their department. Special

thanks goes to Dr. Julian Biggers who served as the

committee chairman. His wisdom and experience were

invaluable. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the

special effort that Dr. Loretta Bradley made as both a

committee member and a reader. Without her encouragement,

this document would not have achieved its literary quality.

Dr. William Carter, committee member ex-officio,

supplied the original idea for this dissertation. His

encouragement and enthusiasm motivated the author

considerably. Additionally, his provision of subject data

and financial support contributed significantly to this

study.

The work of Don Richard Riso was crucial to the

theoretical presentation of the Enneagram system in this

dissertation. It was his conceptualization of the system

that this author relied on primarily.

A great appreciation is extended to the Enneagram

researchers. Dr. Helen Palmer, Dr. Jerome Wagner and Dr.

Thomas Zinkle for the use of their inventories. Without

their willingness, this project would have been impossible.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Problem Statement 3

Justification of Study 5

Purpose 6

Questions 7

Limitations of the Study 7

Preview of the Remainder of the Study . . . . 8

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 9

History of the Enneagram System 9

Early Developers 9

Modern Developers 15

System 17

The Three Triads 19

Essence 21

Ego 22

Ego Fixation 22

Typology 2 3

Type Descriptions 2 3

Wings 49

Review of Enneagram Research 50

• • •

111

Holland and Western Psychological Typologies . 54

Holland's Theoretical Assumptions . . . . 58

Typology 60

Hexagon 60

Hexagonal Concepts 62

Clinical Scales of the Vocational Preference

Inventory 70

Personality Change 7 3

A Comparison Between the Theories 7 3

III. METHODOLOGY 83

Questions 8 3

Design 84

Subjects 85

Instruments 86

Wagner Inventory 8 6

Cohen-Palmer Inventory 87

Zinkle Inventory 89

Vocational Preference Inventory 9 0

Procedures 92

Analysis of Data 93

IV. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 97

Analyses of Individual Inventories 97

The Vocational Preference Inventory . . . 97

The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory . . . 102 The Wagner Enneagram Inventory 108

The Zinkle Enneagram Inventory 113

IV

Analysis of All Enneagram Inventories . . . . 119

Analysis of Each Enneagram Inventory with the VPI 12 6

Analysis of the VPI with the Cohen-Palmer Inventory 12 6

Analysis of the VPI with the Wagner Inventory 130

Analysis of the VPI with the Zinkle Inventory 13 6

Composite Analysis of the Enenagram and VPI

Inventories 141

Summary of Findings 149

V. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION 152

Analysis of Individual Inventories 153

Analysis of the Three Enneagram Inventories Combined 159

Analysis of Enneagram Inventories with the

VPI 162

Summary of Findings 167

Limits of the Study 17 0

Recommendations 17 0

REFERENCES 173

APPENDICES

A. SUMMARY OF SUBJECT DATA 177

B. ENNEAGRAM INVENTORIES 180

C. ORDER OF TEST ADMINISTRATION FOR WORKSHOPS . . . 206

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Types 2 6

2. Comparison of Holland and Enneagram Types 78

3. Factor Analysis of Holland's Vocational Preference Inventory 98

4. Factor Analysis of the Cohen-Palmer Enneagram

Inventory 103

5. Factor Analysis of the Wagner Enneagram Inventory . 109

6. Factor Analysis of the Zinkle Enneagram Inventory . 114

7. Factor Analysis of all Enneagram Inventories . . . 121

8. Factor Analysis of VPI and the Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory 127

9. Factor Analysis of VPI and the Wagner Enneagram Inventory 131

10. Factor Analysis of VPI and the Zinkle Enneagram Inventory 13 7

11. Factor Analysis of VPI and all Enneagram

Inventories 142

12. Summary of Results 154

13. Summary of Subject Data 178 14. Order of Test Administration for Workshops . . . . 2 07

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Kircher's enneagram 10

2. Sufi Enneagram 12

3. Rise's Triads of the Enneagram 2 0

4. Enneagram Adjective Names 24

5. Holland's Types on the Hexagon 61

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A review of the history of personality theories

revealed that most theories attempted to describe and

classify individual differences (Hall & Lindzey, 1978). In

studying both the primitive ideas of Hippocrates and the

empirically derived traits of Raymond Cattell, this

researcher found an obvious motif concerning the separation

of personalities into distinct categories or types. Chaplin

(1975) defined a type as each separate pattern of

characteristics used to categorize people. One difficulty

in researching any theory of personality typology concerned

the accuracy with which the theory described the traits,

characteristics, motivations, and dynamics of humans. This

review of the history of psychology uncovered at least 15

personality typologies (Capretta, 1967; Hall & Lindzey,

1978; Wagner, 1981). No theory was encompassing enough,

however, to gain wide acceptance from theorists and

practitioners of mental health (Zinkle, 1974).

Historically, in attempting to construct and evaluate

typologies that were more comprehensive and appealing,

investigators employed two basic approaches to research.

One direction used quantitative analyses, depending upon

responses to self-report personality inventories for

validation. An example of this was the study of the

1

2

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & Briggs, 1976), based

on Jungian theory. Another example of this approach was

Raymond Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire

(Cattell, Eber & Tatsuoka, 1970), which used a trait-factor

approach and factor analyses.

A second direction of typological research depended

upon oral traditions, narrative descriptions, and

interviews with individuals. Such qualitative analyses

gained increasing respect as viable research strategies

during the 1980s (Gaston & Marmar, 1989). Investigators

such as Helen Palmer (1988) and Don Richard Riso (1990)

used this approach in their study of a new personality

typology from the East.

Americans discovered this new typology, the Enneagram

system, within the last 50 years. It found a small, but

strong, group of devotees within the discipline of

psychology who hailed it as potentially the most viable

typology to date. Together with psychiatrists, counselors,

and clergy, psychologists pursued research to both validate

the theory, and to use its principles in their professions.

They found the Enneagram to be a theoretical system for

describing personality types, as well as a geometric

configuration representing the types and their respective

systemic relationships. A complete description of both the

theoretical system and the geometric configuration follows

in the next chapter.

Problem Statement

Investigators explicated Enneagram theory by means of

qualitative research techniques, which was a time-consuming

process. To compound the problem, the most effective

methods of identifying types were the following. One

method was to teach the subjects the theory and to ask them

to self-identify (Wagner, 1981). A second method for

typing individuals required an expert in Enneagram theory

to observe and interview people and their significant

others (Riso, 1990). The third method involved

participation with, and identification by, groups of people

trained in Enneagram theory (Zinkle, 1974). Each of these

methods also were time-consuming.

Another issue contributing to the problem concerned

the resistance of individuals in the research community to

accept qualitative techniques of investigation, thereby

producing doubts about the validity of the Enneagram

typology. Since the qualitative properties of personality

types were difficult to verify, researchers often attempted

to quantify these components in hopes of empirically

evaluating them. Historically, efforts to validate a

typology often depended upon the researcher's ability to

design and administer an inventory to measure the

personality constructs. Such was the case when researchers

attempted to validate Jungian theory using the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI).

Attempting to resolve both the time and validity

issues through quantitative methods, researchers

constructed inventories to "blind-type" personality

according to Enneagram theory. While many different

investigators constructed inventories, only a few made

efforts to empirically validate their instruments (Palmer,

1988; Randall, 1979; Wagner, 1981; Zinkle, 1974). One of

the earliest inventories to be empirically constructed and

evaluated was Zinkle's (1974) inventory. Using a pool of

rationally constructed items, he administered his inventory

to more than 185 subjects. Analysis of their performance

on Zinkle's instrument demonstrated moderate validity and

modest test-retest reliability, r= .58-.98. The final

instrument, composed of 225 items, classified 52% of the

subjects as distinct personality types.

Wagner (1981) constructed a similar instrument, which

included some of the items from Zinkle's inventory. He

administered his inventory to 390 subjects, along with the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Millon-Illinois

Self-Report Inventory (MSRI). Participants were later

contacted to determine whether they judged themselves to be

the same personality type originally assigned. The

resulting reliability coefficients (Cohen's kappa) were

high for each type, k > .76. In addition, persons judged

to be a particular Enneagram type consistently scored high

on the same scales of both the MBTI and the MSRI

instruments, providing support for concurrent validity.

Generally, Wagner found significant differences at the .01

level of significance when comparing the scores of each of

the Enneagram types on the MBTI and the MSRI scales.

Unfortunately, while these studies produced promising

results, they were neither rigorous nor substantial enough

to validate the theory and provide accurate typing.

Additionally, only a few studies confirmed the established

psychometric properties, such as the reliability and

validity of these and other Enneagram instruments (Cohen &

Palmer, 1988; Randall, 1979). In essence, the field of

Enneagram research acquired a definite qualitative bias.

Justification of Study

Faced with these latter problems, the present

researcher considered it appropriate to further study the

three strongest Enneagram instruments: the Cohen and Palmer

Inventory (Palmer 1988), the Wagner Inventory (1981), and

the Zinkle Inventory (1974). This investigator recognized

the need for this study to contribute to the reduction of

these problems, adding further data to enhance the existing

body of knowledge. Therefore, research conducted for this

dissertation was an effort to address several issues. One

problem was the lack of quantitative research in the field

of Enneagram studies. Another problem was the lack of

sufficient information concerning the psychometric

properties of Enneagram instruments, especially validity.

Finally, this dissertation indirectly addressed the issue

of finding an efficient way to blindly identify Enneagram

types.

Purpose

The present research focused on gathering data and

performing factor analyses to address the previously stated

issues and to answer the questions below. Furthermore,

this researcher believed that a factor validation of the

Enneagram instruments would assist in both strengthening

and refining the inventories assessed. Additional factor

analyses compared the Enneagram instruments with an

existing instrument to establish concurrent validity,

hoping that these comparisons would lend further insight

into the personality constructs under study.

To pursue this latter goal, Holland's (1985)

Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) was selected. For

comparison, the researcher chose an instrument constructed

from a modern, occupational typology. Any common factors

found between the VPI and Enneagram instruments were

potential evidence to move the Enneagram theory further

towards validation.

Questions

The authors' claims of validity for the above-

mentioned Enneagram instruments needed further evaluation.

The status of these instruments raised several questions

that were ripe for research. This researcher asked the

following questions:

1. What was the relationship, if any, between the

three instruments and their scales?

2. Were identically named scales among the three

inventories measuring the same constructs to

the same degree?

3. Could the analyses performed, yield a better

instrument for typing personality based on

Enneagram theory?

4. How did the instruments and the Enneagram theory

relate to Holland's previously validated

personality typology?

Limitations of the Study

Although this study was extensive and required a great

amount of time to complete, the researcher conducted it

with the understanding that it would need replication. The

significant factors of limitation are listed below.

1. Generalizability beyond the population used in

this study was not claimed, due to the high

number of collegiate subjects.

8

2. The factor analyses of the subscale scores

assumed that the items composing the scales

adequately and appropriately sampled each

individual type. In the event that this

assumption was not accurate, it raises questions

about the interpretations made of the

statistical data.

Preview of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter II conveys the historical development of the

Enneagram theory and reviews previous research on the

system. A brief discussion concerning the personality

typology of John Holland, which is the theoretical

foundation for the VPI follows. Chapter III presents the

methodology of this study, including the design,

procedures, and description of both subjects and

instrumentation. Chapter IV reports the results of

analyses from this study. Chapter V provides a discussion

of the results, concluding with recommendations for future

research.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

History of the Enneagram System

Early Developers

Sufis. Although the origin is mysterious, the roots

of the Enneagram typology extend back over 4,500 years ago

(Riso, 1987). The Sufis, a mystic Moslem, Middle Eastern

group of scientists and philosophers are the acknowledged

sixth-century developers of the system. A Sufi sect, the

Sarmouni brotherhood, is the recognized caretaker of the

system. This sect passed the oral tradition from master to

master over the centuries. Sarmouni masters used the

system to reveal to their pupils some aspect of those

disciples' personalities. In approximately the 12th

century when the Sufis did write about the system, they

used the language of poetry and symbolism to evade their

Moslem critics (Ranaghan, 1989).

Kircher. The Enneagram symbol may have originated

with the Jesuit mathematician Athanasius Kircher (circa

1600), although there does not appear to be a link between

Kircher and the Sufis. The front cover of his 1665

publication, Arithmoloqia, displayed an enneagram (denoted

by a small "e") composed of three equilateral triangles

having all nine points equidistant from each other (Figure

1). This enneagram represented the concepts of

10

Figure 1 Kircher's enneagram

11

Arithmology, a metaphysical philosophy which proposed that

the universe is founded upon numbers.

As an example of this philosophy, Kircher claimed that

since the number three was special, then the number nine

must be trebly special. Three times the triad, the number

nine, which he designated "the triple Ternary," had a

special place in his system. Supposedly, the ennead (nine

choirs of angels in three degrees), represented by his

enneagram, governed the angelic world. Through these, the

triune monad (God) flowed into the material world. The

monad created the world using the three categories of

number, weight, and measure.

Although both enneagrams represent mystical ideas.

Figure 1 illustrates that the Kircher enneagram was quite

different from the symbol that developed in the late 19th

century (Figure 2). This latter Enneagram, spelled with a

capital "e", is the symbol that depicts the Enneagram

system under consideration in this dissertation. The

triangles' vertices on the enneagram are equidistant from

each other, whereas those on the Enneagram are not. The

theoretical explanation for the unjoined vertices in two of

the Enneagram triangles is beyond the scope of this paper.

It is sufficient to state that the explanation is esoteric

and even those most knowledgeable of Enneagram theory do

not claim complete understanding.

12

7

Figure 2 Sufi Enneagram

13

Gurdjieff. The essentials of the current Enneagram

system derive from the teachings of George Ivanovitch

Gurdjieff (1870-1949), a Russian-born mystic. Much of what

he taught in relation to the Enneagram reflected the

esoteric traditions of the 19th century (Bennett, 1973).

While in search of these esoteric truths, Riordan (1975)

stated that the teenage Gurdjieff and his friends, the

"seekers of truth," traveled around the world including

central Asia, Ethiopia, and the Solomon Islands. Riordan

believed that during his travels, Gurdjieff encountered the

Sufi orders of the Sarmouni and the Naqshbandi. It was

perhaps these orders that taught him Enneagram theory.

Gurdjieff may have benefited from several other

influences in developing his version of the Enneagram.

Webb (1980) stated that Gurdjieff may have encountered the

work of Kircher, an arithmologist. Arithmology, a school

of thought which focused on meaning versus amount or value

in numbers, was apparently an influence. For example, some

arithmologists believed that three forces were necessary in

the creation of any phenomenon. Looking at the equilateral

triangle in the middle of the Enneagram, one can see that

Gurdjieff made a graphic representation of this "law of

three." He claimed that this represented a suprahuman

force such as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The

remaining connected points, in an irregular six-sided

figure, represented the "law of seven," signifying the

14

nonlinear pattern of spiritual manifestations into the

material world (i.e., the Ray of Creation). Starting at

the topmost point of the circle (number nine), a count of

the intervals between numbers reveals seven intervals (not

counting the three and six).

Thus, this depiction of the Enneagram represents a

union between the "law of three" and the "law of seven"

(Riordan, 1975). Not only did Gurdjieff incorporate some

mystical ideas, but the diagram also represents some

mathematical properties. The triangle represents the

Trinity seeking reassembly into the Absolute or unity

(one). Mathematically that is symbolized through one

divided by three which yields a repeating decimal of

.333333 . . . Supposedly, the other points on the circle

connect in such a way as to reflect the striving of all

seven points of the "Ray of Creation" to return to unity.

It is symbolized through one divided by seven which yields

a recurring six-digit series of . 142857 . . ., which is

void of multiples of three. Looking at the Enneagram,

lines stretch from point one to point four, and from point

four to point two and so on in the successive order of the

digits in the latter repeating decimal number. The

arithmological, mathematical, and mystical ideas depicted

in this diagram demonstrates the holistic world-view of

many that use the diagram. It is a world-view that

recognizes the unity and interdependence between the

15

physical laws, and material and spiritual entities, rather

than separating these into discrete categories.

Up to this point, the rich and complex history of

spiritual and mystical tradition kept the Enneagram

movement on the sidelines of mainstream psychology. It

suited the use of "seekers" and a variety of fringe groups.

Other thinkers, however, further developed the Enneagram

theory into a form more palatable to modern empiricists.

Modern Developers

Ichazo. One such thinker, Oscar Ichazo, further

developed the Enneagram theory into a personality typology

compatible with psychological study and use. Born in

Bolivia in 1931, Ichazo had an epileptic disorder in

childhood. At age 19, Ichazo met with a group in Buenos

Aires studying Zen, Sufism, the Cabala and consciousness

raising techniques (Palmer, 1988). He hoped that these

techniques would help him control his seizures. Ichazo

later traveled throughout the East to study Yoga, Buddhism,

Confucianism, I Ching, and martial arts. During that time

he spent two years as a member of a Sufi school in

Afghanistan, where he claims that he discovered the

Enneagram. He later taught others what he had learned.

Ichazo started his first school and taught students in

Santiago, Chile, where he was lecturing at the Institute

for Applied Psychology. Later he moved to Arica, Chile and

16

some students followed. In 1970, 54 North Americans came

to visit the self-proclaimed guru for intensive

psychospiritual training. Consequently, Ichazo traveled to

the United States of America in 1971. He started a school

in New York, and subsequently schools in San Francisco and

Santa Monica.

After years of both teaching and learning, Ichazo

correctly identified the characteristic, negative emotional

tone (passion) with which each personality type struggles.

In addition, he proposed therapeutic solutions for each

type's characteristic neurotic compulsion (ego-fixation).

These accomplishments earned him recognition in the

American history of the Enneagram.

Naranjo. Another notable figure was the Chilean

psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo, a student of Ichazo. He

delineated the connections between the typology and modern

psychology. In addition, he proposed the major defense

mechanisms preferred by each of the nine individual types.

Naranjo was also a teacher. Many of his American

students, such as Helen Palmer, Kathleen Speeth, Bob Ochs

7 and Don Richard Riso are responsible for the upsurge in

popularity the Enneagram theory currently is enjoying.

Some of these individuals are actively researching the

typology. This dissertation presents a summary of their

research and theoretical work.

17

System

The Enneagram is a personality typology and dynamic

system, the roots of which reach back over 4,500 years

(Hurley & Dobson, 1991). The word "enneagram" comes from

the Greek words "ennea" meaning "nine," and "grammes"

meaning "points." This geometric symbol signifies the Sufi

belief that everything material has its beginnings in the

spirit world.

It . . . can be used to map the process of any event from its (spiritual) inception through all the stages of that event's progress in the material world. The Enneagram . . . is applied to mapping cosmological processes and the unfolding of human consciousness. (Palmer, 1988, p. 10)

Although the symbol has an esoteric tradition, it serves as

a graphic representation of personality dynamics for modern

students of Enneagram personality typology.

As a visual aid and model for conceptualizing the

Enneagram system, it is helpful to look at the diagram

(Figure 2), which contains a pictorial representation of

the types and the systemic relationships between them.

Looking at the circle, each point where two lines converge

and touch indicates one of the nine personality types. The

lines drawn between the various points represent the

potential for dynamic movement. Movement in one direction

represents the integration, or positive, personal growth of

the type. As a type integrates, it moves toward one of the

18

other types, and takes on many of the healthy qualities of

that other type. Movement in the opposite direction

represents disintegration, or deterioration of mental

health. When a type disintegrates, it moves toward another

type, taking on many of the negative characteristics of

that type.

The direction of integration is characterized by the

numerical sequence: 1-7-5-8-2-4-1. Type One integrates in

the direction of Type Seven. Type Seven integrates in the

direction of Type Five. In contrast, the direction of

disintegration is characterized by the sequence: 1-4-2-8-

5-7-1. Types Three, Six and Nine have their own separate

dynamic which is explained in the following paragraph. The

direction of integration for these latter types is

characterized by the sequence: 9-3-6-9. Accordingly, the

direction of disintegration is characterized by the

sequence: 9-6-3-9.

In looking at the geometric figure, notice that types

3, 6 and 9 connect by a set of lines that are separate from

the others. This separate configuration represents the

distinction of these types that are the primary personality

types (Riso, 1987). Each of the other types is a variation

on one of these major types. Thus, each primary type is

bordered by two other types. The result is three groups of

three or three triads.

19

The Three Triads

According to Riso (1987), the Enneagram is a graphic

representation of the nine types, categorized by three

triads. As Figure 3 illustrates, each triad contains three

personality types. Riso designated the triads by the

following names: the Doing Triad, the Relating Triad, and

the Feeling Triad. Each type in the triad will either

overuse, underuse or block the operation of that particular

quality. Although everyone has the ability to do, to

relate, and to feel, one property predominates most often

in the shifting balance among the three. Riso (1987)

discussed the triads as follows:

For example, in the Feeling Triad, the Two has overdeveloped its feelings, expressing only its positive emotions while repressing its negative ones. The Three is most out of touch with its feelings, projecting an image which substitutes for genuine feelings. The Four has underdeveloped the personal expression of its feelings, revealing itself indirectly through some form of art or aesthetic living.

In the Doing Triad, the Five's ability to do is underdeveloped: it substitutes thinking for doing, endlessly going around in ever more complex, yet isolated thoughts. The Six is most out of touch with its ability to act on its own without the approval of an authority figure of some sort. And the Seven has overdeveloped its ability to act, becoming hyperactive and manic until it flies out of control.

In the Relating Triad, the Eight has overdeveloped its ability to relate to the environment, seeing itself as bigger than everyone

20

The Relating Triad (8, 9, 1)

9

The Doing Triad (5, 6, 7)

The Feeling Tria^ (2, 3, 4)

Figure 3 Rise's Triads of the Ennecigram

l\\

21

else. The Nine is most out of touch with its ability to relate to the environment as an individual since it identifies with another, living through someone else rather than becoming independent. And the One has underdeveloped its ability to relate to the environment in the sense that it feels less than an ideal which it constantly strives to attain, (p. 26)

Essence

In describing what makes each type unique, the term

"essence" is often used by Enneagram theorists. A child is

born "pure essence; a natural being in an ordered cosmos,

one with all men and with God, instinctive, loving. This

is the perfect state of innocence" (Lilly & Hart 1975, p.

331). Thus, essence has to do with one's own innate

potentials (Palmer, 1988). When living in essence, there

is no conflict between thoughts, emotions or instincts.

Being integrated and at one with the environment, a person

acts appropriately and intuitively to maintain well-being.

Such action reflects a non-defensive trust in people and

the world. In developmental terms, this is most apparent

during the period in life when the child relates to the

mother and the world in a sensate and undifferentiated

fashion (Palmer, 1988). Having no boundaries, a child is

unable to differentiate between himself or herself, others

and the environment. Although an adult learns to live

22

separate from his or her essence, he or she can reunite

with that state of being.

Ego

A child develops a (false) personality, or ego, for

survival between the ages of four and six. A child's

environment molds his or her ego, with significant

influence from society and parents. In the words of Palmer

(1988, p. 19), "personality develops in order to protect

and defend essence from injury in the material world."

Therefore, when the child's implicit trust in people, the

environment, and God suffers injury, defenses develop to

protect the child from further harm. Thus, the personality

makes a defensive layer between essence and the world,

separating the self from the world (Keen, 1973).

Consequently, only consciousness of one's own ego remains,

striving for survival in a world perceived as dangerous and

incapable of satisfying one's deepest needs.

Ego Fixation (Compulsion)

Theoretically, each person should have a full range of

responses available for use, as represented by the points

of the Enneagram circle (Figure 1). A person's energy

should "flow freely from one point to another around the

circle" (Wagner, 1981, p. 26). This would represent the

state of living in essence. In contrast, most people

23

become trapped at one point; hence the term ego-fixation.

The person prefers particular patterns of affect, effect,

and cognition. Consequently, a person exercises certain

qualities more often, almost to the exclusion of others.

Repeated use leads to the automatic repetition of the

fixated patterns that are rigid methods of defending

against the natural process of life (Keen, 1973, p. 68).

Consequently, a person becomes very predictable in his or

her reactions to life situations.

Typology

The Enneagram system posits that there are nine major

types of personality (Palmer, 1988). Each person

emphasizes a particular gift or asset in his or her

personality type. Thus, each number on the Enneagram

represents a basic psychological orientation, a distinct

way of approaching life. Therefore, all human beings can

be classified as only one of the nine types.

Type Descriptions

Since time and space do not permit a thorough

discussion, a brief summary follows for each of the nine

types. Each type has an adjective name (Figure 4) that

depicts one of the more prominent and noticeable qualities

of that type (Riso, 1990). While the name is not a

complete or fully accurate characterization of the people

24

Peacemaker

Leader

7

Generalist

Loyalist

Thinker

Reformer

Helper

Performer

Artist

Figure 4 Enneagram Adjective Names

25

who have that personality type, the summary descriptions

(Table 1) are sufficient to help distinguish between the

types. Although some types are referred to using a

masculine pronoun, and other types using a feminine

pronoun, the types are not gender specific.

Type One (The Reformer). An ability to accept his own

humanity and that of others, with all of its flaws, appears

in a Type One when he is functioning at his best. As a

mature and balanced person, a Type One can accept the

subjective and less rational side of human nature as an

equally valid part of existence. His wisdom and prudence

enables him to tolerate his own and others' rights to make

mistakes and to be imperfect. Tolerance does not, however,

diminish the Reformer's ability to make rational and

objective decisions.

In keeping with his rational approach to life, the

Reformer seeks to live as a moral, law-abiding citizen.

Integrity, self-discipline and adherence to moral

principles dominates his life. Type One promotes the

pursuit of such characteristics as honesty and justice in

the lives of others by setting an example.

When not at his best, unattainable ideas of perfection

are the heart and soul of a Type One. The Reformer seeks

to live out moral codes in a rigid fashion. This

facilitates an authoritarian position of moral superiority.

Type One believes that his point of view is the right one.

Table 1 Summary of Types

26

TYPE ADJECTIVE NAME

FIXATION OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

Reformer

Helper

Performer

Artist

Thinker

Loyalist

Resentment

Flattery

Vanity

Melancholy

Stinginess

Cowardice

Wisdom, good judgment, perfection, internal critic, one right way

Self sacrifice, empathy, need to be thanked, want gratitude, manipulate

Ambitious, motivator, achievement, optimism, surface deep, opportunist

Authentic, self-revealing, sense of loss, emotional, feels out of place

Intellectual, independent, curious, observer, threatened by the world

Endearing, team player, anxious, authority oriented, devil's advocate

8

Generalist Planning

Leader Vengeance

Peacemaker Laziness

Accomplished, loves variety, avoids pain, gluttons for life and new experiences

Seeks justice and power, bold, confrontational, strong, aggressive

Settled, even-tempered, trusting, lives through others, oblivious

27

Hence, his mission to perfect himself and to reform the

world fosters his continual frustration.

The Reformer also is infamous for the "internal

critic" that lives inside his head. This judgmental voice

defends Type One's actions, anticipating and responding to

potential criticism. It is forever prompting the

analyzation, clarification, and refinement of any personal

statements, beliefs, or perceptions. The "critic"

functions to keep anxiety in abeyance by leading the

Reformer to qualify and improve on every thought or deed,

to avoid mistakes, inaccuracy, and imperfection. This

perfectionism produces an approach to life that is best

described as both meticulous and dilatory.

Therefore, it is not surprising that self-control is

another major objective for a typical One. To maintain it,

he often acts counter to his feelings and impulses.

Ultimate objectivity is a goal of supreme importance.

Thus, it is important to repress feelings because of their

capacity to interfere with judgment. Type One denies

himself pleasure and even denies his own sexual impulses.

Guilt plagues him concerning the instances when he does not

meet his own standards.

Perhaps in unconscious reaction to his own failures,

an unhealthy Reformer relates to other people through

fault-finding, lecturing and scolding. The notion of the

least bit of imperfection is intolerable, uncomfortable and

28

taken as a personal insult. Rather than react with anger,

which is an unacceptable and imperfect emotion. Type One

carries an attitude of resentment towards the flaws that he

perceives in others.

With a constant attitude of resentment, the Reformer

has his own unique relationship problems. On one hand, his

critical harshness tends to irritate others, because a Type

One is impossible to please. Naturally, this can strain

and injure friendships. On the other hand, the unhealthy

Reformer also has difficulty trusting others and allowing

people to see his imperfect humanity. The belief that he

must be flawless to be acceptable by others exacerbates

such suspicion. Imperfections revealed might become the

grounds for rejection and even critical disdain.

Type Two (The Helper). When Type Two is functioning

at her best, she has an incredible capacity to love

unconditionally, without expectation of something in

return. In times of crises, she is dependable. When

someone is needy, she has an ability to sense the need

and meet it, whether by assistance or encouragement. This

displays an ultimate orientation towards people.

Naturally, the Helper altruistically focuses on others

rather than on herself. Sensitive to the welfare of

others. Type Two tends to be the most empathetic of the

types. She is also relationship-oriented. It is important

29

to the Helper to preserve relationships, taking the time to

do little, meaningful acts such as remembering birthdays.

When functioning at less than best, however. Type Two

expresses many good feelings and intentions. The Helper

easily overextends herself, because she wants to

participate in everyone's life. Consequently, her

commitment to people can be shallow and fleeting and she

might not keep all the promises she has made. This makes

her less credible.

In fact, personal motives are not always noble for the

Helper. Rather, her focus on others belies the ulterior

motives of seeking love, attention, support and gratitude.

Due to a Type Two's penchant for repressing awareness of

unpleasant thoughts and feelings, she often is unaware of

her ignoble motives and manipulative tendencies. Instead,

she tends to conceive of herself as a self-sacrificial

saint with nothing but the most noble of intentions.

Anyone who implies the opposite is met with a reaction of

fury and righteous indignation. For Type Two to

acknowledge such duplicity implies that she is unlovable,

both by self and others.

Because the avoidance of rejection is paramount, a

Helper depends on social approval to maintain a sense of

identity and well-being. To garner this approval, she uses

empathy and self-sacrifice in order to make herself

indispensable to others. Relating to others with

30

possessive intimacy, she encourages them to be self-

revealing to her. Type Two wants to be the center of other

peoples' lives, to be the social conduit, or regulator

through which all information must pass (Riso, 1987). To

have such an important position would assure her of having

the love and devotion she desperately desires.

Consequently, she alters herself to elicit this

loyalty. The Helper denies parts of herself and plays

whatever role she thinks will fulfill another person's

expectations or needs. The result may be that she has a

self-conception of "many selves" and no assurance of which

one is real (Palmer, 1988). Inevitably, the Helper comes

to resent the denial of the other parts of herself and

strives for personal freedom within the context of her

dependent relationships.

Habitually denying the existence of her own needs.

Type Two projects these needs onto someone else, and then

attempts to fulfill those needs for that person. The

Helper sees herself as having no needs in contrast to the

rest of the world which she perceives as being needy. From

her point of view, there is something unacceptable, even

ugly, about having her own needs or requesting that people

fulfill them. Instead, Type Two manipulates others into

recognizing and fulfilling her needs. In the process, the

Helper works to gain the love of anyone that can help her

achieve her desires.

31

When unsuccessful in getting the expected love,

unhealthy Helpers tend to feel like martyrs. They

sometimes resort to psychosomatic illness. This has a

motivational component, in that Type Two can at least

elicit nurturing behavior from others, which may substitute

for the love she feels she is unable to obtain. Playing

the role of the invalid may be the ultimate attempt to

produce guilt in those who should have given Type Two the

love, appreciation, and gratitude that she expected.

Type Three (The Performer). When Type Three is

functioning at his best, he learns to accept himself for

who he is. He acknowledges both liabilities and assets,

eschewing grandiose notions concerning superiority and

importance. Instead, he accepts an honest and modest view

of his abilities. His chief concern focuses on being

authentic, finding the place where reality and image

converge (Riso, 1987). As he shifts his focus from the

external world to the internal world, emotions, thoughts

and behaviors begin to genuinely come from within, rather

than being portrayed simply for the benefit of others.

Because he is so keenly perceptive of other people's

reactions to him, the Performer responds immediately by

projecting the appropriate image. In doing so, he is able

to display the qualities called for at the moment: self-

confidence, self-worth, or any other positive

characteristic. Such an ability makes him adept at

32

marketing ideas and negotiating the public arena; and Type

Three has the ambition to do so. Consequently, he easily

pours his entire energy into improving both himself and his

image.

At less than best. Type Three seeks status, success,

and prestige to show that he is superior to the rest. The

Performer creates rivalries and contests with others to

prove himself. Competition, performance, power, and

winning becomes his main priorities. This leads to

conflict with other people. Therefore, he can be friends

with people only if he feels superior to them.

It is no surprise that life for Type Three centers on

continuous activity and work. Performance and achievement

are crucial, due to a fundamental conviction that only

winners are lovable and self-esteem depends on success.

Such values make it simple for a Type Three to become a

workaholic. To preserve his self-esteem, he will go so far

as to pay selective attention to success and reframe

failures (Palmer, 1988).

If unable to make the kind of advances that he

believes will improve his status, the Performer will work

hard on creating an image of success. Essentially, he

creates an image to successfully market and habitually be

in great demand. What he projects is no more than surface

deep, however. The projection changes to meet situational

demands. Whatever makes him fit in, helps him succeed, and

33

seems appropriate at the moment is what the Performer

becomes, does, or feels. Hence, the typical Three is a

series of disconnected projections or images (Riso, 1987).

He has no soul, loyalty, conviction, or authenticity

beneath his masks. The roles played are for the sake of

avoiding what he most fears, rejection. Habitual role-

playing, however, makes it easy to confuse the role with

the genuine self.

People inevitably give attention to Type Three in

response to the desirable images that he projects. This

inflates his feelings of self-worth, producing a fear of

being ordinary. Therefore, a Performer works overtime to

garner continuing admiration. To accomplish this, he often

brags and makes exaggerated claims about himself and his

performance. In extreme form, this results in the making

of fantastic claims based on a few shreds of truth.

Type Four (The Artist). Of all the personality types.

Type Four, at her best, has the ability to be the most

genuine. Since being aware of her identity is of prime

importance. Type Four celebrates her individuality and her

separateness from other people (Riso, 1987).

With a tendency toward authenticity and self-

revelation, this type is most aware of feelings when

expressing them. The Artist has a way of being direct and

genuine, rather than deceiving herself or others about her

foibles, worries, or deficits. Since this is an important

34

and integral part of who she is, it would be tremendously

deceptive not to communicate the entirety of herself (Riso,

1987). Such frankness can often be embarrassing.

When at less than her best, a Type Four may feel

hesitant to express her true self. Consequently, she may

sublimate this expression through some art form which

indirectly communicates some vulnerable part of herself.

If the Type Four is not an artist, vocationally or

avocationally, she tends to look for some aesthetic form of

self-expression. This appears in the desire to acquire or

admire beautiful art objects or other material possessions.

Such expression seems to provide what she feels is missing

in her, a sense of wholeness (Riso, 1987).

The Artist also thinks of herself as more refined and

sensitive than other people (Wagner, 1981). It is

important to feel passionate about beauty, and the

surrounding emotions make her feel vital and sophisticated.

A very lively and robust imagination enables this type to

enhance both objects and relationships in such a way as to

receive maximum emotional impact from everything (Riso,

1987).

Unfortunately, this can engender certain problems.

For example, the Artist has difficulty appreciating

feelings that are not intense. A lack of intensity tends

to be equated with a lack of authenticity. Also, having

overdeveloped the ability to feel. Type Four finds

35

frustration in pursuing her goal of authenticity. Such

constant focus on often irrational and conflicting feelings

makes it difficult to get a firm sense of the self (Riso,

1987) .

Another common theme in the life of Type Four is

preoccupation with a sense of loss, deprivation, or

abandonment. This often follows a real loss or abandonment

(Palmer, 1988). Rather than move beyond this to appreciate

what the present has to offer, this type fixates in grief

over the loss (Wagner, 1981). That which seems

unattainable translates into feelings of deprivation. It

holds the greatest appeal and may be what the Type Four

strives hardest to regain. In another Artist, there may

be a melancholic attitude about what she feels life has

denied her. Frequently, the Artist believes that obtaining

the perfect romance would fill the void in her life. In

any case. Type Four goes on smiling despite her tragedy.

Along with the grief, an unhealthy Artist frequently

has a sense that she is out of place in the world.

Somehow, she feels different from others and perhaps deeply

flawed. When she looks at others, it appears to her that

everybody else is happy and has found that which they seek.

In contrast. Type Four usually seems to feel left out.

Frequently, this leads to envy of others' position,

circumstances and possessions in life. If she only could

be like someone else, then Type Four thinks she would be

36

truly happy. Alienation and tension between the Artist and

the world sometimes feeds on feelings of tremendous

inequity.

Type Five (The Thinker). Type Five tends to be

intellectual. At his best, the Thinker can find patterns

in what others perceive as a confusing array of phenomena.

He can see straight through to the core of matters, while

concurrently developing the ability to see the broad view.

Type Five's ability to delay judgment allows him to

recognize truths that are unrecognizable to others.

Staggering and innovative insights arise from his

independent way of thinking. He has an uncanny ability to

discover that which is most profound.

With his active mind, the Thinker can concentrate

intensely on whatever he studies. The world is a gold mine

of knowledge for him. Type Five is able to use his

knowledge and his perceptions to lead others and to make

great contributions to the world. When he takes an active

and participatory role in life, he realizes that he can

have tremendous influence on people, decisions and events.

At less than best, the Thinker lives almost

exclusively in the intellectual realm, neglecting his body

and his emotions. He is more at home with his cognitive

representation of the external world, from which he

reconstructs reality as he sees it. Prone to be inactive

in the external environment. Type Five often has no reality

37

check. Thus, it is easy to see why his intricate theories

and knowledge seem reductionistic or bookish. Often unsure

that his ideas are complete enough, the Thinker is

reluctant to share or act upon them (Riso, 1987).

For this type, knowledge is a means of gaining power.

Consequently, the Thinker fears the revelation of self to

others. This makes him vulnerable, and since Type Five

sees himself as smaller than the world, it is a place that

threatens to both defeat him and to overcome his defensive

barriers (Hurley & Dobson, 1991). Thus, keeping a safe

distance and ensuring predictability is often crucial to a

Five's sense of well-being. Hypervigilance is a frequently

employed defense against potential threats. This, in turn,

can lead to the misinterpretation of environmental cues and

the drawing of inaccurate conclusions (Riso, 1987).

Immobilizing fear and terror may result from the

misperception of reality as dangerous and unpredictable.

Unfortunately, this perpetuates the barriers and emotional

distance that the Thinker places between himself and the

world.

Thus, maintaining close, interpersonal relationships

can be taxing and it is often easier for the Thinker to

withdraw into his reclusive, cognitive world. Since Type

Five tends to be independent and suspicious, he avoids

relationships and commitments characterized by emotional

dependency and domination (Palmer, 1988). Often, the

38

Thinker assumes that others are being manipulative, when in

fact that is not the case. Therefore, when relationships

are risked, they tend to be stormy and chaotic (Riso,

1987) .

Wary of manipulation, the preference of the Thinker is

to avoid potential conflict altogether. Remaining in the

background, or at the perimeter of any event, facilitates

this. Should a feared scenario be unavoidable, the Type

Five is likely to respond inappropriately, or handle the

problem as it is perceived, rather than as it actually is.

Only after participating in some interaction or activity

will a Type Five process feelings (Palmer, 1988). This

usually happens later while alone, in privacy where the

Thinker rejuvenates.

Aptly labeled stingy, the unhealthy Type Five

withholds himself, being miserly with time, money,

resources, energy, feelings and insight (Wagner, 1981).

Distrustful of the process of life, he waits on the

sidelines, observing while life goes by. Perception of

life, and the intellectual processing of it, substitutes

for actual participation. Unable to participate in the

reciprocity of life, the Thinker hoards his thoughts and

perceptions to avoid the empty feeling that results from

sitting on the borders of life.

Type Six (The Loyalist). When functioning at her

best. Type Six sees herself as equal to others. She finds

39

the courage to assert herself without searching for the

approval of others. This results from increasing self-

confidence as she begins to realize that she is a good,

capable person herself. Relationships between the Loyalist

and others become balanced, with a healthy interdependence.

Even at her best, a Type Six may not feel that she is

completely equal to others. She works hard to engage and

endear herself to other people in hopes of forming a

lasting, emotional bond with someone else (Riso, 1987).

Due to the anxiety that often accompanies her attempts to

find security external to herself. Type Six seeks stable,

long-lasting relationships. To elicit these relationships,

she becomes the loyal, indispensable friend. The Loyalist

is not likely to break the emotional bonds of friendship.

Not only is Type Six a loyal friend, but she firmly

commits to values that undergird society. One of these

values is the family, with which she strives to maintain

close ties. Another related value is that of community,

and she promotes this through participation in various

groups. Her values may include a commitment to faith,

religion, and other traditional groups and authorities.

Relationship with authority is a key issue for this

type, especially when functioning at less than best. Type

Six tends to overestimate the power of leaders, those who

have the strength and power to act. While wanting to find

the protection of a leader or organization due to feelings

40

of impotence, she conversely mistrusts authority figures.

Palmer (1988) states that a Type Six has a lifelong need to

avoid the threat of meddling by powerful people who may

take advantage. To circumvent this, she works very hard to

perceive situations from all other points of view. One day

she espouses one philosophy and on another day she takes an

opposite position. By this she hopes to keep others happy

and to avoid punishment or retaliation. The consequence of

this "Devil's Advocacy" is that Type Six vacillates between

alternatives in decision-making (Riso, 1987).

Type Six can take forceful action once she believes

that she has received the approval of the appropriate

authority or is acting according to established guidelines.

Being compulsive about group standards, the Loyalist makes

a good team player, and she usually helps to form the solid

core of any organization. This arises from the need to

feel that she is part of a group that shares the same

values, beliefs and ideology. Such a group makes her feel

more powerful and stronger.

The Loyalist, however, is not always eager to be

obedient to authorities or groups. Occasionally, she

believes that she needs to react against authority so that

she does not appear easy to manipulate (Riso, 1987). A

change in demeanor from deference to caution and obstinacy

is possible. Double messages may accompany frequent

reversals of positions, along with passive-aggressive

41

behavior. In fact, opposition to authority may become a

lifestyle for a Type Six who challenges an authority's

stand by playing "Devil's Advocate" (Palmer, 1988).

A Type Six may have a counterphobic personality, in

contrast to the typical phobic quality. She faces her

anxieties and fears by behaving in exact opposition to the

behaviors normally dictated by her phobia. Thus, in an

attempt to overcome her passivity, she may become

aggressive. Belligerence can be a ploy for hiding her

fear. Attempting to overcompensate for a perceived

weakness, she may behave in a manner very opposite to the

beliefs she seems to cherish.

After responding aggressively to an authority, the

Loyalist may feel afraid that the authority will retaliate

or not forgive. To ward off this anxiety. Type Six may

respond by compulsive adherence to the rules. The Loyalist

might internalize the rules of external authorities to the

degree that she feels a heightened sense of responsibility

(Zinkle, 1974). Should others skirt the law and get away

with it, the Type Six may become resentful and interpret

this as a personal affront, displaying an inclination to

accuse and report the wrong-doers.

Type Seven (The Generalist). At his best. Type Seven

is able to trust that he can fulfill his needs without the

frantic consumption of everything he desires. Rather, the

Generalist can learn contentment with the excitement of

42

life as it happens and the pleasures that it brings. From

this, he creates a life of curiosity and activity oriented

to the world around him. An exhilarated, euphoric attitude

usually accompanies his activity and it is important to him

to play just as hard as he works.

Because he is enormously productive, the Generalist

tends to accomplish much within his lifetime, beyond the

achievement level of his peers. His diverse interests and

expertise facilitate his finding ways to apply his

knowledge from one field to another (Riso, 1987). Since

Type Seven is not afraid of new experiences, his most

positive outlook on life helps him to see endless

possibilities and make as many plans.

When functioning at less than best. Type Seven avoids

focusing on only one thing. This counteracts the fear of

missing some gratifying experience. Therefore, he moves

into a mode of acquisition to obtain everything possible.

As such, the Generalist views the world from the standpoint

of being deprived. Caution, however, prevents his lust for

experience from outstripping his capacity to acquire,

assimilate and enjoy.

Since Type Seven engulfs himself in a never-ending

flurry of activity, any space of inactivity would be

boring. Therefore he says "yes" to every new opportunity

that comes along. He eagerly make new plans, savoring the

pleasant expectation of the fulfillment of those schemes.

43

Usually, these plans do not materialize, but rather are

replaced by more plans.

A Generalist's high level of activity often engenders

a superficial analysis of life. Consequently, he may not

grow or learn from experience. The Generalist can dabble

in many areas but never really master anything. Yet,

convinced of his or her own "special ability" to master

all, this type takes a little experience, combines it with

imaginative ideas, and pronounces that he is an expert in

the field of focus. Once completing the initial

exploration, however. Type Seven avoids the daily

commitment to a project. He is ready to move on to new

adventures (Palmer, 1988).

An unhealthy Type Seven represses pain and tends to

dislike the delay of gratification. Consequently, he

spares no resource to obtain instant gratification.

Placing the appropriate limits and controls on himself is

frequently difficult for this type (Riso, 1987). If

anything, he is greedy and wants to experience and have

everything pleasant in excessive amounts. Type Seven may

even use other people and then quickly lose interest in

them. This often arises from a hedonistic lifestyle.

Type Eight (The Leader). Type Eight has a knack for

leading, commanding and giving directions. She is a

naturally confident and assertive person with little or no

propensity for self-doubt or insecurity. Typically

44

aggressive and authoritative, the Leader effectively wields

power for better or worse. At best. Type Eight becomes a

champion of the rights of others. Justice for self and

others is a lifelong issue and Type Eights can be quite

heroic and fearless in its pursuit. Capable of embodying

the hopes and dreams of her followers, the Leader can

inspire others to be the best that others can possibly be.

At less than best. Type Eight can use her influence

for herself. Her concern centers on merely achieving her

own goals, building her own kingdom and empire, or making

money. Whereas a Leader overrelates to the environment in

order to control it (Riso, 1987), she achieves her aims

through confrontation and forceful manipulation.

Intimidation becomes a tool for encouraging others to

retreat and to let the Type Eight have her way.

Unrestrained, the Leader may tyrannize people, not

considering others' needs, wants and desires. This happens

because she often denies the softer, gentler and warmer

capabilities of her humanity (Wagner, 1981). Consequently,

the way to win an Eight's trust and respect is to stand up

to her in the midst of a confrontation (Palmer, 1988).

Occasionally, an unhealthy Leader is more egocentric

and possesses the attitude that only one person can have

power. Since she has an ability to recognize the leaders

in other groups, she naturally seeks to ally herself with

those that have power. To oppose a Type Eight in the

45

pursuit of her goals is to risk annihilation. In such a

case, plans and projects tend to be indistinct from the

Leader's sense of self so that the failure of one is the

defeat of the other. This makes her a dangerous person.

With the overt expression of aggression, the defense

mechanism of repression operates to protect Type Eight from

any guilt feelings or anxiety associated with her actions

(Riso, 1987). A sense of empathy and appreciation for

others' needs, and a conscience, seem to be sparse or

absent qualities in such a Leader. To her, it is important

to win at any cost; to ensure the fulfillment of her needs.

Dominating and ruthless. Type Eight may destroy everything

and everyone rather than be faced with the possibility of

losing and having to submit to someone else. Riso (1987)

suggests that the Eight's lurking fear is of being forced

to submit to someone. That person, in turn, might treat

the Eight as cruelly as she treats others. Additionally,

the Eight fears that others are incompetent to lead.

A frequent tendency in this type is the penchant to

see the world in terms of all or nothing, of black versus

white, i.e., extremes (Palmer, 1988). She sees other

people as either "for" or "against" her. If another person

is in authority over her, she may perceive that person as

one of two polar extremes. Either the authority is always

favorable to her, or the authority is always against her.

It is difficult for a Type Eight to see the "in between."

46

Similarly, when a Leader is ready to do battle with

someone, she may likely ignore other viewpoints and

contradictory evidence (Palmer, 1988). To do so would

weaken the Leader's position, producing vulnerability.

However, not every Type Eight operates in this fashion. A

Leader can learn to maintain her sense of strength in spite

of having to negotiate with others.

A Type Eight loves a good fight, because she believes

that truth and hidden agendas surface in the midst of

conflict (Palmer, 1988). With nothing hidden, this type

feels secure, because the likelihood of being blindsided

diminishes when all the rules, intentions, and perceptions

of others are in full view. Should someone surprise a

Leader or mistreat her in a malicious manner, revenge

becomes this type's primary goal. In the quest to avoid

exploitation, she likely rushes blindly and angrily to even

the score, often beyond reasonable limits.

Type Nine (The Peacemaker). When Type Nine is

functioning at his best, he can be a bastion of peace,

contentment and emotional stability. This follows the

realization of his unity and completeness within himself as

well as his unity with the world around him. Not only does

he recognize the true value and worth of himself and

others, but the security and strength that he draws from

this recognition comes without pretense. Out of this

nature arises twin abilities. One is to demand one's own

47

rights when appropriate. The other ability is to

compromise and negotiate to keep the peace.

Considering his prizing of peace. Type Nine goes to

great lengths to ensure that it pervades his life. Not

only does he want peace himself, but the Peacemaker wants

others around him to be at peace as well. To ensure this,

he often acts as mediator, helping others negotiate and

resolve their differences. An ability to appreciate all

points of view, along with an absence of hidden agendas,

facilitates this. Type Nine's honesty, sensitivity, and

unconditional positive regard makes him a natural mediator.

The phrases "don't rock the boat," and "peace,

regardless of cost" indicate a Peacemaker's attitude when

he is functioning at less than best. A passive, receptive

orientation to life gives him no reason to change or

question anything (Riso, 1987). He readily accommodates

himself to, and identifies with, other peoples' desires,

lifestyles and world-views, without scrutinizing what he is

accepting. This is much easier than raising questions and

asserting his opinion, which may lead to enduring any

conflict or potential abandonment.

Rather than live life for himself, a Peacemaker seeks

to live life through union with someone else.

Possibilities include union with a spouse, children, or

some other person. That other person may be a guru-like

individual, an external source to whom Type Nine looks for

48

solutions and answers, rather than facing internal

conflicts and working out his own answers. A Type Nine can

abdicate responsibility for his own living to the point

where oblivion becomes the hallmark of his existence.

Participation in life continues, but in a disconnected way,

so that whatever happens does not impact him deeply.

Because he refuses to deal with problems. Type Nine

may develop an attitude of resignation. One of the most

basic convictions to which a Peacemaker adheres is that his

ideas, opinions, needs, and wants are unimportant in

others' eyes. Should Type Nine develop his own agenda, he

fears that this might lead to his abandonment.

Consequently, he is content to let others make the

decisions rather than to risk this. Feeling discounted, a

sense of resignation develops, along with an attitude that

"life is not so great," and "it's not that big of a deal

anyhow." A natural response for Type Nine is to "forget

the self" (Wagner 1981), to lose contact with his own

opinions, desires and needs. Great conflict surrounds the

Peacemaker's attempts to make decisions, caught between the

desire to be heard and the desire to be accepted.

While this type may appear to be accepting someone

else's decision, internally he often is resistant and

resentful toward the decision-maker (Palmer, 1988). Type

Nine tends to express his disagreement through passive-

aggressive means. This may take the form of slowness to

49

follow through on some course of action, or through a

stubborn refusal to act. Sometimes he may simply forget to

fulfill a responsibility or get sidetracked by inessential

details and tangents, not discerning the real priority.

Wings

An important issue in understanding Enneagram

personality types is the concept of "wings." Although

Enneagram theorists believe that each individual is one

basic personality type, there are many hues of each

personality pattern. When looking at a type, as placed on

the diagram, one should take note of the types on either

side. Theorists believe that significant characteristics

of either one of these neighboring types may appear in an

individual's personality. For instance, consider Type

Four, the Artist. If the Artist were to have a three-wing,

one would expect any number of the Type Three's

characteristics to be part of the Type Four's personality.

A Type Four with a three-wing driven by social

ambition may accomplish much in a field of the arts.

Concerned with how others view him or her, this Type Four

may strive to compete and to project an acceptable image.

In spite of the drive toward extroverted pursuits, the

individual may hide a lurking fear of failure, chagrin and

self-exposure.

50

Review of Enneagram Research

Although the subject of the Enneagram personality

typology is virtually unknown, it has received serious

attention from researchers, especially over the past 20

years. Synopses of some of the major and more widely known

works on the topic follow.

Rater Reliabilities. Gamard (1986) based his

dissertation on a study of rater reliabilities in

identifying Enneagram types. He looked at the interrater

reliability and validity of ratings made by experienced

judges classifying people according to Enneagram typology.

Judges selected 36 representatives from 276 videotaped

interviews with university students. Thirty-one different

judges, divided into two groups, rated each interview.

Group A contained 15 experienced judges who had known the

system for an average of 14 years. Group B consisted of 16

less experienced judges who had known the system an average

of seven years. Gamard (1986) statistically verified that

the group of judges with greater experience had greater

interrater reliability. In conclusion, he stated that this

did not have clinical significance, although results

suggested that greater familiarity with the theory resulted

in more accurate typing.

Classification. For his doctoral research, Randall

(1979) attempted to develop an inventory that would blindly

classify subjects into their correct Enneagram type (as

51

compared with expert judgments). The investigator reduced

a pool of 535 possible items to 229 items and used these

items on a five-point Likert scale to develop his

inventory. Data collected from responses by 92 subjects,

previously typed by expert diagnosis, were subjected to an

item analysis. This resulted in the reduction of the

number of usable items to 95. Results of the study showed

that the inventory would only correctly classify 23.3% of

the subjects. Therefore, the inventory had limited

practical use.

Wagner (1981) attempted to develop an inventory that

would correctly classify individuals based on the Enneagram

typology. For his doctoral research, he selected a sample

of 390 adults who were previously aware of the typology

through workshops and classes, and who knew their Enneagram

types. He administered the Enneagram inventory, the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator, and the Millon-Illinois Self-Report

Inventory to the subjects. Profiles on these last two

inventories were congruent among the Enneagram types,

yielding concurrent validity for the Enneagram instruments.

Wagner concluded that the Enneagram inventory appeared to

have diagnostic value.

Conducting dissertation research, Zinkle (1974) had

two objectives. The first was to create a reliable and

valid inventory for "blind-typing" subjects based on the

Enneagram personality typology. Second, he wanted to

52

administer this Enneagram instrument to a heterogeneous

sample to ascertain whether the types existed and to what

degree they were present in the general population. A

comparison of inventory results to previous typing by a

knowledgable group produced moderate validity, and test-

retest reliability was acceptable. The Enneagram

instrument correctly typed only 52% of the subjects.

Based on his data, Zinkle only found evidence to support

the existence of seven of the nine Enneagram types.

Palmer (1988) conducted research on the Enneagram

typology. Her research was both qualitative and

quantitative. An Enneagram expert. Palmer taught many

extended workshops and seminars, which served as a basis

for her qualitative research. She assembled and

interviewed panels which contained representatives of the

different Enneagram types. In her book The Enneagram,

Palmer (1988) included extensive descriptions of the

individual types. From this research, she developed her

own Enneagram inventory for personality typing.

Her book not only reported on the conclusions of her

qualitative research, but also included the results of her

quantitative research. She administered her Enneagram

inventory to 172 subjects who had determined their types

before testing. Type identifications, based on raw scores,

were more useful for some types than for others. Using

discriminant analysis, however, she found that the weighted

53

items correctly classified 97% of the subjects into the

correct typological groups.

Riso (1987, 1990) wrote two books on the subject of

the Enneagram system. His earlier work gave a brief

discussion of the origins and dynamics of the system, and

described each of the personality types in length. His

second work supplemented the first book and expanded on

some topics. This book contained a more extensive

description of his theory of psychopathology based on the

Enneagram system. He also included a chapter with his own

questionnaire for the purpose of Enneagram personality

typing. Although both his theoretical discussions of the

Enneagram and his instrument were more sophisticated than

the work of the above-mentioned authors, his research was

entirely qualitative in nature. Riso did not present any

empirical evidence to support his questionnaire.

The research discussed above documents the attempts

made to objectively provide supporting data for Enneagram

theory. Investigators used various approaches in efforts

to both classify subjects based on Enneagram typology and

to concurrently validate their instruments. An underlying

goal was to integrate Enneagram theory with other modern

psychological theories. Although their work produced

promising results, the researchers recognized the need for

further studies.

54

In a continuing effort to integrate the Eastern

Enneagram theory with modern psychological theory, the

present researcher chose to use a Western psychological

typology developed by John Holland. Consequently, a

discussion of Holland's (1959) typology follows, providing

a foundation for his Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI).

In order to place it in historical context, the discussion

of the VPI is preceded by a brief review of Western

typologies.

Holland and Western Psychological Typologies

Attempts to classify human personality date back as

early as 420 BC when the ancient philosopher Hippocrates

developed his simplistic theory. He attempted to identify

a collection of characteristics common to different

personalities. Such a theoretical system is a typology and

each separate pattern of characteristics used to categorize

people is a "type" (Chaplin, 1975).

Subsequent physicians and psychiatrists developed

their own typologies. Pinel and Kraepelin created

typologies to classify pathological personalities

(Capretta, 1967). Jung and Sheldon developed the earliest

non-pathological typologies in the Western hemisphere (Hall

& Lindzey, 1978). The work of these latter theorists

influenced Holland (1959) in the development of his modern

and prominent typology. A discussion of his work follows

55

below, because it formed the theoretical foundation for his

instrument, the Vocational Preference Inventory, the key

comparative instrument for the present study.

Influenced by trait and factor theory, Holland (1959)

developed his theory of vocational choice. His theory was

a modern personality typology that has long been the object

of research (Benninger & Walsh, 1980; Florence, 1973;

Johnson, 1987). Particularly, researchers in the fields of

vocational psychology and individual interest measurement

studied his theory more frequently than professionals in

any other disciplines.

There were several ideas that contributed to Holland's

conception of the study of personality and vocation. One

idea was that "the choice of a vocation is an expression of

personality" (Holland, 1973, p. 2). That is, he believed

that vocational interests, as well as avocational and

recreational preferences, were an expression of

personality. A corollary idea was that "interest

inventories are personality inventories" (Holland, 1973, p.

3). Responses to seemingly neutral content represented

different components of personality. Therefore,

occupational choice reflected motivation, personality and

ability, and ultimately, a person's lifestyle.

A third idea contributing to the theory was that

"vocational stereotypes have reliable and important

psychological and sociological meanings" (Holland, 1973, p.

56

5). Daily experience causes individuals to develop

specific ideas about members of various occupations.

Holland stated that there was some truth to the

generalizations made about certain occupations, such as

lawyers being aggressive and scientists being unsociable.

Another related idea was that "the members of a vocation

have similar personalities and similar histories of

personal development" (Holland, 1973, p. 5). People within

distinct fields have some broad characteristic similarities

that distinguish them from those in other fields. Another

related concept was that "because people in a vocational

group have similar personalities, they will respond to many

situations and problems in similar ways, and they will

create characteristic interpersonal environments" (Holland,

1973, p. 6). In other words, a specific type of

personality creates a type-specific environment.

A sixth idea of Holland's was that "vocational

satisfaction, stability, and achievement depend on the

congruency between one's personality and the environment

(composed largely of other people) in which one works"

(Holland, 1973, p. 6). Given a psychological fit, the

worker has a greater likelihood of successful performance

in that vocation. Conversely, when the worker-environment

fit does not occur, the performance will likely be less

than optimal.

57

Finally, Holland stated that "our knowledge of

vocational life is disorganized and often isolated from the

main body of psychological and sociological knowledge"

(Holland, 1973, p. 6). Thus, the integration of knowledge

and research gained from related fields would assist in

conceptually defining interest and personality types, thus

helping to create appropriate theories. Unfortunately,

researchers define vocational interests in terms of

particular items a person might endorse on an inventory.

This method originated from an attempt to isolate

occupational life from a person's total life and life­

style, yielding the subsequent field of "interest

measurement." Holland stated that simply acknowledging

interests as an expression of personality was insufficient.

A move beyond empiricism has facilitated the integration

between interest assessment, psychology and sociology.

To address the lack of integrated vocational theories,

Holland (1959) developed the Theory of Vocational Choice.

Unwilling to limit the theory's focus to vocational life,

Holland extended it to incorporate personality types.

While the focus of the theory was on vocational choice and

changes, it also addressed creativity, emotional cohesion,

and individual development. In his view, vocational

behavior was valuable, being available to public scrutiny.

This contrasted with the covert information that was the

subjective cornerstone of the current personality theories.

58

Providing a foundation for his theory, Holland offered the

following basic assumptions.

Holland's theoretical assumptions. The first

assumption was that "in our culture, most persons can be

categorized as one of six types-Realistic, Investigative,

Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional" (Holland,

1985a, p. 12). According to Holland (1973, p. 9), a "type"

is a model against which the real person can be measured.

Each type was a consequence of the characteristic interplay

between heredity, culture, people and the environment.

Personality types epitomized some common ways in which

people developed in Western culture. A person's biological

and social heredity, with his or her personal history, lead

to the development of a characteristic set of abilities,

perceptions, goals, values, self-concepts and coping

behaviors. Therefore, a type was an elaborate cluster of

personal attributes that created a number of particular

predispositions.

The second assumption was that "there are six kinds of

environments: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,

Enterprising, or Conventional" (Holland, 1985a, p. 13).

When people associate, their personalities influence and

give a distinctive flavor to the work environment. Thus,

an environment evolves that corresponds to, or has the

characteristics of, the most prevalent personality type.

59

For instance, in an artistic environment, more artistic

personalities than any other type reside.

Holland's third assumption was that "people search for

environments that will permit them to exercise their skills

and abilities, to express their attitudes and values, and

take on agreeable problems and roles, and to avoid

disagreeable ones" (Holland, 1973, p. 14). Not only do

individuals search for an environment that is consistent

with their personality types, but to some extent,

environments screen for consistent types. This search for

an appropriate fit involves both conscious and unconscious

processes. The fit is a result of a person's self-concept,

and can be partially attributed to the messages given

concerning what a person does well or does poorly.

The fourth assumption was that "a person's behavior

can be explained by the interaction of his personality and

his environment" (Holland, 1973, p. 12). Theoretically, if

a person's personality type and his environmental type are

known, predictions about some possible outcome of the

interaction between the two can be made. Such predictions

might include the choice of vocation, education, behavior,

motivation and accomplishments.

Holland (1959) proposed six major vocational or

personality types. He believed that each individual is

predominantly one type. An individual, however, often uses

coping strategies classified as belonging to a second or

60

third subtype. The types, as assessed by his instruments,

particularly the Vocational Preference Inventory,

demonstrated a moderately positive intercorrelation. This,

of course, indicated that the types are not entirely

independent of each other.

Typology. Holland stated that types are indicative of

psycho-social development in American culture. A "model

orientation" describes the types as a cluster of coping

mechanisms, needs, motives, self-concepts, life history,

goals, roles, aptitudes and intelligence (Holland, 1973, p.

16). Each individual's degree of similarity to the six

model orientations constitutes his or her "personality

pattern" (Holland, 1973, p. 16). Ideally, an individual

will be most similar to the model orientation that

constitutes his or her "personality type" (Holland, 1973,

p. 16).

Hexagon. In order to represent the relationships

between the types, Holland chose a hexagon (Figure 5).

Each corner of the hexagon represents a different type.

Starting with the top left corner, the order of placement

of types follows the sequence R, I, A, S, E, C. Lines

drawn within the model ensure that each type connects with

every other type by a direct line. This graphic

illustrates the similarities between the types and shows

that they are not entirely independent of each other.

61

Realistic Investigative

Conventional A r 11 s L 1 c

E n t e r p r i s i n g

F i g u r e 5 H o l l a n d ' s Types on tlie Hexagon

62

Hexagonal Concepts. Holland used four basic concepts

to describe how personality types and environmental types

come together. One concept was Consistency, which

indicated the degree to which two different types shared

characteristics. Generally, two or three types are

necessary to adequately depict an individual's personality.

When these types are near to each other on the hexagon, the

personality is consistent. An example of consistency would

be SAE, while SRI would be an example of inconsistency.

When an individual or an environment more closely

resembles one type, this indicates Holland's concept of

Differentiation. A differentiated type is likely to work

most productively in a similar environment. When a person

or environment resembles several types, this refers to an

undifferentiated environment or personality.

Another concept is that of Congruence, which occurs

when a person operates in an environment of the same type

as his or her personality. An example of this would be an

S-type personality working in an S environment. This would

provide the opportunities, rewards and need-fulfillment

most likely to facilitate productivity and satisfaction for

an S. In contrast, should an A type personality be forced

to work in a C environment, the expectation would be for

the A to have greater difficulty and frustration.

A final concept is explained by the term Calculus.

This explains the degree of relationship between the types

63

as graphically depicted by type placement on the hexagon,

and the distance between the types. Theoretically, types

located farthest apart on the hexagon from each other would

have the smallest degree of relationship or have less in

common. Types connected by shorter lines, or represented

by adjacent angles, would tend to have more in common.

A brief summary of the model orientation for each type

follows. The descriptions are not exhaustive; however,

they are accurate characterizations. Only those attributes

that help to effectively discriminate between the types

appear. The types occur here in the order in which they

appear on the hexagonal diagram.

Realistic (R). This type has attributes usually

thought of as masculine. These include physical strength,

aggression and good motor coordination. Type R tends to

enjoy activities such as athletics, crafts, shop-work,

mechanics, marksmanship, racing and gardening (Holland,

1973). While there is a clear preference for activities

that demand motor skills, tasks that require verbal and

interpersonal skills such as leadership and socializing are

avoided. This type is not likely to pursue situations

calling for creative or individual expression, or adherence

to some formal or socially acceptable protocol. Rather he

inhabits environments composed of practical, conventional

and less sophisticated people. Often characterized as

64

unsociable, he is frequently passive, submissive and self-

abasing in social relationships.

A marked preference exists for concrete versus

abstract reasoning, as well as an objective approach with

concrete goals. Therefore, the acguisition of material

possessions is a frequent method for asserting the self.

Also, Type R values the physical manipulation of objects

and the hands on approach. This frequently leads to the

choosing of professions such as agriculture, applied

engineering, technical and skilled trades. A sense of

mastery and empowerment results from the operation of

machines, tools and vehicles.

The Realistic type has a simple outlook and perceptual

style, tending to lack the skill of integrating complex

stimuli. He prefers the facts and avoids subjective or

esthetic endeavors. He keeps stress at bay through the

avoidance of introverted or intellectual activities. It is

rare to find a Type R in academic environments requiring

writing and speaking skills. His mathematical aptitude

tends to be greater than the verbal, exceeded only by his

mechanical and psychomotor aptitudes.

Investigative (I). This type of person adapts to her

environment by using intellectual skills. The

Investigative type solves problems through the use of

words, symbols and ideas in contrast to the use of

physical, motor or social skills, all of which Type I has

65

little. This demonstrates her rational, analytic and

abstract cognitive style. Consequently, Type I tends to

prefer scientifically oriented vocations. She favors the

independent work required and the theoretical and scholarly

pursuits involved. She tends to assert herself using

knowledge and intellectual achievement (Holland, 1973),

which is supported by her tremendous aptitude for both

verbal and mathematical subjects.

The Investigative type prefers nonsocial activities

that satisfy curiosity and cognitive complexity, allowing

for individualistic and imaginative expression. These may

include activities such as reading, photography, scouting,

art, music and foreign languages. Often perceived as

unsociable. Type I tends to be non-nurturing and unpopular.

Being introverted, the Type I avoids situations requiring

complex social skills and leadership. When entering into

social relationships, the tendency is to be submissive and

self-abasing.

Social interactions involving aggression are difficult

for this type. Thus, an Investigative type may defend the

self with either negativism or hostility. Intellectual

rationalization, perfectionism and unarguable knowledge are

tools used to ward off the stress produced by interaction

with other people. In any case, avoiding other people

through self-isolation is a basic strategy and defensive

posture.

66

Artistic (A). This type is the most original in both

his approach to life and problem-solving. Intuitions,

impressions and feelings are tools used when contemplating

life. Consequently, Type A expresses his solutions, his

emotions and his viewpoints through some artistic medium.

Artistic talent is his avenue for relating to people. It

also allows him to express his unconventional values in a

way that shields him from social rejection. Being

introverted, sensitive to rejection and self-sufficient, he

may avoid interpersonal relationships in times of stress.

Type A tends to be introspective and to possess high

ideals. His impulsivity and irresponsibility make it

difficult to live up to these high ideas. This may result

in self-abasement and depression. Consequently, he uses

projection to defend himself and place the blame on others

in society. This, in turn, can lead to negative attitudes

towards his culture.

Frequent preferences for this type include debating,

music, English, history, entertainment, artistic endeavors,

school journalism, student government and community

service. These activities allow him to use his verbal,

perceptual and motor skills. With a greater verbal than

mathematics aptitude, he chooses occupations that allow for

originality and creative performance in the arts, or the

teaching of these. In contrast, he avoids activities such

as athletics and auto mechanics.

67

Social (S). This type handles the environment through

the use of social skills. With a social orientation, there

is a preference for activities, goals and values that focus

around the training or behavioral change of people. Being

generally responsible. Type S has a concern for the care of

those that are indigent, incapable and needy. Her

leadership qualities, nurture, and understanding of human

behavior are assets that increase her status and popularity

in society. An orientation to other people garners her the

love, appreciation and loyalty that she desires. The

Social type gets her sense of mastery through the

dependency and admiration of others.

The cheerfulness and sense of adventure that surrounds

a Type S makes her company pleasurable. Although

objective, her decisions often depend on feelings rather

than intellect. Consequently, her objectivity and

decisions are vulnerable to their environment, and the

people with whom she identifies.

This type handles stress and anxiety through

repression and denial. Other coping strategies may include

dependency upon other people, as well as controlling others

by playing an ingratiating role. In times of stress, she

does not delay the gratification of bodily appetites.

The Social type tends to migrate towards religious,

therapeutic or educational occupations with well-defined

social roles. With a high verbal aptitude and low

68

mathematical aptitude, she tends to choose activities that

involve personal and esthetic expression. These may

include church, sports, drama, music, community service,

government, public speaking and journalism. In contrast,

the Social type avoids activities that require the use of

motor skills, machines and tools, since she tends to be

more feminine than masculine.

Enterprising (E). This personality type interacts

with the world in a vigorous, dominant and adventurous

fashion. Brimming with self-confidence, this extroverted

personality uses both a verbal persuasiveness and an

exhibitionistic demeanor as a strong foundation for the

positions of leadership often acquired. Type E often

admires and emulates powerful and wealthy entrepreneurs.

He tends to gravitate towards occupations in sales,

supervision, political and economic leadership.

Type E seeks out tasks and roles that allow him to use

his verbal aptitude to exert his influence and to gain

recognition and popularity. This includes sports, sales,

the arts, broadcasting, and entertainment. Activities that

are confining, routine, manual, and nonsocial, such as

mechanics, scholastics and shopwork, hold little appeal for

him.

In the social realm, the Enterprising type tends to

participate in more activities than any of the other types.

Relationships are often characterized by his domination.

69

exploitation and controlling attitudes. When threatened.

Type E reacts aggressively and easily rationalizes any

action that he takes. He copes with stress and anxiety

through hyperactivity and repression, as well as excessive

eating, drinking and sex.

Conventional (C). The preferred method of coping with

the environment for this type is to choose customary and

socially approved activities, goals and values. Conformity

is a way of relieving anxiety. It is important to present

an image that makes a positive impression; one that appears

conservative, correct, practical and disciplined.

Consequently, spontaneity and personal creativity are rare.

Rather, the Conventional type is more likely to approach

life in a stereotypical fashion with shrewdness and rigid

perfection.

In relationships. Type C tends to socialize with a few

people that she knows best and to be ingratiating towards

them. Since it is difficult for Type C to deal with

emotional and persuasive expression, she sets restrictive

boundaries that limit her commitment to work and to other

people. This reflects her preference for interactions that

are safe, systematic and predictable. With fewer friends,

she can more easily ensure these limited parameters for her

relationships.

The Conventional type often identifies with business

and financial leaders. She tends to play the role of an

70

obedient, dependable subordinate, prone to a dependency

that she is often unable to recognize. Type C seems to

enjoy being either an expert consultant or a middle-

manager. There tends to be a low level of speaking and

leadership ability. This is consistent with her

aptitudes that tend to be higher in mathematics and lower

in verbal areas.

In the vocational realm. Type C tends to show a

preference for rule-oriented occupations that involve

either clerical or computational tasks with a focus on

economic issues. She seems to enjoy structured activities

that require a low level of energy. These may include

spelling, typing, collecting, arithmetic, drama, music and

school journalism (Holland, 1973). Tasks that require

aggression, spontaneity, originality or integration are

avoided. Shopwork, mechanics, sports and creative writing

are among the activities that Type C dislikes.

Clinical Scales of the Vocational Preference Inventory

Each of the previously described model orientations is

associated with a personality scale on the Vocational

Preference Inventory (VPI). Clinical scales derive from

the remainder of the items on the inventory (Holland 1985b)

and their descriptions appear below. Although not

71

exhaustive, the summaries are accurate and supplement the

reader's understanding of the instrument.

Self-Control (SC). The Self-Control scale is defined

by Holland (1985b) as a measure of an individual's ability

to inhibit the impulses to behave, or express thoughts and

fantasies through unhealthy or socially unacceptable means.

Those who score high on this scale are depicted as over-

controlled, inhibited, passive and responsible. They may

be preoccupied with concerns over illness, physical injury,

and medical problems. Those scoring in the average range

tend to possess an adaptive spontaneity and originality.

In contrast, low scorers are impulsive, displaying an

asocial tendency to "act out."

Masculinity-Femininity (MF). Reflecting stereotypical

assumptions about gender-roles, the MF scale assesses the

extent to which an individual identifies with traditional

concepts of masculinity or femininity. High scores

indicate occupational choices that are traditionally

thought of as masculine. These individuals tend to be

unsociable, shrewd and competitive. Low scores represent

a preference for careers that are traditionally identified

as feminine. Holland (1985b) states that there is an

inverse correlation between this scale and the Social and

Artistic scales.

Status (ST). A measure of preoccupation with status

and power, the ST scale provides a measure of self-esteem

72

and self-confidence. High scores indicate the endorsement

of occupations with a high level of prestige. High scorers

tend to be sociable, adventurous, enthusiastic, sensitive,

and expressive. They gravitate towards positions of

leadership in business and the community. No associations

are indicated for those scoring in the mid-range. In

contrast, low scorers tend to display lower self-confidence

and self-deprecation.

Infrequency (INF). Holland (1985b) states that this

scale seems to measure several correlated traits including

self-deprecation, incompetence, social undesirability and a

propensity for both personal and vocational failure.

Additionally, the INF scale appears to be a gauge of social

desirability. Individuals achieving a high scale score are

indicating a preference for undesirable, low prestige,

female-dominated occupations. This implies social,

vocational and intellectual preferences that are atypical.

In comparison, low scorers endorse male-dominated, high-

status occupations that require social, intellectual or

artistic talent.

Acquiescence (ACQ). The ACQ scale primarily detects

an extreme response bias, as indicated by high scores,

resulting from two different personality orientations. One

orientation includes individuals having poor judgment, lack

of personal integration and hyperactivity. The second

orientation consists of well-integrated individuals

73

possessing multiple interests and abilities. Differential

interpretation between the two depends upon the review of

additional information, such as work and personal

histories, vocational and academic achievements. No

interpretational significance corresponds to lower scores.

Personality Change

Holland (1973) stated that events such as trauma,

psychotherapy, experience, and maturation can lead to

personality change. He believed that some of the types are

more susceptible to social experience, and, therefore, more

susceptible to change. These types follow in descending

order from greatest to least potential for change: Social,

Enterprising, Conventional, Artistic, Intellectual,

Realistic. Among these types, those with less consistent

personality patterns presumably have conflicting needs,

assets, and priorities. They would more likely reach out

for external assistance and so be susceptible to

environmental influence yielding a likelihood of change.

In contrast, those with consistent patterns are less

influenced by others and less likely to change.

A Comparison Between the Theories

To date, theoretical links between Enneagram theory

and Holland's theory of Vocational Choice have not been

explicitly made. Each theory evolved independently, and in

74

a separate part of the world, Enneagram theory arose in the

Middle East and Holland's theory developed in the West.

Accordingly, neither theory evolved from the other. Thus,

the comparisons, contrasts and linkages presented in this

section are the present author's original ideas. Holland's

clinical scales are excluded from this comparison, because

this study is concerned with comparing only the personality

types.

Holland believes that vocational choices are an

expression of personality. Although not expressly stated,

Enneagram theorists would concede that the personality

influences occupational choices. While Holland's theory

suggests that personality type may constrict vocational

choice, Enneagram theorists would not be this definitive.

Rather they would assert that while personality influences

the particular occupation that a type will gravitate

towards, more importantly, personality shapes the way in

which the type fulfills the demands of that occupation.

According to Holland (1973), individuals in a

particular vocational group have similar personalities, and

thus will respond to situations and problems in similar

ways. In contrast, Enneagram theorists may state that

there are various personality types in a particular

vocation. Different types may respond in similar ways,

since a particular type can demonstrate individual

qualities possessed by other types, given the demands of

75

the situation. Enneagram theorists believe that when

living in essence, each individual has the full range of

emotional, intellectual and behavioral responses. It is

the development of personality, however, that restricts the

person's living.

While Holland (1973) states that vocational

satisfaction and achievement are dependent upon congruence

between personality and environment, Enneagram theorists

take a different perspective, although they agree that

Holland's statement may be true of those living in

compulsion. Nonetheless, Enneagram theory takes the

Eastern perspective that satisfaction and achievement are

dependent more upon the subjective experience of the

individual and less upon the environment. Consequently,

personal fulfillment and satisfaction occur when one

transcends personal weaknesses and limitations.

Essentially, when an individual moves in the direction of

integration, reconnecting with essence, he or she takes on

the antidotal qualities of the next personality type. For

example, a Type Five (the Thinker) may dislike the

interpersonal bickering that occurs between staff members

in his or her office. Should he or she follow his or her

normal compulsion, withdrawal from the situation and

resentment would represent the typical manner of

responding. If the Thinker takes on the antidotal

qualities of the Type Eight (the Leader), he or she

76

rediscovers his or her ability to take action and

approaches his or her boss with requests for intervention

and suggested solutions. Ideally, the individual type

should be able to subsequently move in the direction of

other types as well (in this case towards the Type Two and

the Type Four), thus acquiring many of their positive

qualities (Wagner, 1981). The reclaiming of these positive

properties of essence leads to a flexibility in responding

to any situation or environment.

Enneagram personality theory is dynamic in comparison

to Holland's static, vocational personality theory.

Enneagram theorists believe that when an individual moves

in the direction of integration, that individual will

acquire some of the positive characteristics of another

type. When an individual moves in the direction of

disintegration, that individual will manifest some of the

negative qualities of a different personality type. Life

circumstances and the level of continual stress may

influence the movement in either direction.

In contrast to Enneagram theory, Holland's

conceptualization of personality type is more static. By

his account, personality is less susceptible to daily or

periodic change. Rather, events such as trauma,

psychotherapy, experience, and maturation may cause

personality change (Holland, 1973). Change is more likely

77

to occur in certain personality types (e.g.. Social,

Enterprising) than others.

Both theories agree that there are a definite number

of specific personality types by which individuals can be

classified. Holland proposes that their are six basic

types while Enneagram theorists pose nine basic types.

Holland states that his personality types reflect psycho­

social development in the American and other Western

cultures. In contrast, Enneagram theorists propose that

the Enneagram types occur in every country and culture.

Although some Holland types closely correspond to

Enneagram types (Table 2), other Holland types appear to

have characteristics from more than one Enneagram

type. For example, Holland's Realistic type appears to

have no real similarity to any specific Enneagram type.

One of the closest matches between the two theories,

however, is between the Enneagram Type Five (the Thinker)

and the Holland Investigative type. Type I operating in

the world through the use of words, symbols and ideas has a

lower level of physical, motor and social skills, thus

using them less. The Type I profile resembles the Type

Five, which is deficient in the "doing" function, having a

lower propensity to be active in the world. Instead, the

preference for Type Five is to actively watch from the

sidelines, rather than participate in conversations,

relationships or activities. Both Type I and Type Five are

78 Table 2

Comparison of Holland and Enneagram Types

HOLLAND

Realistic

ENNEAGRAM

No Match

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

Investigative Thinker (Type Five)

Cognitive, Inactive, Scholarly, Nonsocial

Artistic Artist (Type Four)

Creative, Affective, Unconventional, Sensitive

Social Helper (Type Two)

People-oriented, Affective Decisions, Nurture, Compassion

Enterprising Leader (Type Eight)

Vigorous, Persuasive, Self-confident, Aggressive, Dominant

Conventional Reformer (Type One)

Conservative, Rigid, Correct, Practical, Disciplined, Structured

Loyalist (Type Six)

Conformity, Anxiety, Subordinate, Ingratiating

79

introverted, preferring nonsocial, individual activities

that require cognitive complexity and careers that are

scientific or scholarly. These types highly value the

acquisition of knowledge, and often use knowledge as a

defense mechanism for dealing with the stress precipitated

by social interactions.

A similarity occurs between the Enneagram Type Four

(the Artist) and the Holland Artistic personality. Both

the Type Four and the Type A have a creative disposition

and rely on intuitions and feelings as the primary means of

acquiring important life information. While each theory

emphasizes that the respective type often expresses

personal emotions and viewpoints through an artistic talent

or medium, Enneagram theory more clearly emphasizes that

the Type Four may not have artistic ability. Type Four may

simply have a great appreciation and affinity with art and

culture. Nevertheless, the artistic medium allows the

expression of unconventional values in a way that shields

the person from social rejection. In times of stress, both

Type Four and Type A tend to manifest their basic

introverted nature. Being sensitive to rejection, they

withdraw and avoid interpersonal relationships. Self-

abasement, self-blame and depression often indicate the

failure of these types to cope with their circumstances.

80

Holland's Social type and the Enneagram Type Two (the

Helper) are similar. Each has good social skills and a

clear social orientation. These individuals surround

themselves with people who tend to be the central focus of

their activities, goals, and values. Possessing the

qualities of nurture and understanding, these types

cultivate the appreciation and loyalty of others which is

often because their decisions are based on feelings rather

than intellect. The cheerful dispositions of Types Two and

S cause them to be popular and able to cultivate

relationships in which individuals are dependent on them.

In contrast, during stressful times they may manifest

dependency on others and act in an ingratiating manner for

the sole purpose of controlling other individuals.

Enneagram Type Eight (the Leader) bears some

resemblance to the Holland Enterprising type. Both types

are vigorous and dominant, and possess a high degree of

self-confidence. Using their persuasiveness masterfully,

they often aspire to and acquire leadership positions.

Each type also tends to emulate powerful entrepreneurs.

Not surprisingly, relationships for Type E have a tone of

domination and exploitation. Additionally, when facing a

threat, aggression is often the defense that the

Enterprising type uses. Unless moving toward integration,

the rationalized aggression and exploitation are also

characteristic of the average Type Eight.

81

Characteristics of Holland's Conventional type is

reminiscent of the Enneagram Type One (the Reformer). Each

personality believes that it must present an image that is

conservative, correct, practical, and disciplined with life

proceeding in a stereotypical and rigidly perfectionistic

manner. They prefer to approach work in a structured,

rule-oriented fashion involving systematic, predictable

tasks, and interactions avoiding tasks that require

aggression, spontaneity, and originality.

Some characteristics of the Conventional type are more

like the Enneagram Type Six (the Loyalist). Each of these

copes with the environment by choosing customary and

socially approved activities, goals, and values. Anxiety

diminishes through the practice of conformity. In work.

Type C tends to play the role of an obedient subordinate,

prone to dependency that is much like Type Six. In both

work and personal relationships, these types tend to be

ingratiating.

Each system presents the personality types as being

interrelated. Crabtree and Hales (1974) demonstrate that

the Holland personality types are intercorrelated with each

other, and thus not completely distinct. Enneagram theory

asserts that there are three triads of personality types,

which suggests their interrelatedness. Each triad is

organized around a basic personality type. Thus, Types

Five and Seven are variations of Type Six. Types Eight and

82

One are each a variation of Type Nine. Type Three is the

basic personality type from which Types Two and Four vary.

Types closest to each other on the Enneagram figure are the

most related, thus suggesting kinship to Holland's concept

of Calculus on the hexagonal diagram.

This chapter described the roots of the Enneagram

typology along with its theoretical rudiments and the

basics of the personality types. Following a discussion of

Enneagram researchers and their inventories, a summary of

Holland's (1959) well-known typology appeared. This latter

discussion provided a theoretical basis for the Vocational

Preference Inventory (VPI), an instrument featured in this

dissertation.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Attempting to assess the validity of three Enneagram

instruments (Palmer, 1988; Wagner, 1981; Zinkle, 1974), the

present researcher administered these inventories to

subjects in conjunction with Holland's VPI. The hope was to

address validity issues, especially construct validity and

concurrent validity. Although the authors of the Enneagram

instruments had established validity through their research,

further collaborative evidence was necessary to pique the

notice of personality theorists. Additionally, this

researcher asserted that the quantification and

identification of underlying factors would strengthen the

evidence for validity. The following research questions

guided the design and direction of this investigation.

Questions

1. What relationships exist among the three

Enneagram inventories?

2. Do the Enneagram instruments measure what they

propose to measure, (i.e., factor validity)?

3. Do the same typological scales from each of the

three Enneagram inventories load with similar

83

84

proportions on each factor?

4. Does analysis support the existence of nine

factors, indicative of the nine types as

measured by existing Enneagram inventories?

5. What relationships exist between the VPI and the

Enneagram scores and types?

6. Which factors emerge when the scale totals from

the Enneagram instruments and the VPI are factor

analyzed together?

The first four questions addressed construct validity

and the last two involved concurrent validity.

Design

To address the preceding questions, the investigator

conducted four factor analyses. First, each individual

instrument was subjected to a factor analysis. Second, a

factor analysis examined the scale scores of the three

Enneagram instruments together, addressing questions one

through four. Third, a factor analysis examined the scale

scores of each separate Enneagram inventory and factored

them with the VPI scale scores, addressing questions Five

and Six. Finally, a composite factor analysis pooled the

scale scores of all three Enneagram inventories and the

VPI, again addressing questions Five and Six.

85

Subjects

Participants in the investigation were obtained

primarily from student pools in two university settings:

Texas Tech University (Tech) and the University of North

Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW). The 335-person sample

contained (1) students who attended academic-career

workshops offered at both Tech and UNCW, (2) students

needing experimental credit from a psychology undergraduate

research pool at UNCW, (3) participants in a freshman

orientation course at UNCW, and (4) participants in career

workshops offered through the departments of Continuing

Education for the Wilmington, NC, Lubbock, TX, and Tulsa,

OK, communities. Subjects ranged in age from 17 to 67

years of age. The majority of individuals (75%) were

classified as undergraduate college students and the

remaining subjects (25%) were comprised of three younger

adolescents, high-school graduates, college-graduates,

graduate students and professionals. Males accounted for

39% (n=129) of the sample, and females accounted for 61%

(n=206). Anglo-Americans constituted 80% (n=267) of the

sample, African-Americans constituted 9% (n=29), and other

races numbered 2% (n=6). Those who did not report their

race accounted for the remaining 9% (n=33). A complete

summary of subject data is presented in Appendix A.

86

Instruments

The inventories developed by Wagner (1981), Cohen and

Palmer (1988), and Zinkle (1974) classify people according

to Enneagram typology. These instruments (Appendix B)

were chosen based on published data regarding reliability

and validity (Palmer, 1988; Wagner & Walker, 1983; Zinkle,

1974). This investigator chose the Holland Vocational

Preference Inventory (1985) as a comparative measure. A

wealth of empirical support for the VPI's typology prompted

its selection (DiScipio, 1974; Wakefield & Doughtie, 1973;

Ward, Cunningham & Wakefield, 1976). Essentially, this

study sought to use a well-known typology (Holland's),

which was developed in the West, for the purpose of

evaluating a lesser-known typology (the Enneagram), which

was developed in the East.

Wagner Inventory

Jerome Wagner's Enneagram inventory (1981) has 135

items. It consists of statements concerning personal

attributes and motivations to which subjects respond in a

dichotomized fashion: either "Yes (the item characterizes

me)" or "No (the statement does not characterize me)."

There are 15 of these stimulus statements, which constitute

a separate scale for each of the nine types. The sum of

the "yes" responses yield the raw score for that scale, and

the scale with the highest raw score determines the type

87

assigned. A jury of experts on the Enneagram system and

theory selected the items for inclusion in the inventory.

Wagner and Walker (1983) reported their efforts to

compare their Enneagram inventory with the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator and the Millon-Illinois Self-Report Scale.

Two-thirds of the original sample responded to a follow-up

survey. Between 79 and 100 percent of respondents for each

type rated themselves as the same type that they had

initially judged themselves to be. Using a more efficient

measure of type stability and, thus, reliability, Cohen's

kappa coefficient was computed for each of the nine types,

and yielded coefficients between .76 and 1.00.

To establish concurrent validity, Wagner and Walker

performed one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) between each

of the Enneagram types and the Millon-Illinois scales and

both the Myers-Briggs raw scores and converted scores.

Significant results were obtained for all comparisons

ranging from p <.05 to p <.0001. This demonstrated that

persons judging themselves to be a particular Enneagram

type consistently scored high on the same scales of both

the Myers-Briggs and the Millon-Illinois inventories.

Cohen-Palmer Inventory

The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory (Palmer, 1988)

has 108 statements concerning behavioral tendencies, with a

total of 12 items per each type-scale. Subjects must

88

respond either that the statement is "like me" or "not like

me." Cohen and Palmer propose that the scale with the most

"like me" responses indicates the subject's type.

To concurrently validate their instrument, Cohen and

Palmer performed one-way ANOVA using post-hoc comparisons

between their inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory (MMPI). Significant differences were

found in the way the Enneagram types scored on four

clinical scales of the MMPI. These were depression,

psychopathic deviation, psychasthenia, and social

introversion.

One-way ANOVA comparing the Cohen-Palmer Inventory

with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) indicated

significant differences on the MBTI continuums. Enneagram

Types Three, Seven, Eight and Two corresponded with

extroversion and Types Five, Nine, One, and Six

corresponded with introversion. In other MBTI scales Types

Seven, Eight, and Six were closest to the intuition side.

Considering the thinking-feeling scale. Types Eight, Five,

One, Six, and Seven fell closer to the thinking pole, and

Type Four corresponded with the feeling pole. No

significant differences arose on the perception-judgment

scale.

These results indicated that Enneagram types, as

classified by the Cohen-Palmer Instrument, tended to score

consistently and significantly in certain directions on

89

both the MMPI and the MBTI. These statistically

significant results provided evidence that the CPEI

possessed a modest degree of validity.

Zinkle Inventory

A total of 225 items comprises the Zinkle (1974)

inventory, which has 25 items to sample each of the nine

Enneagram types. Unlike the other inventories, 19 scale

items are "false-keyed," meaning that these items are

indicative of type qualities if denied. Therefore, these

items are added into the total if answered appropriately.

Each scale samples the cognitive, affective, and behavioral

domains with items concerning likes, dislikes, feelings,

motivations, and actions. A jury of experts decided which

items to include originally in the instrument.

To determine validity, Zinkle administered the

inventory to 76 subjects who studied the Enneagram system

and were typed in a group process. Results demonstrated

that 56% of the subjects achieved the same type both in the

groups and on the inventory. Nine percent achieved

conflicting classifications when labeled by the group

versus the inventory. In contrast, 35% did not achieve

inventory results that typed them as one specific type.

To determine item stability, 56 subjects took the

inventory under test-retest conditions, one month apart.

90

Item stability correlations ranged from a high of .98 to a

low of .58, with 12 items in the latter category.

Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI)

Holland's inventory consists of 160 occupational

titles to which a subject responds by indicating his or her

interest, or lack thereof, concerning each title.

Responses are dichotomous and assume a point-to-point link

between occupational titles and occupational choice. The

inventory yields scores for each of Holland's six

personality types. It also gives information about other

personality variables. Other scales on the instrument

include Self-Control, Masculinity-Femininity, Status,

Infrequency (of Response), and Acquiescence, providing a

total of 11 scales. According to Holland (1985b),

respondents must be over 14 years of age and possess at

least normal intelligence.

The VPI's manual (Holland, 1985b) stated that the

purpose of this inventory was to be a brief personality

assessment as well as an interest inventory. Shepard

(1989), in the Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, wrote

that the VPI yielded useful data about work style, work

typology, and specific occupational interest. He asserted

that the underlying theoretical constructs were sound.

Shepard cautioned that the validity of the VPI

91

was dependent upon the individual having had sufficient

exposure to occupational titles.

Rounds (1985) reviewed the 7th edition of the VPI,

which is substantially the same as the 8th edition, that is

used in this study. Rounds criticized the VPI, citing the

manual's lack of supporting research for the assumptions of

personality assessment. Furthermore, the supporting data

presented were derived from correlational studies of paper-

and-pencil tests, which did not control the bias introduced

by the method.

Rounds (1985) remarked that Holland portrayed the VPI

personality scales as continuous dimensions for personality

interpretation, and the evidence did not support this. The

scales were treated as categories, however, for the

vocational assessment interpretation, and the data seemed

to better support this. Rounds mentioned that the

supporting evidence for the use of classificatory rather

than dimensional interpretation consisted of the following:

heterogeneous item content, greatly skewed raw score

distributions, low average item endorsements, and moderate

to high scale intercorrelations. In support of the VPI, he

reiterated the evaluation of previous reviewers, stating

the usefulness of the RIASEC scales to assess Holland's

proposed occupational-interest types.

The test-retest reliabilities on scores were moderate

though somewhat unstable over a period of four weeks.

92

Correlations ranged from .56 to .79 for the six scales.

Rounds suggested an examination of the stability of the

code types. In addition, internal consistencies assessed

by corrected odd-even reliabilities were moderately high

overall, but more adequate for males than for females (.80-

.90 versus .68-.85).

Holland's VPI has been the subject of a number of

factor analytic studies (Athanasou, O'Gorman & Meyer, 1981;

DiScipio, 1974; Hales & Harman, 1978; Richards, 1968;

Wakefield & Doughtie, 1973). In general, the research

found between three and six factors for scale factor

analyses and greater numbers for item factor analyses. The

factors did not always have the same content as postulated

by Holland. Suffice it to say that the VPI appeared to be

an adequately validated instrument for research purposes.

Procedures

Data collection began with the administration of a

brief questionnaire to obtain relevant demographic data

concerning age, sex, ethnicity, education, and occupation

(Appendix A). Next, the subjects received the four

inventories in the following order: Cohen-Palmer

Inventory, Vocational Preference Inventory, Wagner

Inventory, and the Zinkle Inventory. In six workshops, the

order of instrument administration (Appendix C) was varied

to ameliorate possible bias due to the order of

93

administration. Subjects received instructions to complete

all items on the inventories. To further avoid biasing the

results, investigators did not identify any of the

instruments as personality measures.

Group testing was the format used for gathering data.

Subjects were solicited in sufficient numbers to ensure

factor stability (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). The target

goal of 300 subjects was surpassed with the acquisition of

335 subjects. With 38 variables, a satisfactory subject-

to-item ratio of 1:9 was obtained.

Each inventory was subsequently hand-coded onto

National Computing Systems answer sheets for computerized

scanning. Two people checked each sheet for accuracy. On

all instruments, subjects responded to questions in a

dichotomized format, as either "yes" or "no"; "like me" or

"not like me."

Analysis of Data

In the analysis phase of the study, the Statistical

Analyses System (SAS) version 6.06 was used to generate the

iterated principal factor analyses with orthogonal

(varimax) rotations of the factors. Kaiser's (Cerny &

Kaiser, 1977) Measure of Sampling Adeguacy was obtained for

all analyses. The index is a summary measure of the

difference in magnitude between the partial correlations

and the original correlations. The Measure of Sampling

94

Adequacy indicates whether sufficient variables are

intercorrelated and, thus, appropriate for the common

factor model. Tinsley and Tinsley (1987) note that values

above .80 are highly desirable, whereas values below .50

are unacceptable.

Four factor analyses were performed (a) using only the

scale scores from each individual inventory, (b) combining

the Enneagram scale scores from all three inventories, (c)

taking each Enneagram inventory individually with the VPI,

and (d) analyzing all four inventories, using all Enneagram

scale scores and VPI scale scores to determine the number

of factors present. Theory and research (DiScipio, 1974;

Riso, 1987) persuaded the investigator that there was

likely some dependence between the factors. Enneagram

theory does not postulate the independence of the nine

types, nor did previous research on the VPI offer support

for the independence of Holland's types. Theoretically,

the normal procedure is to use an oblique rotation of the

factors; however, a comparison of the orthogonal and

oblique procedures for these data demonstrated that there

was little difference in the definition of factors.

Following the suggestion of Tinsley and Tinsley (1987), the

factor loadings achieved by use of the varimax criterion

are reported below.

Squared Multiple Correlation coefficients were used as

the initial estimates of communality. The coefficients

95

measured the strength of linear association among the

variables, providing a further index of the appropriateness

of factor analysis. Iterated Squared Multiple Correlations

were generated in order to produce the best estimates of

communality. Although not commented upon, final

communality estimates were produced to give a post-rotation

estimate of the amount of variance that each variable

shared in common with other factors.

The investigator determined the number of factors to

be retained by using multiple criteria. The first was

Cattell's (1966) Scree test, which plots the eigenvalues

and retains all factors prior to the "scree," a point at

which the shape of the curve becomes horizontal. Because

most plots had multiple screes, this criterion alone was

insufficient. A second criterion. Kaiser's (1960) method

of selecting eigenvalues equal to or greater than one, was

used as an estimate of the minimum number of factors to

include. The third criterion was the percentage of

variance accounted for by the last factor, after rotation.

Fourth, the total proportion of common variance accounted

for by the factor solution constituted another criterion.

Finally, the fifth criterion was based upon the

interpretability of the factors.

To demonstrate the application of these criteria, one

might consider an example of the progression of logic.

First, the investigator should examine the scree and the

96

number of eigenvalues equal to or greater than one. The

number of each of these would help to establish the minimum

bound for the number of factors. Second, the percentage of

variance accounted for by the rotated factor solution

should be noted. A five-factor solution that accounts for

60% of the total variance may be preferable to a three-

factor solution that accounts for 50% of the variance.

Third, the percentage of variance accounted for by the last

factor may influence the number of factors determined to be

optimal. A final factor that contributes one percent of

the variance may not account for enough commonality to

justify its extraction. Finally, interpretability of the

factors would be important. For instance, a five factor

solution may provide factors that are more amenable to

theoretical interpretation, compared to a three factor

solution.

The results of the analyses for this study appear in

the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Analyses of Individual Inventories

The initial analyses factor analyzed each of the

individual inventories. This procedure addressed the

question of whether the instruments measured what they

proposed to measure. Each procedure and its results is

reported below.

The Vocational Preference Inventory

Scale totals for each of the 11 VPI scales were

factor analyzed. Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adequacy,

an index of differences in correlational magnitude,

produced a mean value of .69 for all 11 scales, which

indicated that the variables were sufficient in number to

define the common factors. The individual Measure of

Sampling Adequacy values (Table 3) fell within the range

of .48 (Masculinity-Femininity) to .80 (Artistic). The

.48 value was the only unacceptable score, indicating

that the correlationships of this scale were not

sufficiently contributed to by other scales; therefore,

its appropriateness for the common factor model was

questionable.

Using the previously stated criteria (Chapter III),

the investigator determined that the instrument could

97

98

u o ^ j c >

n en d o

u u • P O 3 <0 T3 PC4 C

r« ro in CM o O

H vD r-<N in vo

o r* 00 CN r O o o O (N

U

c 0 U 0) (U M

(0 c o •H +J

<U U O >

(d en EH -

•O

«0

o

en •H en > i

<a c <

u o u (0

Et4

O

CN m u 0)

n > 0 < -p O .H

o o CO

t ^ O i n v o c n v D o r ^ r ^ v o v o r H t H o o i n s r o

00 ** **

i H

0 4J O

m p[4

> i 4J •rH >

•r4

-P

nsi

(1) CO

Socia

l

c o

u • H 4J 09

- H ^ (d 0) (x:

^ en

0) >

•H 4J lit O*

• H •P

a 9 > c H

n vo

u •H +J n • H 4J V4 •<

(T> VO

rH cd

•r4

u 0 CO

r^ CN

n o

0> rH C (d •r c m 0

.r^ -r^ V4 -P 0 C M 0) 0) > +J C C 0 M U

n tH

1

^ 0 U +J

c 0 o 1 *M rH

0) CO

i H

'^ 1

-Fem

inin

ity

> i •P • r^

c • r^

rH

3 u 09 <d S

(T> CN

(0

3 4J Id 4J CO

r n 1

> i 0 c 0) & 0) V4

<4H

c H

r-r~

0) U C 0) 03

0) •rl

a & 0 <

en

(d >

c cn •H

o +J u

u u >1

-o 0) c •H (0 iH

a u 0) u c (0 •H M 10 >

dP in

vo

rH

CN

73 O C •H (0

u 0) u c <0

•H M (0 >

<0

o

MH

o 4-) c (1) u 0

o CN

T3 0) C

-H «fl rH 04 X H

0) U c Id

•H

Id >

Id 4J 0

99

tr 0 <

^ t^

• tr 0 <

yo 00

•

•o m Q) 0)

rH

(0 EH

3

•H

c o u

CT\ VO

•

II

< m S r-\ r-{

<

MH C M

-P CO

EL4

s

vo vo

•

00 in

•

00 ^

MH C M

JJ CO

Pt4

s

t^ rH

•

o TH

•

c ro

I iH 0) >

o

<

u <0

cr 0)

73 <

c •H rH

a (0

w MH

o 0)

u CO (0 0)

(Q

0) CO

• H (0

o CO

O

H

CO

vo

vo vo

vo vo

o 00

CN

Id 4J o

a) 4J Id g •H +J (S H > i 4J -H rH Id c 3

0 u Id c •H

o CO

o

»

CO

<:

M

cn,

.27

.4

5

.46

.5

5

.43

.48

vo in

100

best be described by three factors (Table 3), which

accounted for 44% of the total variance. Factors one

through three individually accounted for 20%, 15% and 9% of

the total variance. The Artistic (.63) and Social (.69)

personality scales loaded the highest on the first factor

with the addition of the clinical scale. Acquiescence

(.77). Other scales loaded minimally on the factor,

including the Enterprising scale (.37), the Investigative

scale (.34), the Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.41), and

the Infrequency scale (-.37). The high loadings of Type A

and Type S on this factor appears to support Holland's

concept of Consistency; however, the low loading of the

scale for Type I does not as clearly support the concept of

Calculus.

Factor One seems best labeled a Social Sensitivity

factor. This is similar to the factor dimension labeled

"People," which was reported by Athanasou et al. (1981).

It is best described by the adjectives of sociable,

sensitive, energetic, and active, with multiple interests.

Each characteristic is shared by two or more of the scales.

The inverse loadings of the Masculinity-Femininity (MF) and

Infrequency (INF) scales reinforce this interpretation.

Low scorers on the MF scale are endorsing traditionally

female roles which are characterized by a high level of

sociability, in contrast to the unsociable attitude of high

scorers. Additionally, high scores on the INF scale are

101

indicative of unimaginative, unfriendly individuals with

low levels of motivation and little sense of competency.

These characteristics are the inverse of the

characteristics associated with the types and scales which

load positively.

On Factor Two, the Realistic (.67) and Investigative

(.60) scales achieved the highest loadings. The

Acquiescence (.44) and Masculinity-Femininity (.47) scales

loaded moderately. The Self-Control scale (-.50) achieved

a moderate, inverse loading. Again, the loadings of Type R

and Type I support Holland's concept of Congruence.

Consequently, Factor Two is appropriately labeled Social

Aversion. Athanasou et al. (1981) reported a factor

dimension similar to this which they labeled "Things."

This factor would be appropriately described by adjectives

such as pragmatic, unsociable, shrewd, indelicate,

independent and inflexible. A negative correlation for the

Self-Control (SC) scale indicates a lack of social

smoothness and some propensity for impulsivity.

Factor Three loaded most with the Enterprising (.56)

and Conventional (.67) scales, signifying the Consistency

of these types and providing stronger support for the

Calculus concept. Factor Three is best characterized as

the Industrious factor. It is labeled the "Data" factor by

Athanasou et al. (1981). In spite of the conflicting

characteristics of these types, the business-like

102

dedication to hard work constitutes the common thread.

Nonetheless, Type E and Type C achieve this characteristic

in different ways. Type E is filled with a sense of

adventure and energetically approaches many new work

opportunities with enthusiasm. In contrast. Type C is

methodically persistent and orderly in pursuing the work-

ethic. Other adjectives, such as persuasive and

persistent, may also partially characterize this factor.

The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory

Cohen and Palmer's inventory was evaluated by

performing a factor analysis of the scale raw score totals.

An average Measure of Sampling Adequacy value of .77

represented the nine scales of the inventory, meaning that

the variables were sufficient in number and

intercorrelation to be evaluated by the factor analysis

model. Individual Measure of Sampling Adequacy values

(Table 4) ranged from .51 (Scale Three) to .86 (Scale

Four), indicating that the correlation of each variable was

sufficiently contributed to by other variables, which made

each appropriate for common factor analysis.

Four factors, accounting for 53% of the variance, were

extracted based on the scree test and the proportion

criterion. Each factor contributed 18%, 13%, 13%, and 9%

of the variance, respectively. Factor One appeared to be a

general factor, but application of Enneagram theory

103

u o +J c:

>

B (0

u (0 0)

c

(0 u m O 0) 4J o o X Id u CM

r )

)H O +J O Id

>1 -p 0)

-H

CN r^ in t^ •H O CN ' ^

CN rH t^ Ol c^ CN O ^ ro rH

n ( j > r H o o r o o j r ^ i n c r « r o r H O C N i n r ^ O O n

r t ^

dP CTi

00 dP

m

<

0)

c -H

4J

-H

C 0) > 0) CO

r t ^

vo vo

CN vo

0)

iH 0

rH (0

I

c (0 .C EH O

U

CO • H (0

(0

<

u o +J u (0 [14

0)

CN VO r^ rH 00 rH rH <T> O O

r^ VO O rH n CN

n i n n r n v o c r > c N O < T > v O v O O r o c N ^ O C N i n

0) C -P 0) V4 0) 0) £ 0)

( D 0 H 3 > X > 0 ^ C C 5 J3 O -H -H 0) -H -H O t H E H b b C O C O M Z

cn

p

(0 >

0) cn •H

M O 4J U (0

u (0

u > 1

73 0 c: •H <0 >-\ Q* X u 0) u c fO

•H

(0 >

o CN

dP

(N vo

-0 0) c

•H fO

rH

a X

dP 00

I

u 0 >

o

< cn 2

u (0

cr 73 <

c •H

0) u <0

•H M fO >

f-\

(0 4J 0 H

MH 0

4J c 0) u (H 0 Q

dP

in

II

T3 0) C

-H Id r H

a

0) 0 c

ria

Id >

ota

l

H

r H dui

<a w 14H

o 0) iH :3 cn (0 0) 2 cn ~ iH 0) CO •H to Ui

X • H CO

0) >

•H EL4

u o

p[4

0) 0)

o

0) c o

00

vO 00

in

CN 00

i n 00

104

0)

c in

4J

x: •H

CN

n

a; rH

to EH

• H 4-> c o u

r-t~-

• ** II

r-^

Id +J 0 H

• • (0 0) 4J Id g

•H 4J m u > i

4J •H ,-i Id c 3

0 o •-i Id c

•H b

c 0) > (U CO

X •H CO

0) >

-H CL4

v 3 0 fL4

0) 0) v x:

0 ? H

0) C o

in CN

•

r r--

•

o ^

•

CN ^

•

o o

• rH

00 »*

•

** in

•

105

suggests the name of Fear and Repression. The highest

loading factor-scale correlations were achieved by the

scales for Type One (.63) and Type Two (.65). More

moderate loadings were displayed by the scales for Type

Nine (.59) and Type Six (.49). Finally, Type Four (.33)

achieved the lowest loading.

While the composition of this factor does not easily

make intuitive sense, it may be explicated by the

application of Enneagram theory. Types One and Two are

wings, according to Enneagram theory. Therefore, one would

expect a certain proportion of individuals classified as

each type to endorse characteristics of the other. Because

Type Nine is a wing of Type One, the same line of reasoning

applies. When considering the presence of Type Six, note

that a line of integration-disintegration (movement)

connects it with Type Nine. Thus, some relationship is

expected. Finally, Type Four is connected between Type One

and Type Two by lines of movement.

Looking at the questions that Cohen and Palmer have

included on the scale for Type One, the representative

qualities of criticism and perfectionism are useful in

defining Factor One. Items from the scale of Type Two

connote the concept of human relationships, with emphases

on giving and receiving. The scale for Type Nine seems

best described by the term passivity. What each of these

types appear to share in common can be described by the

106

concept of repression. Type One retains self-control by

repressing emotions. Type Two represses expression of the

true self in order to preserve relationships. Type Nine

represses emotions in order to preserve the peace.

Factor One can further be defined by scale Six, which

seems best described by the concept of fear. Scale items

seem to tap into the fear of success, the fear of imagined

threats, and the fear of powerful people. One might also

say that fear contributes to the defense mechanism of

repression used by the previously mentioned types.

Finally, the scale for Type Four contributes a melancholic

quality of moodiness to the factor's definition.

A second extracted factor. Social Ambition, was more

amenable to interpretation. Two type scales loaded on this

factor. Factor Two was most highly correlated with the

scale for Type Three (.97). A second scale. Type Eight

(.36), loaded on the factor. This factor largely indicates

the endorsement of items best described as ambitious,

competitive, and achievement-oriented. The social arena

is an important part of the picture because it is the

background against which these behaviors are set.

The third factor extracted, the Anxiety factor, was

defined by four variables. The scale for Type Six (.72)

loaded predominately. The scale for Type Five (.53)

correlated moderately with the factor. The scales for Type

107

Nine (.39) and Type One (.33) were minimally correlated

with the factor.

Type Six and Type Five serve as wings for each other.

Consequently, their relationship is not surprising. These

two types share attributes that likely help to define this

factor. Both are insecure and high-anxiety types who see

the world as a threatening place. This has a negative

impact on the development of relationships. Each of them

is in the Doing triad and consequently has difficulty with

taking action.

Type Nine is related to Type Six through their

connection by the lines of movement. A Type Nine

disintegrating to Type Six would likely experience great

anxiety. Type One is also related to Type Nine as a wing.

Both are prone to repress unpleasant parts of their

personalities. Each has introverted tendencies and can

avoid taking action as well; one due to the need to act

perfectly, the other due to the desire to maintain peace at

all costs.

It seemed appropriate to extract a fourth and final

factor. This factor, designated Excess, received its

definition from three variables. The scale variables. Type

Four (.47) and Type Seven (.47), loaded moderately on this

factor. A third variable. Type Eight (.39), attained a

lower loading.

108

Scale items for Type Four indicated emotional excess

and extreme moodiness. A melodramatic quality is apparent

in examining the scale items. Drama and excess of a

different kind were represented in the scale for Type

Seven. This scale reflects a personality dominated by

excessive interests and activities. Continuing with the

theme. Type Eight depicts a personality dominated by

excessive aggression. Confrontation and provocation are

the hallmarks of this scale.

The Wagner Enneagram Inventory

Analysis of the nine variables (scales) for the Wagner

inventory produced an average Measure of Sampling Adequacy

value of .79. Individual values (Table 5) for each of the

scales ranged from .60 (Type Three) to .88 (Type 7),

suggesting that the variables were all appropriate for the

common factor model. Subsequently, an iterated principal

factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed.

A five-factor solution was the most amenable to

interpretation, and it extracted 59% of the total variance.

Individual factors contributed 23%, 14%, 9%, 7%, and 6% to

the extracted variance. Type scales Four (.63), Five

(.77), Six (.73), and One (.63) correlated most with factor

one. Scale Seven (.39) attained a lower loading on the

factor. Consideration of Enneagram systemic theory

suggests that these variables did not randomly appear on

in

109

u 0 4J o (d Pt4

m m 0) u X u

V O C N r H T f V O O O ^ O r H O ^ O r H ^ n

CN

in dP vo

> 1 u o C

> C

B (0 iH

to 0) c: c u iH

in 0) c

Q) 0>

i3 to EH

(0

0)

4->

cn • H cn > i

• H (0 c < M O +J u to

iH U 0) O O4 •P H U (U Id a:

n

V4 0 -p 0 Id P«

V4 0) .;*! Id E (1) 0 Id (D 0

CN

u o O

4J C c o 0) - H

e -p 0) Id

0) c - H 0)

Id x : - H

< o

> 1 4J

u rH 3

o 0)

Vl CD

o c 0 Id rH ta Id

•H o o

CO

i n o o v o v o o c N c y ^ v o r H V O C N C N O C N C N O r H

CM

o ^ ' * O O v O v O O O O O O r H C N O r H O H r H t ^

v o c ^ r H o O l n r - ^ o c N i n r H r ^ r H C N O r H i n C N

n vo

in CO rn r rn a> rH o vo t^ r> n o

vo

0) C o

0) 0) V4

^ *

C 4J u (0 0) x: 0) 3 > X > o> c 0 -H -H (1) -H -H b b CO CO H 2

cn p

• H rO > C

•H

iH O +J U to

U to

> i X)

T3 0) C

•H to

r H a X

EL)

0)

CN VO

00 CM

CN

CN

dP

dP

cn

dP

c •H

to

a X

ExJ

nee

to •H M to >

t H

to 4J 0

23%

59%

II

V 0)

lair

a X

VM

o u c (0 •H

v to >

4J

c (U u iH 0) cu

0) u c (d

H

Id >

Id

0 H

cn

< I iH 0 > o

> 1 u to

cr Q)

T3 <

c

a to

0) iH D cn to 0)

cn

VH

cn •H to

0) C

•H 2 :

-P

•H

c > tl)

CO

X H CO

0) >

00

< cn

V4

O ta

0) 0)

00 00

00

vo

00

o vo

0)

c O

00

c

110

in

Q) f-i

Xi (0 H

•0 0) o c • H 4J

c o u

0)

c CN

rH n

• in

II

H Id 4J 0 EH

• • CD (U 4J Id E

-H 4J (D U

> i 4J •H H Id c 3

0 O

H Id c

•H Ik4

4J JC

cn •H Ixj

c (U > 0) CO

X -H CO

tl) >

-H ta

U 3 0 l>4

0) 0) M

EH

0 5 H

(D C o

a\ n

•

CN '^

•

cn in

•

00 vo

•

o r>-•

H VO

•

VO **

•

^ r»

•

Ill

the factor but that their occurrence reflects certain

dimensions and interrelationships of the types as measured

by the inventory.

It is of theoretical significance that Type Five

loaded on the factor with each of its wings. Types Four

and Six. Each of these types, as measured by the scale

questions on the Wagner inventory, share a quality for

which the factor is named. Social Insecurity. The

questions on the scale for Type Four express a sense of

moodiness, alienation, and the sense of being

misunderstood. Scale items for Type Five appear to measure

withdrawal and social alienation. Additionally, items

measuring Type Six behavior symbolize social anxiety,

indecisiveness, and the fear of authority figures.

Type One, which experiences social difficulties due to

perfectionism, links to Type Four via the line of

integration-disintegration. Type One also connects by the

line of movement to Type Seven, which in turn connects to

Type Five. Consistent with Enneagram theory, one would

expect that an integrating Type Four would endorse some of

the characteristics of Type One, moving from a self-

absorbed subjectivity to a satisfying relationship with

objective reality. Conversely, a disintegrating Type Seven

would also endorse some of the characteristics of Type One,

moving from a state of scattered mania to a compulsive

focus on one objective. Such a move would represent an

112

attempt to regain stability and self-control. The

relationship of Type One to these other types, via the

lines of movement, may explain why the scale for Type One

received a high loading on this factor. Finally, Type Five

disintegrates toward Type Seven in times of stress. This

represents an impulsive and erratic attempt to move out of

the frustrating realm of inaction, reestablishing a

connection with reality.

The second factor extracted was named Achievement

Orientation. Type Three (.71) correlated the highest with

this factor. Moderate correlations appeared between Factor

Two and Type One (.56) and Type Eight (.50). Considering

the high loading of Type Three, the investigator gave

greater weight to the questions for that scale when

defining the factor. Each of these types shares primarily

two characteristics in common. One characteristic is the

dedication to work and achievement. A second

characteristic, which represents a logical correlate, is

the ability of each of these types to repress their

emotions. Type One represses emotions in the pursuit of

perfection. Type Three represses emotions because they

interfere with competition and achievement. Finally, to

maintain a sense of power and self-confidence. Type Eight

represses emotions which could undermine his or her

strength.

113

The third and fourth factors are each synonymous with

a particular scale in that only one variable loaded on

each. Thus, Factor Three is named the Peacemaker factor

because scale Nine (.78) was the only significant loading.

After the same fashion. Factor Four is named the Helper

factor because scale Two (.60) alone loaded noticeably on

this factor.

Factor Five for the Wagner scale is essentially the

same as Factor Four on the Cohen-Palmer inventory and

therefore named the Excess factor. The variables loading

most notably were the scales for Type Four (.44), Type

Seven (.40), and Type Eight (.34). It appears to measure

the excessive moodiness of Type Four, the excessive

activity of Type Seven, and the excessive aggression of

Type Eight.

The Zinkle Enneagram Inventory

For the Zinkle inventory, an average Measure of

Sampling Adequacy of .68 indicated an acceptable level of

interrelationships between the variables. Individual

values (Table 6) for the type scales fell within a range

from .51 (Type Eight) to .75 (Type One), demonstrating the

appropriateness of the data for common factor analysis.

Five interpretable factors were extracted, which accounted

for 62% of the total variance. Factors one through five

contributed 16%, 13%, 13%, 11%, and 9%, respectively.

in

114

u Id O -H +J c U 0) Id Q ta

r ^ c N O O ^ C N O o n ^ ' s j ' O r H O O H H ' ^ O t ^

o 00

dP cn

U O

c > C

B (0 u o to

c c El]

0) >

•H

CO

u

O

O Id

c o

•H (D

O +J CD -P -H > o CO (d Id o x 1X4 cu -P

X a

c o

•rl CD

H 3

a E O ta U

CN vo cn H ^ n vo H VO CN CN CN H i n

H O O CN

o i n H c r > r * o o c r > c N v O H r O H f O r ^ O O H

in dP

n

0 vo i H

^ : (U c

i H - H

to E-t Q)

4J

cn •H cn

•H to c <

IH o 4-) u to

E L .

CN

u 0 -p o Id

ta

H Id

-H 0 0 CO

c 0 •H m 0] 0) v CP 0> <

u o 4J O Id ta

Id

Id

Tl

-p •H 15

v o o i H v o o i n c N i n C N O V O O H O H O O o

.;)• r^ m O O^ H CN

^ o o ov in CN o CN o

(1) a > i E-t

0) c o

0 ^ EH

0) 0) ^ JS EH

Ul 3 0 1X4

0) >

•H b

X H CO

c 0) > 0) CO

4J

s: CJi

•H »

0) c •H 2

cn 0) p

i H to > c 0)

•H E£]

iH O 4J u to

EL4

u to ExJ

> i

i3 T3 0) C

•H to

nH

a X

Ex] 0) U c to •H iH to >

o CN

dP n

CN

13 0) C

•H to

rH a X

ELI

Q) U c to

•H IH to >

to 4J O E^

«4H O

4->

c u iH 0 El<

dP i n CN dP

CN v D

-a o c

•H Id H

a X u 0) u c Id

H u (d > Id

o E-i

115

vo

0) i H

i3 to

EH

-a 0) D C

•H 4J

c o u

CX) vo

•

II

< w S •H r H

< 1 iH <D > O

• •

^ ^ < w s

> 1

u (0 3 0^ Q) T3 <

CP c •H

i H

to m I W

0

0) u 3 cn to 0) S cn

iH 0) cn

•H to ^

0) c - H

z

4J J : 0^

- H

u

c 0) > 0) CO

X H CO

0) >

•H (X4

V4 3 0 CK

(1) 0) u

0 5 H

0)

o

ro vo

•

H i n

•

in vo

•

o t ^

•

00 vo

•

<T> VO

•

r vo

•

(y> vo

•

in

•

00 i n

• in

II

H Id 4J 0 EH

• • CD 0) 4J Id E

•H +J 0) Cd

> i 4J •H

1

Id

c 3

0 o H id c

0) c •H 2:

+ j £ 0>

•H

u

c 0) > 0) CO

X - H CO

0 >

•H b

U 3 0 Pu

0) (U V4

J : H

0

^

0) c o

o vo

•

^ r-

•

r i n

•

(T> i n •

r i n

•

o CTi •

VO i n

•

00

•

^ vo

•

116

The first factor. Withdrawal, correlated most

significantly with Type Four (.90). Type Five (.59) and

Type One (.44) attained more moderate loadings on the

factor. Each of these three types is systemically related.

The Type Four scale constitutes the single, most definitive

variable for this factor. As measured by the Zinkle

inventory, the scale items seem to encompass the qualities

of emotional sensitivity, withdrawal and self-absorption,

and social alienation. Looking at Type Five, the wing of

Type Four, the items from the scale signify withdrawal,

preference for cognitive activities, and social distance.

Type One, connected with Type Four by the line of movement,

is also highly cognitive, withdrawn, and socially inept.

The endorsement of Type One qualities, however, may

represent movement toward integration for some of the

Type Four respondents. It represents a shift from

subjective fantasy to objective reality.

In further considering the composition of this factor.

Rise's concept of the triads was useful. Each of these

types has underdeveloped the particular ability or life-

task of focus in the triad. In the Relating triad. Type

One has underdeveloped the ability to relate objectively

towards the environment. A need for perfectionism

facilitates the development of unrealistic expectations

that easily alienate the Reformer from the environment.

Type Four, a member of the Feeling triad, has

117

underdeveloped the ability to feel. Rather than

experiencing a healthy range of emotional expression, the

Artist focuses on negative emotions, which leads to

withdrawal into fantasy. Considering the Doing Triad, Type

Five underdevelops the ability to take action and

substitutes an active thought-life in place of performance.

A second factor, the Social Aggression factor,

correlated most with two scale variables. Type Eight (.85)

loaded the highest, and Type Three (.61) correlated well

with this factor. Both of these types share some qualities

in common. Each is socially aggressive, achievement-

oriented and self-confident. They differ in that Type

Eight strives for the goal of power, whereas Type Three

strives for the goal of success.

The notion of Compulsion designates the third

extracted factor. Type Six (.70) achieved the highest

loading on this factor. A moderate correlation was

reflected by Type One (.60). Types Five (.37) and Three

(.31) obtained the lowest loadings worth noting. In

keeping with Enneagram theory, the relationships between

Type Three and Type Six, as expressed by the connection via

the lines of movement, may partially account for their

occurrence on the same factor.

A survey of the Zinkle's questions on the scale for

Type Six reveals a pervasive theme of compulsive doubt.

This is apparent in statements that indicate a need for

118

being certain before acting and needing the approval of an

authority figure before taking action. A similar theme,

compulsive perfectionism, characterizes the guestions on

the scale for Type One. To a lesser degree, the theme of

compulsive withdrawal occupies the scale for Type Five.

Adjectives of coolness and aloofness, along with statements

regarding the avoidance of people, lend support to this

idea. Likewise, the theme of compulsive achievement

resides within the scale for Type Three. Declarations of

goal orientation, continuous work, and achievement

orientation depict the tone of the scale.

The scale variables for Type Two and Type Seven

defined the fourth factor, known as Positive Extroversion.

Type Two (.66) correlated most with this factor, followed

by Type Seven (.56) with a more moderate loading. Both

types share common qualities. First, each of these types

overdevelops the function of their triad. Type Two

overdevelops the use of the ability to feel to the extent

that positive feelings are focused on to the exclusion of

negative ones. In comparison. Type Seven overdevelops the

Doing function to the extent that this type engages in a

never-ending flurry of activity. The Generalist shares the

Helper's propensity to ignore negative emotions. Both

types are highly social and extroverted in the sense of

directing energy toward the environment.

119

Finally, the fifth factor. Denial, was itself defined

by two variables. It correlated most with the scale

variable. Type Nine (.74), and yielded a lower correlation

with Type Seven (.43). These variables seem loosely

related to each other. In the context of Enneagram theory,

one can say that each is a wing of Type Eight. In perusing

the statements that Zinkle has included on each scale, the

quality of denial becomes apparent. The Peacemaker

displays the propensity to disavow the presence of any

conflict or negative circumstances that could deprive him

or her of peace. Likewise, the Generalist displays a

propensity for positive focus, denying both the existence

and impact of negative events, whether in the past, future

or present.

Analysis of All Enneagram Inventories

In the interest of addressing several research

questions, a combined analysis of all three Enneagram

inventories was undertaken. The guestion regarding the

existence of relationships between the inventories was

addressed, including whether the same type scales from

different inventories loaded on the same factors. A final

issue concerned the question of whether nine factors would

be found that were similar to the nine Enneagram

personality types.

120

For this analysis of all Enneagram inventories, the

type scales became the variables used in the iterated

principal factor analysis. An overall Measure of Sampling

Adequacy value of .86 supported the contention that the

data was appropriate for factor analysis. Individual

values (Table 7) ranged from .71 (Zinkle, scale Nine) to

.93 (Palmer, scale One). Consequently, the investigator

proceeded with the analysis.

Six factors, contributing 55% of the total variance,

were extracted for this analysis. Individual factor

endowments to variance were 12%, 12%, 10%, 9%, 6% and 6%

for Factors one through six. Factor number one, named

Ambition, was clearly defined by two types from each

inventory; scales for Type Three and Type Eight were the

only ones to load significantly. Four loadings were

moderately high, including Palmer Type Three (.69), Palmer

Type Eight (.70), Zinkle Type Three (.72), and Zinkle Type

Eight (.75). The Wagner scales for Type Three (.57) and

Type Eight (.57) correlated moderately with the factor.

This factor is identical to Factor Two from the analyses of

both the Palmer and Zinkle inventories. It is also similar

to the second factor from the Wagner inventory. Each type

is socially aggressive and self-confident. Additionally,

this factor indicates the endorsement of items that reflect

ambition, competition, and achievement-orientation.

vo

121

u o u

Id • H c 0)

Id Q ta

o o c N O O C N ^ C N i n ^ r » n r n o o v o O O i H O C N O ^ O O O i H C N O . H

iH in CO r> ^ o CN o in o CN M o

in 00 00 tH tH .H 53> o

I I

cn 0)

• H

o c >

to u (0

c (D Ex3

to

it

CO • H cn

f H to

<

iH o +J u to

ELI

in 0) >

V H O +J

V4

o O Id u

1X4

Id u

n 0)

c 0)

o 4-) U U 0) Id E ta H

(d 04

CN 0) 3 0

-H X

_ c (d •< |x<

u o -p o

c o m

0) +J -H > U (D Id Id o VH (X4 04 4-)

X Ixj

(D ID

o X

c 0

• H CD

H 3

E O O

vo 00 00 ' * O H o o

H in H r^ ^ CO o o o o

vo O i n m i n o o ( y > o o i n r M r n o i n c N r n i n ^ t ^ C M C N r H t H H O H H v O C N O r n H ^ r O

vo

I I I I I

n t^ in n n o H O vo iH H

^ CN O ^ »* vo H H CN n CN O

t ^ O H a > ^ c N c r i ' j ' ^ o o o c r > ' H C N i n v o n n i n r o c N H O t H i n n o o r H O

CTi in

in in

H

o 0

n «* 'i'

^

vo m iH

n CN

rn r

n H

H v o c N ^ ^ ' O ' T H m m O C N C N C n n H O H C N

^

o r~ T H

rn rn

r rH

'3' CN

CN

o CN

o vo o

I I

vo H «* CN

• H « * n ' 3 ' 0 ' i ' i n r n o ( r > c N O O f ^ r o H H H i n i H C N n i n v o

in ^ m r-i O CN vo

^ 00 00 <-• in r~ n n ^ r- o O

I I I I

C7^ H

H

in H

CN

vo

rn

00 H o

in

H

1

VO 04

VO CN

04

o

00 04

CN H

1

0^ 04

O

n

H

vo o

CN

in

5

O

^ 3

-.2

8

in

-.0

6

vo

00

o

r S

in

00

CN H

cn 5

o n

rH

H H

CN ^9

CN

n

rH o H

in tS9

-.0

4

vo ^3

rH rH

in

00 tS]

o

cn tsi

(V

H

0) C -P 0) ( U V ^ O ) ( U X I d ) O V ^ O )

( l ) O V 4 3 > X > O ^ C a ) O V 4 3 > C 5 £ 0 H -H Q) -H -H C > X: 0 H

O E H E H f a ( X l C 0 C 0 W 2 O t H E H & 4 ( x |

U l V 4 l 4 ^ V 4 M > H V 4 V 4 V l V ^ l 4 i H k 4

C +J 0 i i : 0)

X > o c •H 0) -H -H CO CO U 2

0)

0 v<

H EH

( D ( D a ) ( D ( D ( l ) ( D ( D ( l ) ( l ) ( D a ) ( l ) ( l ) E E E E E E E E E C C C C C

Id Id Id Id O4 CU (X 04

Id O4

Id Id 04 04

V4 V4 V4 v^ a) 0) 0) Q) 0) 0) H H H

c c c c ^ ^ .!< i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d H - H - H

0) >

•H

C 4J 0) x : 0)

X > o> c H Q) H -H CO CO W 2

Q) Q) Q) tl) (1) 0) (1)

^ j ^ j«j j < j«: ^ c c c c c c H H H -H -

O ^ I S S I S l S i S I S ^ I S ^ N N N N N N N N t s a

122

00 vo

0) • H JQ (0 EH

Q) 3 C

•H 4J c o u

cn Q) 3

.H to >

o^ •H El]

iH O 4-) U to ElH

x: u to a

> i

X)

•o

c •rH

to .H a X

Ed (D U C to

•H M (0 >

CN

vo

CN

VO H

CN

m

-a Q) c •H to iH Ou X a Q) u

to •H M to >

iH to 4J 0 EH

MH 0

+J c: 0) u 0) 0

vo

<*p vo

dP cn

dP O H

dP CN H

dP CN H

dP in in

II

T3 0) C •H Id H

a X u 0) 0 c Id •H

Id >

ota

l

H

A

= .8

6

w

ver-

All

M

O • •

SA

)

S

>i

u to p cr 0) •0 <

o c •H iH dull

ID W

(4H 0

Q) U 3 cn to

s cn -M Q) cn •H to ^

en (N IS 00

•

CO r^ IS 00

•

P* 00 S 00

•

VO H IS en

•

in t ^ 00

•

^ o IS cn

•

n CN IS 00

•

CN ^

IS r-•

rH a> IS 00

•

cn r^ 04 00

•

00 0^

•

r^ vo Oi t

•

vo H 0* cn

•

in in 04 00

•

M" in 04 00

•

m m 04 00

•

CN 00 04 00

•

H n 04 en

Ot rH N r

•

00 o N 00

•

r» ^ N r>-

•

vD r~ CSl 00

•

in vo N 00

•

^ 00 CO 00

•

n m N 00

•

CN VO

•

H O tsi c n

•

CN 00

^ H

II rH (0 4J 0 H • •

m 0) jj (d E -H 4J (D U

> i

4-) •H H Id c 3 1 0 u H Id

c

cn 3

00

s

r IS

vo IS

in 3

•sj-2

n IS

CN IS

rH IS

cn 04

00 04

r« 04

vO 04

in 04

'3' 04

m 04

CN 04

rH 04

00

•

vo •

o in •

00 in •

<n in •

o •

^ in •

CO in

vO in •

rH VO •

00 in •

m m

•

o vo •

cn 'J •

r-in •

CN in •

m t •

CN VO •

cn N

CO N

r<-N

vo CS]

in N

^ tS9

rn N

CN N

rH N

r in •

00 in •

in »* •

CN VD •

^ in .

CN in •

in r-•

vO ** •

r» in •

ta

123

Factor number two. Anxious Compulsion, receives its

definition from the variables for Types Six, One, and Five

from each inventory. Moderately high loadings were

observed for Zinkle's Type Six (.71) and Type One (.61) and

Wagner's Type Six (.60) and Type One (.55). Zinkle's Type

Five (.48), Wagner's Type Five (.52), and Palmer's Type One

(.46) scales achieved moderate loadings. Minimal loadings

occurred for Zinkle's Type Three (.34) and Type Four (.38),

Wagner's Type Four (.39), and Palmer's Type Five (.34) and

Type Six (.33) .

This factor is similar to the third factor extracted

from the Zinkle inventory. The themes of compulsive doubt,

compulsive perfectionism, and compulsive withdrawal are

repeated for Types Six, One, and Five, respectively.

Characteristics such as alienation, anxiety, insecurity,

and inaction depict other shared gualities. Considering

the presence of Types One and Five, the moderate loading of

Type Four is not surprising. A disintegrating Type One

would be expected to endorse Type Four gualities, as would

Type Five, of which Type Four is a wing. Finally, the

minimal loading of Type Three is not unusual, considering

that it connects with Type Six, by way of the line of

movement. The endorsement of Type Three behaviors by Type

Six and vice versa, is expected.

The third factor appears to reflect primarily the

Cohen-Palmer inventory. This factor carries moderately

124

high loadings from the scales for Palmer Type Nine (.73)

and Type Six (.64). The scales for Palmer Type One (.59),

Type Two (.55), Type Five (.44), and Type Four (.39)

attained modest loadings. Minimal factor-variable

correlations resulted for Wagner Type Five (.34) and Zinkle

Type Four (.33). Due to the diversity of this factor, it

would not be appropriate to interpret it as anything other

than a factor correlated with the Palmer inventory. The

variables that loaded appeared to vaguely correlate by

virtue of the lines of movement and the concept of wings.

The fourth factor was more interpretable. It

contained more items from the Wagner inventory; however,

loadings from the other scales were sufficient to

contribute to factor definition. Moderately high loadings

came from the Palmer Type Four (.63) variable and from

Wagner Type Four (.67). The Wagner scale for Type Seven

(.59) and the Zinkle scale for Type Four (.50) provided

moderate loadings. Then, Wagner Types One (.34), Six

(.31), and Eight (.34), and Zinkle Type Five (.38) loaded

minimally.

Similarities between this factor and the fourth Palmer

factor and fifth Wagner factor suggest this likewise should

be named the Excess factor. In contrast to the previous

factors of the same name, this one more strongly represents

excessive moodiness. Nevertheless, the excessive activity

of the Wagner Type Seven is present. For this factor, the

125

wings of the Wagner Type Seven, which are Types Six and

Eight, load minimally. The Wagner Type Six, which relates

to Type Four via the lines of movement, loads minimally as

well. Finally, the wing for the Zinkle Type Four, which is

Type Five, loads minimally.

The name Positive Extroversion was assigned to the

fifth factor. Its most significant loadings came from

Wagner's Type Two (.70) and Zinkle's Type Two (.63). A

moderate loading was achieved by Zinkle's Type Seven (.45).

Small negative loadings resulted from Palmer's Type Five

(-.31) scale and Zinkle's Type Five (-.32). Each of the

positive scales shares a great propensity for social

interaction and activities oriented towards the external

world. In contrast, the Thinker is prone to social

withdrawal and marked introversion. These complementary

gualities make the factor consistent.

The sixth and final factor was named Denial, much like

the fifth Zinkle factor. It displayed moderate loadings

from Palmer, scale seven (.45), Wagner, scale nine (.57),

and Zinkle, scale seven (.48). Again, the common gualities

included denial of negative circumstances, negative

emotions and their impact.

126

Analyses of Each Enneagram Inventory

with the VPI

A separate factor analysis of each Enneagram inventory

with the VPI provided data for addressing the guestion of

what relationships exist between the VPI types and the

Enneagram types. This step seemed important, because all

scales representing the nine types from the different

Enneagram inventories did not load on the same factors.

Conseguently, this raised the issue that the VPI might

correlate differently with each of the Enneagram inventories.

Analysis of the VPI with the Cohen-Palmer Inventory

Each of the scales representing the personality types

and the clinical scales from the VPI were factor analyzed

together. Analysis of sampling adeguacy yielded an overall

value of .71. Individual Measures of Sampling Adeguacy

(Table 8) ranged from .54 for Holland's Masculinity-

Femininity scale to .83 for Palmer's Type One scale.

Conseguently, scores were judged to be satisfactory and the

factor analysis proceeded. A five factor solution

explained 45% of the total variance with individual

contributions ranging from 5% to 13%.

Analysis produced a first general factor that was

heavily weighted by Palmer items alone. High loadings came

127

iH O

c >

B to M D> to 0 C

c bi iH (U B

r-i to

I

c 00 0

x: 0 O

^ U to Q>

EH 4=

•o C to

>

cn • H cn

. H to c <

O •P u to

E L .

in

V4 0

j-> O Id tC4

(0 3 0 •H ^ •P

m 3 •o c

cn

u 0 -p u Id ta

H Id

•H

o 0 CO

c 0 -H (D >H 0 > <

CN

o Id

-H >

-H

o o

O CO Id ta

•H +J H CD

c 0)

CO

0)

> i EH

^ CN

f -O

H O

n CN

00 in

n vo

CN

o i n c N c n v o ^ o o i n c N O o o o v o O O O C N O H r H O O O O O O

I I

O vo CN H O O

n vo o rH O CN

rH CN vD ^ r CN CN O O H

o o in ON r CN

in vo in r» rH rn vD O

I I I I I

in vo

r~- o O 0 0 H O O O '*

H n v o r ^ ^ r n c n v o c N ^ O H ' I ' O O O O r H

H ^ in in O rH o o

I I

00 CN r^ r^ o rn vo vo ^ O

0 ' * r n ' * r > - r H i n ^ ^ r n m r ^ o o o c N

i n VD CN CN

o o o o I I

u

cto

Id ta

Id u

ene

o

u Q>

aim

04

m m CN H in o CN o O O H O H o

1

v O r H H i n o o r ^ c N ^ v O r H C N i n ^ o o o o v D L n o i n i n o o r H r H r »

OS M < — ' ^ - ^ O CO W CJ CO

|ii4-> C U H C N r n ^ i n v D r - - o o c n S C O M < 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 a 4 a 4 0 4 0 4 0 4

0) >

•H -P Id t7>

0 •H +J - H CO 4->

•H CD 0) >

+J H CO Id

•H -H Id

tn H I C H 0 > i > i

H Id U 4J 4J m c j j -H H H 0 c c c U "^ O H H c:i< j j o H c t^ Q) I 3 H Q) > *w 0 E

>i 0) 0) V4 0) O O Q) 0 U 3 > c c c 5 x : 0 H 0) (1) O EH H ti4 ti4

( D ( D I D ( D ( D ( U ( D ( D ( D ( D V J H E E E E E E E E

C 4J

X > cn c H (D H H CO CO W 2

u 0) E

j j 0 4 J C H (D 0) i d « H p n - ^ ^ ^ , - ^ ^ ^ ^ n ^ . - ^ v ^ o c o t u i d f x ^ - p c b ^ i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d

H < CO w CJ CO z C 0 M < : 0 4 0 4 O 4 0 4 0 4 O 4 a 4 O 4 O 4

cn Q) 3

^H

10 > c cn

•H ExJ

U O

u 10

EL.

x: u to

EL]

> i X3

"O 0 C

•H

to

a X EiJ 0 U c to

•H M 10 >

in cn

cn vo

CN

CN

VD

CN

128

00

0 r H

Xi to E-t

-v 0 3 c •H 4-)

c o u

V 0 c •H (0

nH

a X Ed

0 U c to

•H iH fO >

r H

to 4-> O EH

MH

o +J c 0 u iH 0 a*

dP in

# r~

00

dP H H

( rn H

dP i n

II

•a

lain

e

(2 X

0) u c

ria

Id >

H Id 4J 0 EH

MSA

=

.71

: O

ver-

All

^"^ <

cy

(M

S

to p cr 0 T3 <

o •H i H dui

to Ui

MH

0

0 V4 3 cn to 0 S

cn ^ M 0 cn

•H to tn::

r-» r-> 04 vo

•

vo Oi Oi r^

•

i n rH 04 00

•

"^ 00 04 t ^

•

cn ^ 04 i n

•

CN rH 04 00

•

Inf

Acq

P

I .6

2

.73

.83

4-> vO CO i n

•

ta ^ S in

•

CJ ^ CO vo

•

H u vo

•

m

•

CO vo •

00

•

00 M VO

•

rn « r-•

cn r~

CO ^ 04 vo

04

VO 04

i n 04

04

m 04

CN 04

H 04

H •

00 vo

•

m •

CN **

•

H i n

•

00

m •

o in

•

cr '3' 0 00 < •

c in H

CN 0^

• 00

II

H Id +J 0 H

• • (D 0) 4-1 Id E

H V m ta > i

4J H r H

Id

c 3

0

u H Id

c H b

4J CO

b

s

u CO

U

ta

CO

<

M

DC

r* H

•

00 m

•

cn CN

•

CN 'a-

•

CN i n

•

rn i n

•

00 ^

•

^ i n

•

00 i n

cn 00 04 in

00 in 04 **

129

from Type Six (.81), Type Nine (.74), and Type One (.68).

The remaining moderate loadings resulted from Type Two

(.57), Type Five (.56), and Type Four (.54). Due to the

abundance of variables, it would be inappropriate to attach

any other significance to this factor.

A second extracted factor was virtually identical to

the first factor. Social Sensitivity, obtained from the VPI

analysis. The Artistic (.67) and Social (.67) personality

types achieved high loadings with the clinical scale of

Acguiescence (.74). Minimal loadings came from the scales

for Enterprising (.40), Investigative (.32), and Status,

(.34). Negative loadings were associated with the

Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.40) and the Infreguency

scale (-.33) .

Another Social Aversion factor was identified as the

third factor, identical to the second factor from the VPI

analysis. The Realistic (.71) and Investigative (.65)

types loaded predominately. The Acguiescence (.47) and

Masculinity-Femininity (.41) scales produced lower

loadings. Finally, the Self-Control (-.49) scale generated

a negative loading.

The Ambition factor reappeared as the fourth factor

for this analysis. Unlike the Social Ambition (number two)

factor of the Palmer analysis. Type Eight (.65) achieved a

higher loading on this factor. Type Three (.70) loaded

most predominantly, and Type Seven (.36) provided a modest

130

loading. Although Type Seven (wing for Type Eight) did not

appear on previous factors identical to this one, the great

need for new activities and experiences is consistent with

the theme of ambition.

The fifth and final factor produced by this analysis

was identical to factor three, the Industrious factor from

the VPI analysis. Two variables loaded in the moderately

high range, which were the Enterprising type (.58) and the

Conventional type (.63). No other individual variables

accounted for a significant proportion of the variance on

this factor.

Analysis of the VPI with the Wagner Inventory

Analysis of the VPI and Wagner inventories produced an

average Measure of Sampling Adeguacy of .73. Individual

values (Table 9) ranged from .51 (Masculinity-Femininity)

to .87 (Wagner Type Seven). Having obtained acceptable

values, the investigator proceeded with the factor

analysis. The eight factors accounted for 56% of the total

variance. Separate factors contributed 13%, 9%, 8%, 8%,

5%, 5%, 5%, and 3% in the order of factor extraction.

An eight-factor solution emerged as the best fit for

this analysis. A general factor, composed of Wagner

variables, emerged as the first factor. The highest

loading variables included Type Six (.77), Type Four (.76),

131

00

>1 U O

c 0 > c

B (0

to 0 c c

EL]

U 0

c to

0 0

13 to

EH

to

Cl4 >

cn •H cn

r H to c <

u o

4J u to

EL,

O H

o 4J

(D H

O 4J Id M b4 <

c o

t^ H

u Id 0 4J 4J H U CD Id 0 1X4 X

VO CD 3 O

U H

o n •P 4J U CD Id 3 Jx4 -a

c in

H m VH Id 3 O H 4J 4J O Id 0 0 4-1 (d CO CO

(X4

^ 0 4J O Id

(X4

rn

u 0 4J o Id ta

CN

V4 0 4-> 0 Id ta

H

V4 0 4J 0 Id ta

Id H

o o CO

4-> c 0) E 0) > 0)

-H x: o <

H Id

H O 0 CO

H Id ^ 0) c 0) o

c 0

H 4-> (d 4-1 c 0)

H V4

o

c 0

H CD V (U > •a:

>H 0) c 0^ Id S

tl)

> i H

^ O vo rn ^ o ^ O iH ^ o o o o

CN CN rn o

rn rH in r* H O O H H o

^ rn H CN H Tf O H H H O CN

I I I

^ ^ ^ r o> ^ r* O H CN o H o in

cn vo t^ CN vo o o in ^ o

CN m o vo in o o o o o

r CN o H

I I I I I

^ CN o o 00 cn H CN O H CN in vo o

I I I I

^ r ~ i n o v o o o r ^ c N C N r ~ i n H o o o o o r n o o o o o o o o o

I I I I

00 00 o <n o H ^ H

H cn O CN

r > - O i n i n r n r > r n c N H f ^ H m o o o o

H rn Tt H 00

r~ in cn o CN CN O O CN 00 CN o

m c N O c n v D ^ c n r ^ v o O H r n o r n o o

in O vo CN r O O o o

CN CN O t CN CN in H O O O H O H

m 00 in VO H o o o o

v o « * ^ r ^ r n i n v O C N r n r ~ C N C N O C N i n ^

I I

vD vo r* " * ** r * * r^ VO CN H H o ^

C N v o r ~ r n r n r » r H r H t r ) ^ i n ^ r n o o i n o o o o o o o o

H ^ ' ^ V O O C N r n C N i n O H H C N C N V O C N r - ' i n v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v O r n o t ^ r ^ l ^ i n r H C N

' * * I* • * I I ^ ^

, ^ ^ ^ . . ^ _ ^ ^ ^ _ ^ U t i 4 4 - i C O < H C N r n ^ i n v o r » o o c n O : M < C O W O C O 2 C O M < S S S S S S S S 2

^ Q) > cn H H I 0) c 4->

•H c i d O > i > i S O ) ( u v ^ d ) ( D x : a j +; H C V ^ 4 J 4 - > 0 0 ( D 0 V j 3 > X > C n C

o Id m 0 4J H H c c c 3 x: 0 H H Q) -H H H C T t O H H C C C ( D t U O H H f c C ^ C O C O W Z 4J H H V4 4J 0 H H 3 0 D ] 4 - > 4 - ) H Q 4 C U H C C 0 O ^ ( D V ^ > H V 4 W I S H > H > H > H I H H C D a i d w i t D i 3 H 3 ( i ) a ) a ) ( i ) a ) a ) a ) a ) ( v a ) a ) H ( D H H a ) > i ^ o E - p i 4 H c : c c c c c c c : c Id > 4 J 0 4 J C H CD 0) idMH 3 0 > C n O > 0 > C J ^ O ^ O > 0 ^ 0 > ( U C V ^ O C O ( D i d & 4 4 - ) C O ^ ( d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d i d O i M i ^ C O U U C O S C O M r c C S l S S S S S I S S I S

cn 0 D

to > c 0 cn

•H EL]

U O

4-> U 10 U-,

x: u to

EL]

> i X]

V 0 c

•H to

^H a X

EL)

0 U c to

•H

(0 >

cn

vo O

cn o

in

vo

vO

00 in

CN

132

dP rn

dP in

dP in

0 .H

to

0

c • H 4-) c o u

dP in

dP 00

0 c

• H to

rH

a X Ex]

0 U c to

• H M to >

i H to 4J 0

E H

(4-4

0

4J

c 0 u M 0

dP 00

dP <n

dP rn H

dP vo in

II

•o

ain

e

H 04 X ta

0) 0

c Id H

Id >

H Id 4J 0

( ^ r*-

•

II

<

w s i H •H < 1

0 > o • •

^^^ < W S

> i

u to 3 cr 0 T3 <

C7> c •H

f H dull

to

w 14-4

0

0 u 3 cn to 0 s cn

^

M 0 cn

• H to ^

r- r-IS 00

•

vo H S 00

•

in o

•

«» * * IS CO

•

m o IS vo

CN 00 IS t^

•

H cn 5 r-

•

cr - O r-< •

<4H ^ C VO M .

4-) H CO VO

•

ta H S in

•

U vo CO vo

t

cn U in

•

vO ta r-

•

00 CO vD

•

r^ < r-

•

CN H r-

•

00 05 vO

•

o> cn IS vo

00 r-IS t -

^ H

• H H

II

H Id 4-> 0 H

• • CD 0) 4-1 Id E

H 4J (D W

> i

4-) H H Id c 3

0

o rH Id c H b

r CN IS ^

«

vo ^ IS vo

•

in ^ ^ vo

•

^ Tt IS vo

•

m vo IS in

•

CN H S •*

•

rH 00 IS in

•

cr ^ 0 00 < •

14-1 r> C rn M

4J H CO in

•

ta ^ S vO

•

u ^ CO vo

•

en O ^

•

00 ta rr

•

vo CO t--

•

o < vo

•

o M in

•

r « vo

t

cn o

00 vo 5 rn

133

Type Five (.72), and Type One (.61). Type Seven (.55) and

Type Two (.32) produced lower loadings. Although this

resembles Wagner's Social Insecurity factor, the increased

loading of Type Seven and the presence of the Type Two

loading invalidates that interpretation for the present

factor. Thus, it seems inappropriate to further interpret

this factor.

The Social Aversion factor emerged second in this

analysis. It is substantially the same as the second

factor from the VPI analysis. Type R (.76) and Type I

(.66) loaded heavily. Acguiescence (.53) loaded

moderately, and Masculinity-Femininity (.32) loaded

(-.44) minimally. Again, Self-Control achieved an inverse

loading .

A modified Achievement-Orientation factor appeared as

the third factor, similar to the like-named factor from the

Wagner inventory. Again, Type Three (.74) and Type Eight

(.56) loaded strongly. Type One (.41) achieved a lower

loading than on the previous factor, and the additional

variables. Type Two (.36) and Type Nine (.42), loaded

minimally as well. With the addition of these two

variables, the factor has a stronger flavor of emotional

repression. Type Two and Type Nine engage in repression of

negative emotions.

Factor number four is the first factor to contain

loadings from both inventories. It is named the Social

134

factor because it receives its most significant loading

from the VPI's Social type (.80). Additionally, Wagner's

Type Two (.34) achieves a modest loading alluding to the

characteristic of positive, people-orientation shared by

both types. The low loading of the Acguiescence scale

(.39) reinforces the theme of sociability. An inverse

loading for the Masculinity-Femininity scale (-.63)

supports the interpretation of this factor, in that high

scores on the MF scale indicate the endorsement of more

masculine occupations, which tend to have an unsociable

guality.

The fifth factor, named Social Status, correlated most

strongly with the VPI's Status scale (.70), indicating a

strong self-esteem and the need for upward mobility. The

Artistic scale (.40) received a lower loading in addition

to the Acguiescence scale (.35). The Acguiescence scale

shares the gualities of sociability and self-confidence

with the Status scale. In contrast, the gualities appear

to be absent for the Artistic type. The Type A description

does, however, share the characteristics of sensitivity and

expressiveness with the Status scale.

The Industrious factor reemerged as Factor Six. Once

again, the Enterprising (.58) and Conventional (.69) types

loaded predominantly. The Acguiescence (ACQ) factor (.30)

increased its loading sufficiently to allow it to help

define the factor. The dominance and range of interest

135

relate the ACQ factor to Enterprising type, and the

conventional outlook is shared in common by both Type C and

high scorers on the ACQ scale.

A new factor. Hesitation, appeared in the extraction

of the seventh factor. Moderately high loadings came from

the Self-Control (.57) and Infreguency (.57) scales. The

Acguiescence scale contributed a moderate inverse loading

of (-.42). In explicating this factor, it is useful to

recall that high scorers on the SC scale are inhibited,

constricted, passive, and preoccupied with potentially

threatening or dangerous situations. High scorers on the

Infreguency scale endorse occupations that are culturally

atypical, low-status, and unpopular. Conversely, high

scorers on the Acguiescence scale endorse many conventional

occupations, which expresses an active interest in a broad

range of occupations. Therefore, this positive attitude of

occupational acguisition contrasts sharply with the

hesitating, less ambitious attitude reflected by high

scorers on the previous scales.

Finally, an eighth factor was extracted and named

Artistic. It displayed a moderate loading of .46 for the

VPI's Artistic scale. Additionally, the Masculinity-

Femininity scale (-.32) provided a small inverse loading,

signifying an absence of traditionally masculine

characteristics. These variables together define the

factor by adjectives such as creative, imaginative.

136

sensitive, emotional, and expressive. These

characteristics have traditionally been considered more

feminine in American culture.

Analysis of VPI with the Zinkle Inventory

The scales of the VPI and the Zinkle inventory were

combined for a factor analysis. The initial Measure of

Sampling Adeguacy produced an average value of .69 for all

variables. Individual values (Table 10) proved

satisfactory and ranged from .55 for the Masculinity-

Femininity scale to .76 for the Enterprising scale. Fifty-

three percent of the total variance was extracted in the

seven-factor solution, with individual factors contributing

12%, 10%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, and 5% of the variance.

The Social-Competency factor reappeared with the

extraction of the first factor in virtually the same

configuration as it was on the VPI analysis. The Artistic

(.64), Social (.71), and Acguiescence (.73) scales

correlated most significantly with the factor. Modest

loadings came from the Investigative (.33), Enterprising

(.38), and Status (.38) scales. The Masculinity-Femininity

scale (-.43) and the Infreguency scale (-.33) loaded

inversely.

A Social Insecurity factor emerged second. This

factor was different from the first Wagner factor in that

there was no loading for Type Seven, making this a more

137

c o

H 4J H

r~ O H

iH U O +J 4J O Id

CD c O

1X4 U

rn CN r~ CN CN ^ cn CN H H H H O vO

vo o CN r- CN O CN rn H H

r ^ r ^ O c n r n i n o O ' * H O r H O H O H r H

I I I I

CN cn

> i U O +J C 0 >

in

^ vo in in 00 rn o CN o o rH in vo o cn rn ^ 'if

O O O CN o o

in o cn in ^ rH O O rH

cn CN 00 o o o

I I

00 cn

B to u o^ to 0 c c u 0

f H

c O - H • H tS3

Id

0 f H Xi (0

EH

0 s: 4->

-a c to

P4 >

o cn •H cn > i

f H (0

<

M O 4J U to

E L ,

H O l4 Id H 0 H to 4J O O O Id CO ta

•P c

cn 0)

u o

4-1

u > <

E

c o Id Id u ta 4-)

(D Ix]

CN

u Id O H 4J O O O Id CO ta

> 1 4-1 H U 3 O 0) CD C

H > i o

JH H C o Id (U 4-) H 4-) O O Q) Id o a

Ct4 CO E o o

> 1

vO r^ O p ' t CN r O O O O rH O O

'a- CN 00 O rn o CN rn O H CM H in

in o O H

p- o o

I I

r vo vo vo

o rn in cn in H o o o rn o o O ' * ^ o c N r n ' * o c N ' * ^ i ' H

' * H O ' * r H O O O r H O O O O

00 CN cn in CN CN O H H H O H

o r* cn ^ CN CN O O

i n r n v o r ^ ' i t O v o v D O H v o r n o H r n v D O i n

I I I I I I

CN rn vo in H rn H o H H o o o o

o o o i r H r H O C N C N r n r n o c N r - o o o o o t ^ H C N r ^ r » v o o o i n

r m ^ H 00 vo in O rn vo r rn o O

r n o o r n r n H ' ^ O r H c n r H c n o c n ^ r n r n r ^ O r H O C N O C N O O H

^^ ^ .^ ^^ ^ ^^ {J I x i j J C O ' H C N r ' j T y i n v o r ^ o o c n P : ; M < C O C I ] U C O 2 C O M < t S ] e S ] N t S ] C S ] N t S 9 t S 9 N

0) >

H 4-)

o td H O^ 4J H IS 4-) H m H 0 Id > 0) c OS M

cn c

o H 4J H (D Id

H H o 0

o u 4-) c : 0

p u <

Id c 0

U H Cu P o U 0)

> c 0 0)

4-» H c H

0) 4J c

> 1 4-) H c

H c H E

o c

CO U U CO £

3 0 _ m 0) Id >«H Id 1X4 4J c

(D D

4J

0) 0) 0 m 0)

>H

0) c: o

0) L4 x: EH

U 3 0

tL4

0) >

H

c

> 0) Ex4 CO CO

(1) (D (1) Q) Q) Q) d)

c H

c H

c H

c H

c C C H H

c o M < ^ a ^ a N N c s ] ^ g ^ g

4-> x: 0) cn c H H

0) (1) H H

c c H H

cn 0 3

f H to > c 0 cn

•H

O 4-> U to

EL,

U

to EL] > i XI •o 0 c

•H to

.H a X

EL]

0 U c to •H

to >

CN

cn

cn in

in O

CN

o m

CN

138

in

in

dP VO

-a O 0 -H P

c 0 'H

nH 4J X3 C to O

EH U

T3 0 C

•H to

i H

a Ed

dP 00

0 u c to

•H M to >

f H to 4->

o £-*

(M

o 4-» c 0 u u 0 CL

dP o H

dP CN H

dP rn in

II

"0

ain

e

H P4

tl) 0 c

ria

Id >

tal

0 EH

0^ VD

•

II

< W S

f H f H <

1

1

u 0 > o • •

^^v

<

w s > 1

u to 3 cr 0 TJ <

&>

c: •H rH

to w I H 0

0 M 0 cn to 0 S

cn m

U 0 cn

•H to u::

r~- r>-N vo

•

vo CN

•

in o ^3 r«

•

** o •

cn o N r

CN vo M vo

•

H ^

•

tr vo o r-< •

MH i n C vo M .

4-> ^ CO VO

•

ta in X in

•

O CN CO vO

•

cn U in

•

vo

t

00 CO vo

•

00 < r-

•

^ H r*

•

H CU r>>

t

cn vo a vo

00 00 ts3 in

vo in

• o H

II

•-i Id 4-) 0 E-t

• • OQ 0) 4-> Id E

H 4-1 (D U

> i 4J H H Id c 3

0 u H Id c H ta

t^ f" N ^

•

VO ' J t j in

•

in o N vo

•

' J H N VO

•

m CN N in

•

CN 0^

•

T-t cn N in

•

cr rn 0 00 < •

M-i m C CN M

P 00 CO rn

•

ta ^ S m

•

U rn CO vo

•

CN O **

•

in w in

•

00 CO in

•

cn < x* •

a« M in

.

00 Oi in

•

cn CN tg rn

00 ^ N vo

139

distinct version of that factor. Moderately high loadings

were achieved by Type One (.70), Type Four (.73), Type Five

(.73), and Type Six (.60). Each of these experiences

tension in the social realm for various reasons which were

previously discussed.

The third extracted factor. Estrangement, displayed a

new aggregation of the Zinkle Types. This factor received

the heaviest loadings from the scales for Type Seven (.66)

and Type Two (.63). Type Nine (.50) loaded moderately, and

Types Three (.36) and Six (.30) received minimal loadings.

Although this factor may share some gualities in common

with the previously named Denial and Repression factors,

the term estrangement communicates a difference as compared

to the earlier factors. Types Seven, Two, and Nine each

has a tendency toward estrangement from their negative

emotions. Types Three, Six, and Nine, the primary types,

all are out of touch with or estranged from the central

abilities or tasks in their respective triads. Type Three

is most estranged from feelings. Type Six is most

estranged from the ability to take action. Finally, Type

Nine is most estranged from the relating function,

specifically the relationship with self (e.g., knowing the

self).

Social Aversion returned as the fourth factor. It is

essentially the same as the like-named factor from the VPI

analysis. The Realistic (.67) and Investigative (.66)

140

scales obtained the most significant loadings. The

Masculinity-Femininity (.48) and Acguiescence (.44)

variables produced modest loadings. Finally, the VPI Self-

Control scale (-.35) contributed a small inverse loading.

Factor number five was similar to the previously named

Social Ambition factor. Unlike the other factor, this one

included a small loading from the Status scale of the VPI.

Thus, Zinkle Type Eight (.77) and Type Three (.57) loaded

most prominently on the factor. The VPI Status scale (.32)

contributed a small loading. Conseguently, this factor was

named Social Ambition number two.

Another Industrious factor returned as the sixth one

on this analysis. It is almost identical to the like-named

factor from the VPI analysis. Moderately high loadings

associate with the Enterprising (.58) and Conventional

(.63) scales. No other variables contributed significantly

to the factor definition.

The seventh and final factor. Constriction, is

somewhat like the former Hesitation factor. The Self-

Control scale (.69) produced the greatest loading, and the

Infreguency scale (.32) contributed the least amount of

definition to the factor. High scorers on the Self-Control

scale tend to be passive, inhibited, and prone to worry

about potentially dangerous or threatening situations.

Individuals who endorse a high number of items on the

Infrequency scale indicate a preference for low-status jobs

141

that carry little responsibility. In summary, this factor

seems to reflect a lack of interest in occupations that are

demanding and competitive with high pressure.

Composite Analysis of the Enneagram and VPI Inventories

A factor analysis of all scale score totals was

performed, which included each of the three Enneagram

inventories and the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI).

This analysis addressed the guestion of possible

relationships and factors shared in common by the VPI and

Enneagram inventories. For the VPI, both the personality

type scales (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social,

Enterprising, Conventional) and the clinical scales (Self-

Control, Masculinity-Femininity, Status, Infreguency,

Acquiescence) were included in the analysis. This was done

so that responses to all 160 occupational titles would be

included in the analysis, thus including the total

variance.

Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adeguacy yielded an

average value of .82 for the entire sample of 38 variables.

Individual variables (Table 11) produce values in a range

from .59 (Conventional scale) to .92 (Palmer Type One).

These values indicated that the variables in this sample

were appropriate for factor analysis. An eleven-factor

142

u Id ta

^ o o c n c n o o v o r n H H H H O H O v O H

rn r> ^ CN in rn o H

H r ^ i n c N C N r H m ^ i n i n ^ v o o r n r H ^ f H O O f - H O O O O O O O O O O O O

I I I I I I I I I I I

cn 0

•H u o +J c 0 >

B to u o to 0 c c Ed

O Id ta

cn o Id ta

00

o Id

CC4

o Id

1X4

^ c N v O i n m ^ m i n c N v O r H C N v o v o o r n c n o o O O O O O O H r H O O O H O O ^ J O O r H

O O vo vo in in r~ rH rH .H O O O H

CN CN

*» rn o o o o

I I I I I I I I I I I I

r rn CN o

r n r n O H v o ^ v D r ^ i n o o i n c N C N v o o > o o ^ r n c N v o i n c N i n o O r H r ^ r n v O v O O O O O r n o O O O O O O O O O O O O r H O O O O

r ^ r n r ^ v o i n c N O O ^ O O O O O O O H

r n ' s j - r n o v o o i n o o H H O O O O H H O O

I I

v o o o i n ^ r H ^ ^ r H c n c n r ^ O O ' J ' C N C N i n r N ^ r n c N r n

I I I I I

H O ^ H C N O r » o v o c N ^ H r n o o o H m r ^ v o o H O H m i n o o r n o O H O r H O

I I

O O i n O O C N C N ^ v O H C N r H O O O O O O O O O O O r H

I I

to 0

-H -O Xi c ta (0 EH

vo

O Id ta

C N c n r n c N c n n r ^ v o r n c N r n O O O H O O O O O O O

in r H O vo o

vo r O

CN r ^ c n o i n i n o c N C N c n r - r ^ H C N r n r H v O O r H O O r H C N

I I

PL4

> IM

O

in

O Id

1X4

in ^ ** 00 o H H o o o H o

i n r n v o i n i n o o r n ' * H O H O O O O H

t o

o CN

rH o

vo '*

r>j O

<n o

in O

CN H

r-rH

in o

'* rH

rH o

en CN

CN rH

r in

I I I I I

cn •H cn

f H to c <

u o 4J u to

ELI

O Id ta

m

O Id ta

rn H »* vo O O O rn

f H H c n c N i n o o v o r ^ r ^ r n c n r n r n r n c N r n c N O c N i n H O H O O H O H O O C N O O O O r H t ^ r s l C N r H

^ rH en cn CN O O

I I I I

O ^ c n O O v o r n r n c N t ^ ^ C N O O v o r n r H v O i n v O C N o r n t ^ i n c N O O C N ' * C N v D O O O r n o o o o

m o r- o xJ O O O rH O

^ rn H rn rH CN TH o

I I

CN

o Id

1X4

ON CN CN vD o> rn O H O H O O

in r CN CN

m O

^ v O v O C N v D v O i n c N r n O H H ^ C N O H C N t ^

'S-o

CN CN

rH o

00 CN

rn r-\

CN CN

' o

cn f-i

cn in

CN o

I I I I I I I I I

o Id ta

o c N H ^ ^ o o H O H « 5 r r ^ c N O r - » ^ o i n o ' t o o O ' » o o O H O O O H O O o r ^ v o o i n v o r ^ f H H r ^ ^ H

00 00 rn CN r 00 00 o in vo vo rn o O

— . — » * - . — « , — . ^ - . U l i 4 4 j c O H C N r n ^ i n v o t ^ o o o N H C N r n ^ i n v D r » o o c n O : M < : C O U C J C O 2 : C O M 4 : O 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 : S 3 3 3 3 : S 3 : S : S

143

0

xi to

0

c •H 4J c o u

t - l H

o Id

ElL4

o H

o Id

(X4

cn

Fac

00

o Id ta

t^

o Id ta

vo

O Id ta

in

O Id ta

^ O Id 1X4

in o

CN ' J

' J

o 1

rn H

o H

o CN

in o 1

00 H

^ o

CN H

VO O

1

rn O

1

rn o 1

CN H

CN CN

00 VO

H

o 1

00 rn

cn o

o o

CN

o 1

ON in

vo H

r* H

00

o 1

H H

^ H

1

H H

VO O

1

H

o

en o

rn H

in o

00 CN

ON o 1

vo H

CN H

rn o

vo H

r~ CN

1

r-O

rn in

r~ o

r« o

CN

o

' T H

in H

O H

in O

1

H H

in H

m o

1

o H

1

CN

o 1

in in

in ' i '

rn H

1

r-o

H O

rn o

^ o

vo H

r-o

CN

o 1

CN O

'

H H

^ o

rn O

CN O

vo O

H r

CN H

c 0

H m

averi

u p X ta

rH

ocia

CO

II

^ u 0 4J 0 Id ta

m 0

H 4-) tl)

Aesth

II

rn

ctor

Id 1X4

c 0

H 4J H

00 o dP

rn

cn

U Id ta

CN

O Id ta

o Id

ta

CN ^ c N c n c N C N C N i n r > o o r n r j - H O O H

c N ^ i n v o o o ^ H O r n C N O ' * H O H H O O O

in

H

00 O

CN ^3

o o

cn

rn vo

H in

in

H in

vo ^9

-.07

-.03

00

00

o

cn

CN

O 4J 0 Id ta

Id u 0) c 0) o V4 0) c o> Id :s II

00

u o

4-) O Id ta

c o

H H Id CD

H V^ O 0) O >

CO <

V4 O 4-) o Id ta

0) o c Id E U o

«4H u 0) 04

vo

o 4-> o Id ta

H Id u 0) c 0) o

V4 tn Id 0) c c Ed

H Id

H C tl) o

i n

c o

H 4J Id 4J H m 0) X

u o 4J 0 Id

1X4

4-> H E U O

IM c o o

u o p 0 Id ta

CD CD

c H CD 3

CQ

cn

u 0

4-> u Id ta

iH 0 p u Id ta

U 0 P 0 Id

^ 4

u

u O

4 J u to

ELI

£ U 10 bi

> i Xi

V 0 c •H to

r H a X

EL)

0 U c to •H M to >

CN

i n rn

CN i n

cn 0 P

(0 > c (1) cn

CO r *

rH

rn 00

o cn

CN rn

CN

CN VO

• CN

rn

in

dP rn

cn

dP

dC

dP i n

df> i n

TD 0 C

•H (0

i H a X bi

0 U c 10 •H to >

to 4J O

4 J c 0 u u 0

i n

<*p

r

dP

dP cn i n

Tl 0) c

H Id

r H

a ta tl) u c Id

H U Id >

Id p 0

144

0 i H XH to

EH

0 P C

•H 4J c o u

CN 00

•

II

< OT S

r H

f H <

1 1 (H 0 > o • •

^-^ < OT S

> i U to p cr 0 T3 <

o c •H

r H

a B to OT

vt-4

O

0 U P cn to 0

s cn ^ M 0 cn

•H to u;:

r-04

vo 04

i n 04

^ 04

cn 04

CN 04

rH 04

cr o <

«H

c M

P CO

b S

u CO

o

u

CO

<

H

o::

vo •

o cn

•

' t 00

•

rn 00

•

CN 00

VO 00

•

CN cn

•

i n

r •

rH VO

•

00 vo

•

H VO

•

VO vo

t

ON i n

•

^ r

t

H

•

cn r~

o r*

•

H r

•

t ^ t g

vo N

i n N

^ tS)

rn N

CN N

H ^

ON S

00 S

r S

vo 5

i n S

^ 15

rn ^

CN IS

H

2

ON 04

00 04

rn •

00 00

•

i n 00

•

r 00

•

CN 00

vo r»-

•

o ON

•

cn •

r* 00

r-00

•

H ON

•

i n 00

•

cn 00

•

CN 00

•

i n

•

ON 00

i n 00

•

ON r»

•

en rn N r -

•

00 CN ^ 00

•

H CN

CN CN

II

H Id 4-> 0

EH

• • CD 0) P Id E

H 4-1 (0 ta > i

P H H Id c 3

0 O

H Id

c H ta

f^ 04

vo 04

i n 04

^ 04

rn 04

CN 04

r-i 04

cr 0 <

I4H

c M

p CO

1X4

s

o CO

u

ta

CO

<

M

oc

If) rn

•

CN VO

•

^ in

•

i n vo

•

cn vo

•

vo •

o vo

•

CN 00

•

i n m

•

vo rn

•

r-» ^

•

H VO

•

o ^

•

'd-i n

•

00 i n

•

i n i n

•

00 i n

«

^ vo

•

r tS9

vo N

i n N

^ N

rn N

CN tg

H N

cn S

00

s

r S

vo S

i n S

'* ^

rn »

CN S

H S

ON 04

00 04

r~ in

«

cn vo

•

r vo

•

vo vo

«

VO r-

•

i n in

•

^ vo

t

r« in

•

o in

•

00

•

i n vo

•

H VO

•

r-i

r~ •

• « *

vO

•

rn vo

•

CN vo

•

rn ON r^ vo ^^ i n

• •

O 00 ON vo a vo

* .

145

solution accounted for 59% of the total variance, with

individual factor values ranging from 3% to 14%.

The iterated principal factors analysis yielded an

optimum eleven-factor solution. Most of the factors

strongly resembled those that had appeared on earlier

analyses. The first factor extracted was labeled a general

Enneagram factor and received no further interpretation.

It was defined as such by loadings from 15 separate

Enneagram scales. High loadings came from Palmer's scales

for Types One (.72), Six (.75), and Nine (.70). Moderately

high loadings resulted from Palmer's Types Two (.60) and

Five (.60), Wagner's Types Five (.63) and Six (.62), and

Zinkle's Type Four (.63). Moderate loadings appeared for

Palmer's Type Four (.54), Wagner's Types One (.48) and Four

(.58), and Zinkle's Types One (.54), Five (.51), and Six

(.51). Wagner's Type Seven (.37) contributed a small

loading.

Factor two was a reoccurrence of the previously

discovered Ambition factor. It received high loadings from

Palmer's Type Eight scale (.73) and Zinkle's Type Eight

scale (.80). Modest loadings came from the variables for

Palmer's Type Three (.42), Wagner's Type Eight (.59), and

Zinkle's Type Three (.45) scale.

The third factor. Aesthetics, although similar to the

previous Social Sensitivity factor, is somewhat different

due to a change in the composition of the contributing

146

variables. The Artistic (.70) and Acguiescence (.62)

scales provided the most significant loadings. Factor

definition received further clarification from variables

that loaded modestly. These variables included the

Investigative scale (.39), the Status scale (.47), Palmer

Type Four (.31), Zinkle Type Four (.39), and Zinkle Type

Five (.42).

This scale derives much of its name from the

characteristics of Holland's Artistic Type and the

Enneagram Type Four (the Artist). People scoring high on

these scales manifest creativity, imagination, sensitivity,

emotionality, expressiveness, introversion,

unconventionality, self-revelation, and aesthetic

appreciation. The Holland scales for Type A and

Acguiescence both share the characteristics of multiple

interests and many talents, which supplement the definition

of the factor.

The moderate loading of the Status scale reinforces

the themes of sensitivity, expressiveness, and multiple

competencies, adding a tone of adventure and enthusiasm.

Although at first glance there is an apparent conflict with

the Zinkle Type Five variable, the concept of this being a

wing of Type Four provides a theoretical rationale for

presence of the Type Five variable.

A fourth factor emerged and was labeled Social

Extroversion. Included in this factor are attributes of

147

both the former Social factor and the Positive Extroversion

factor. Two variables contributed most to this factor, and

they were Wagner Type Two (.72) and Zinkle Type Two (.68).

Additional modest loadings came from Holland's Social scale

(.36) and Zinkle's Type Seven scale (.45). Whereas the

Type Two and Type S loadings define this as a strong

people-orientation factor, the presence of Type Seven

reinforces this theme and supports the concept of

extroversion.

Once again, a Denial factor emerged, this time as the

fifth factor. Zinkle's Type Nine scale (.71) contributed

most significantly. Modest loadings resulted from Palmer's

Type Seven (.46), Wagner's Type Nine (.57), and Zinkle's

Type Seven scale (.55). This factor evolves around the

theme of the denial of problems and conflict.

A new factor surfaced as number six. Entitled

Performance, this factor is defined by a loading from each

of the Enneagram Type Three scales. Palmer Type Three

(.67), Wagner Type Three (.65), and Zinkle Type Three (.59)

loaded in the moderate high range. Conseguently, this

factor receives its definition from the description of the

Enneagram's Performer.

Social Aversion reemerged as the seventh factor. It

is identical to the same factor from the VPI analysis.

Holland's Realistic type (.71) and Investigative type (.60)

contributed the highest loadings. The

148

Masculinity-Femininity (.50) scale furnished a moderate

loading. A minimal loading came from the Acguiescence

scale (.34), and a small inverse loading was associated

with the Self-Control scale (-.37).

A general factor associated with the Wagner inventory

became factor number eight. Five variables provided modest

loadings. These included Type One (.45), Type Four (.54),

Type Six (.41), Type Seven (.33), and Type Nine (.37). No

appropriate definition could be assigned to this factor;

therefore, the investigator named it a Wagner-General

factor and interpreted it no further.

Factor nine, entitled Business, partially resembled

the Industrious factor; however, the scale for Holland's

Social type provided a stronger social orientation for the

factor. The Acguiescence scale echoed the gualities of

dominance, enthusiasm and impulsivity associated with the

Enterprising scale, and it also reinforced the social

theme. The Enterprising (.63) and Conventional (.60) types

contributed moderately to the factor. The scales for Type

S (.33) and Acguiescence (.37) provided modest loadings.

Conformity was both the theme and title for the tenth

factor. This factor displayed modest loadings for Zinkle

Type One (.42), Zinkle Type Three (.38), and Zinkle Type

Six (.53). Palmer's Type Four (-.40) provided a small

negative loading. Each of the Zinkle types shares the

common global guality of conformity. Type One conforms to

149

the rational, perfectionistic standards and expectations

that he or she perceives and values. Type Three conforms

to the dominant culture or environment for the sake of

success and the avoidance of rejection. Type Six conforms

to the relevant standards of the group or authority to whom

he or she is loyal. Conversely, Type Four is the epitome

of the non-conformist among the Enneagram types.

Finally, the Hesitation factor emerged once again as

the eleventh factor. It is substantially the same as the

like-named factor number seven on the VPI and Wagner factor

analysis. The Self-Control (.63) and Infreguency (.53)

scales achieved moderate loadings. A small negative

loading was associated with the Acguiescence scale (-.37).

Summary of Findings

Overall, the investigator performed nine separate

factor analyses. An analysis of each individual inventory

initiated the study, followed by separate analyses which

joined the VPI and each individual Enneagram inventory.

Two comprehensive analyses ensued, the first concentrating

on all Enneagram inventories combined, and the second

converging upon all four inventories united.

Considering the individual analyses, three factors

resulted from the investigation of the VPI which were

Social Sensitivity, Social Aversion, and the Industrious

factor. Next, the analysis of the Cohen-Palmer inventory

150

produced five factors, named Fear and Repression, Social

Ambition, Anxiety, and Excess. Five factors emerged from

the Wagner analysis, and they were Social Insecurity,

Achievement Orientation, Peacemaker, Helper, and Excess.

Finally, the Zinkle inventory produce a five-factor

solution which included Withdrawal, Social Aggression,

Compulsion, Positive Extroversion, and Denial.

Subseguently, each Enneagram instrument, accompanied

by the VPI, became the focus of three separate analyses.

First, the analysis of the VPI and Cohen-Palmer inventories

produced five factors, entitled General- Palmer, Social

Sensitivity, Social Aversion, Ambition, and Industrious.

In all, three VPI-specific factors and two Palmer factors

resulted. Second, the VPI and Wagner inventories jointly

produced eight factors. These factors were named General-

Wagner, Social Aversion, Achievement Orientation, Social,

Social Status, Industrious, Hesitation, and Artistic. Five

factors were VPI factors, two were Wagner factors and one

combined significant loadings from both inventories.

Third, the joint analysis of the VPI and Zinkle inventories

yielded seven factors named Social Competency, Social

Insecurity, Estrangement, Social Aversion, Social Ambition-

Two, Industrious, and Constriction. Four factors were VPI

factors and three were Zinkle factors.

Next, the comprehensive analyses proceeded. First,

the combined analysis of all Enneagram inventories produced

151

six factors. Names assigned to these factors included

Ambition, Anxious Compulsion, Palmer-General, Excess,

Positive Extroversion, and Denial. Five of these factors

combined loadings from the inventories and one was Palmer

specific. Second, the combined analysis of all four

inventories produced eleven factors. These were entitled

General, Ambition, Aesthetics, Social Extroversion, Denial,

Performance, Social Aversion, Wagner-General, Business,

Conformity, and Hesitation. Four factors combined scales

from the Enneagram Inventories. Three factors were Holland

specific. Two factors combined both the Enneagram and VPI.

Finally, one factor was Cohen-Palmer specific and the other

was Zinkle specific.

Several themes were prevalent throughout the analysis.

One motif concerned social proficiency and the contrasting

motif of social ineptitude appeared as well. Additionally,

the twin themes of ambition and achievement recurred

throughout accompanied by the related issues of

industriousness and aggression. Type-specific factors were

discovered which included an artistic orientation, helping

and peacemaking. Conversely, psychopathological threads

emerged in several factors concerning anxiety, repression,

compulsion, excessiveness and denial.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The majority of efforts to explicate and validate

Enneagram theory relied upon the lengthy processes of

gualitative research. Although this form of research was

invaluable, it encountered resistance in the community of

social and behavioral scientists. Conseguently,

Enneagram investigators such as Palmer, Wagner, and

Zinkle developed personality inventories in their efforts

to guantitatively evaluate the typology. Their hopes

were to verify the validity of the Enneagram theory by

demonstrating the ability of their instruments to

effectively identify and classify individual

personalities according to Enneagram typology. These

efforts produced promising results; however, it remained

clear that more rigorous and substantial research was

necessary to achieve their ultimate objectives.

The purpose of this study was to examine the claims of

the above authors concerning the validity of their

personality inventories. Using factor analyses, the

investigator searched for evidence to support the factor

validity of the instruments and, thus, the nine personality

types of Enneagram theory. Additionally, the Enneagram

instruments were factor analyzed together with Holland's

152

153

VPI to investigate the possibility of concurrent factor

validity.

The present investigator sought to answer several

guestions through this research project. One guestion

concerned whether the Enneagram instruments measured what

their authors proposed to measure. To address this

concern, each Enneagram instrument was individually

analyzed.

Analysis of Individual Inventories

The factor analysis of the Cohen-Palmer inventory

produced four factors (Table 12), a number less than the

total number of types that the instrument attempts to

measure. One factor, entitled Fear and Repression,

strongly correlated with Enneagram Type One and Type Two.

It also included loadings from Types Nine, Six, and Four.

A second factor. Social Ambition, correlated only with

Types Three and Eight. The third factor. Anxiety, was

predominantly defined by Type Six and Type Five. Small

loadings were achieved by Types Nine and One. Finally, the

fourth factor extracted. Excess, received its definition

from Type Four, Type Seven, and Type Eight.

Results of the Cohen-Palmer analysis provides support

for some of the characteristics associated with different

types, specifically those correlated with the factor names.

Table 12 Summary of Results

154

VPI

Social Aversion

Social Sensitivity

Inciustrious

COHEN-PALMER

Fear and Repression

Anxiety

Excess

WAGNER

Social Insecurity

Social Ambition Helper

Achievement Orientation

Excess

ZINKLE

Withdrawal

Social Agression

Compulsion

Positive Extroversion

Peacemaker Denial

ALL ENNEAGRAM INSTRUMENTS

Ambition

Anxious Compulsion

Cohen-Palmer General

*Excess

•Positive Extroversion

*Denial

* A like-named factor with similar loadings of the defining variables was discovered in an earlier analysis.

155 Table 12 Continued

COHEN-PALMER & VPI WAGNER & VPI

General Palmer General Wagner

*Social Sensitivity +Social

*Ambition

•Industrious

•Social Aversion

Social Status

•Industrious

•Social Aversion

•Achievement Orientation

Hesitation

Artistic

ZINKLE & VPI

Estrangement

Social Competency

•Social Ambition

•Industrious

•Social Aversion

•Social Insecurity

Constriction

COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF ALL INVENTORIES

General Enneagram

+Social Extroversion

•Ambition

Business

•Social Aversion

Performance

•Hesitation

+Aesthetic

•Denial

Wagner General

Conformity

The factor contained loadings from both the Holland and an Enneagram instrument. A like-ncimed factor with similar loadings of the defining variaibles was discovered in an earlier analysis.

156

These results are encouraging, but they do not provide

conclusive proof that the Palmer instrument measures what

is claimed. The scale factor analysis may not provide

sufficient data to support the validity of individual

instruments.

A five-factor solution was most appropriate for the

factor analysis of the Wagner inventory (Table 12). A

Social Insecurity factor was the first to be extracted.

Types Four, Five, Six, and One correlated most

significantly with this factor. An Achievement Orientation

factor appeared, which displayed loadings from Type Three,

Type One, and Type Eight. Two factors were associated with

only one type each. The Peacemaker factor was

significantly correlated with Type Nine. The Helper factor

was associated with Type Two. Finally, a fifth factor

appeared. Excess, which was seen on the Palmer analysis as

well. Types Four, Seven, and Eight loaded on this latter

factor.

Results of the Wagner analysis suggested that this

inventory measured some of the same characteristics as the

Palmer inventory. Specifically, the two inventories each

contained a factor entitled Excess. Additionally, the

Wagner Achievement Orientation factor resembled the Social

Ambition factor of the Palmer inventory. Partial support

for the existence of individual types emerged with the

157

Peacemaker and Helper factors and support for factors

defined by type characteristics increased.

The factor analysis of the Zinkle inventory produced

five interpretable factors (Table 12). The Withdrawal

factor correlated most with Type Four. Modest loadings,

however, came from Types Five and One. Both Type Eight and

Type Three defined a Social Aggression factor, and Type

Six, Type Five, and Type Three loaded on the Compulsion

factor. A Positive Extroversion factor resulted from the

relationship between Type Two and Type Seven. A fifth and

final factor. Denial, received its definition from Type

Seven and Type Nine.

Factors drawn from the Zinkle inventory received their

definition from different assortments of the type variables

in comparison to the other Enneagram inventories. Social

aggression was the single factor most like any previously

produced Enneagram factors. Attempting to account for this

anomaly, it is important to recognize that Zinkle's

instrument provided more guestions per type, taking a

larger sample of behaviors. Conseguently, the different

composition of the factors is not surprising.

In all, thirteen different factors emerged from the

separate analyses of the three Enneagram inventories. The

factor Excess was the only one that was substantially the

same on two different inventories. Although no factor was

consistent across all three inventories, each inventory

158

possessed a factor, defined by Types Three and Eight, that

was similar to a corresponding factor on another inventory.

These factors were Social Ambition, Achievement

Orientation, and Social Aggression. They varied due to the

different loadings between the two major types, as well as

the inclusion of Type One on the Achievement factor.

While the data does not provide proof for the

existence of either nine factors or types, similarities

between some of the factors suggests the measurement of

matching constructs. The results imply that the

instruments may partially measure what they propose to

measure. Notably, the instruments varied in length and

guestion content, thereby sampling the types differently.

Therefore, it is not surprising that like-named type scales

among the instruments do not correlate perfectly or always

to a great degree.

Another guestion regarded what relationships might

exist among the three Enneagram inventories and whether

identically-named scales measured the same constructs. A

corollary issue concerned whether the same personality

types, as measured by each inventory, loaded similarly on

the same factors. These issues were addressed by the

following analysis.

159

Analysis of the Three Enneagram Inventories Combined

The issues mentioned above were addressed specifically

by the factor analysis performed on the scales of all three

inventories combined. Although the factors were not

clearly loaded by the same scale variables from each

inventory, the data (Table 12) was promising. Perhaps the

clearest point of commonality between the Enneagram

inventories emerged in the Ambition factor, which received

loadings from the Type Three and Type Eight scales from

each of the inventories. These types share many

similarities and are often confused with each other. The

presence of these scales suggests that each of the

Enneagram inventories measured the same or similar

constructs with these scales.

The second common factor. Anxious Compulsion,

contained loadings of Type One, Type Six, and Type Five

from each of the inventories, albeit in somewhat different

proportions. Palmer's Type Five and Six loaded minimally

in comparison to the loadings of similar types for other

inventories. The factor was not clean in that Zinkle's

Type Three and Type Four and Wagner's Type Four achieved

minimal loadings. Nonetheless, this factor supports the

notion that the scales were measuring similar constructs,

although not to the same degree.

160

A factor named Excess appeared in the analysis of

Enneagram inventories. In spite of its varied composition,

the factor possessed moderately high loadings from each of

the Type Four scales. This offers support for the notion

that each of the Type Four scales are measuring similar

constructs; however, the mixed nature of the factor

suggests that each of the like-named scales measures

distinctly different constructs as well.

Two final factors supported the notion that the

inventories were measuring similar constructs. One factor.

Positive Extroversion, contained moderately high loadings

from the scales for Wagner's Type Two and Zinkle's Type

Two. Additionally, Palmer's Type Five scale and Zinkle's

Type Five both achieved small inverse loadings, which

correlates logically with the concept represented by the

factor. The absence of Palmer's Type Two scale and

Wagner's Type Five scale raises the guestion of whether

these two scales were measuring the same concepts to the

same degree as the like-named scales.

The other supportive factor. Denial, displayed modest

loadings from Palmer's scale seven and Zinkle's scale

seven. Whereas this supports the idea that these two

scales are measuring this concept, the absence of Wagner's

scale seven raises the issue of whether his scale measures

this characteristic. Another possible explanation for this

inconsistency is that individuals did not consistently

161

endorse the same items or types of items when taking each

of the Enneagram instruments.

To summarize, the combined factor analysis of the

Enneagram instruments offered promising results. Factors

containing each of the like-named types, and in some cases

only two of the like-named types, supported the notion that

the instruments were measuring several of the same or

similar constructs. On occasion, one of the like-named

scales was omitted from the common factor, suggesting that

it did not substantially measure the same or a similar

concept. This may be explained in part by the inclusion of

different items among the like-named scales. Another

explanation would be that subjects responded inconsistently

between inventories.

Data analysis has partially supported the notion that

the three Enneagram instruments are measuring the same or

similar constructs, but only in terms of common

characteristics, and not in terms of type. Support for

this was apparent in that each of the personality type

scales loaded on the same factor as at least one other

like-named scale. At times, however, they either loaded in

different proportions or not at all. Conseguently, there

were not nine separate factors, yielding a one-to-one

association with each of the individual personality types.

162

Analyses of Enneagram Inventories with the VPI

An evaluation of the relationship between Holland's

VPI and the Enneagram instruments was addressed by several

analyses. First, the researcher conducted a factor

analysis of only the VPI to establish the factor structure

of that instrument for the current subject population.

Each of Holland's six personality types loaded

significantly on only one of three factors.

The VPI analysis produced a Social Sensitivity factor

(Table 12) primarily loaded by the Artist and Social type

scales. This factor strongly resembled the "People" factor

found in previous factor analyses of the VPI. A second

factor. Social Aversion, appeared which resembled the

"Things" factor identified by past research. This factor

obtained its strongest loadings from the Realistic and

Investigative personality types. Finally, the Industrious

factor was identified, which matched the formerly

discovered "Data" factor. The Conventional and

Enterprising types loaded most heavily on this factor.

A second set of analyses addressed the issue of

relationships between all of the instruments. This aspect

of the research was conducted in two parts. Part One

consisted of a separate factor analysis for each Enneagram

inventory with the VPI. Part Two was an analysis of all

163

four inventories combined. The findings (Table 12) and

conclusions are summarized below.

The factor analysis of the VPI and the Cohen-Palmer

inventory yielded five factors. A general factor appeared

first with loadings from Enneagram Types One, Two, Four,

Five, Six, and Nine. A second factor. Social Competency,

was defined by Holland's Artistic and Social types. Next,

a Social Aversion factor emerged, which was delimited by

Holland's Realistic and Investigative types. An Ambition

factor emerged with loadings from Enneagram types Three,

Seven and Eight. Finally, a recurring Industrious factor

was characterized by Holland's Enterprising and

Conventional types. This analysis failed to produce any

factor which contained significant loadings of both Holland

and Enneagram types.

Analysis of the VPI and Wagner inventories produced

eight factors. The first factor was general and was

composed of loadings from Enneagram types Six, Four, Five,

One, Seven, and Two. Social Aversion emerged second and

was defined by Holland's Realistic and Investigative types.

A modified Achievement Orientation factor appeared next.

It was defined by Type Three and Type Eight, with minor

loadings from Types One, Two and Nine. Factor number four,

the Social factor, included Holland's Social type and the

Enneagram Type Two. The fifth factor. Social Status,

correlated strongly with Holland's Status scale and his

164

Artistic type. Reemerging as number six, the Industrious

factor correlated most with Holland's Enterprising and

Conventional types. A new factor. Hesitation, was the

seventh. It consisted of positive loadings from Holland's

Self-Control and Infreguency scales and a negative loading

from his Acguiescence scale. Finally, factor number eight

correlated with Holland's Artistic type, and thus the

factor was named. This was the first analysis where a

factor defined by both a Holland and an Enneagram type

emerged, the Social factor.

Zinkle's inventory was factor analyzed with the VPI,

and it provided seven factors. The Social Competency

factor appeared first and received its definition from

Holland's Artistic and Social scales. Social Insecurity

emerged second, and it correlated with Types One, Four,

Five, and Six. A third factor. Estrangement, associated

most with types Seven, Two, and Nine. Social Aversion

returned as the fourth factor, defined by the Realistic and

Investigative types. Factor number five. Social Ambition,

correlated with Type Eight and Type Three. Next, the

Industrious factor surfaced as number six, obtaining its

definition from the Enterprising and Conventional scales.

A new factor, Constriction was formed in the seventh

extraction, which associated most with the Self-Control

scale and minimally with the Infreguency scale.

165

Across the three previous analyses, 16 distinct

factors were identified. Two were general Enneagram

factors and the remaining 14 were interpretable. The

Social factor, discovered in the VPI and Wagner analysis,

was the only common factor that included significant

loadings from instruments representing both theoretical

systems. Although this part of the analysis did not offer

great support for the linking of the two theories, it

helped to broaden the factorial definition of the VPI.

Part two of the study's final phase involved the

factor analysis of the VPI with all three of the Enneagram

inventories. This analysis provided an eleven-factor

solution. The first factor was general, and it included

Palmer Types One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Nine. Wagner

Types One, Four, Five, Six, and Seven all loaded on the

factor, as did Zinkle Types One, Four, Five, and Six.

The remaining ten factors were each amenable to

interpretation. The second factor. Ambition, correlated

with Type Eight from each inventory and Type Three from

Palmer and Zinkle. Aesthetics, the third factor,

correlated with Holland's Artistic, Acguiescence,

Investigative, and Status scales. Additionally, Palmer's

and Zinkle's Type Four and Zinkle's Type Five loaded on

this factor. Factor number four. Social Extroversion,

included loadings from Wagner's and Zinkle's Type Two,

Zinkle's Type Seven and Holland's Social type. These

166

latter two were the sole factors to include loadings from

scales representative of both theoretical systems.

Factor five. Denial, reemerged with loadings from

Zinkle's and Wagner's Type Nine, and from their Type Sevens

as well. A unigue factor appeared sixth and was labeled

Performance because it correlated only with Type Three from

each inventory. Once again, a Social Aversion factor

coalesced with loadings from Holland's Realistic and

Investigative types. A Wagner general factor followed,

which included significant loadings from Types One, Four,

Six, Seven, and Nine. The ninth factor. Business,

correlated with Holland's Social, Enterprising, and

Conventional types. A tenth factor, entitled Conformity,

followed and included Zinkle Types One, Three, and Six with

an inverse loading from Palmer's Type Four. Hesitation was

the eleventh and final factor. It included positive

loadings from Holland's Self-Control and Infreguency scales

with a negative loading from the Acguiescence scale.

This final factor analysis provided two factors that

linked Holland's personality theory with Enneagram

personality theory. Based on this study, it is not

possible to suggest a tremendous commonality between the

theories. The existing evidence, however, is encouraging

and warrants further investigation before authoritative

statements are made concerning the relationship of one

theory to the other.

167

Summary of Findings

Considering the first four research guestions, the

following conclusions were evident. First, the three

Enneagram inventories do not measure nine discrete types as

reflected by factor analysis. The Wagner inventory,

however, furnished two type-specific factors; one defined

by Type Two and one defined by Type Nine. Additionally,

the factor which was defined by each of the Enneagram Type

Three scales suggested that this is a valid type-construct.

Second, the aggregation of Enneagram instrument scales

into common factors made them amenable to interpretation in

light of the Enneagram theory. Had separate factors

representing each scale appeared, each personality type

would have had strong support for its individual existence.

Nevertheless, the existing data was consistent with

Enneagram theory. The freguent occurrence of type wings on

factors supported the notion that neighboring personality

types share more attributes in common than those that are

systemically unrelated. Additionally, the concept of the

lines of integration and disintegration received some

support when factors connected by such lines partially

loaded on the same factors.

Third, the occurrence of a factor with Types Three and

Eight is not consistent with systemic explanations of

Enneagram theory. Nevertheless, the relationship of the

two types is accounted for by current psychological

168

concepts. Each of these types possess characteristics,

such as ambition and achievement-orientation, which are

easily conceived of as correlated gualities. While their

other motivations may differ, both Type Three and Type

Eight possess gualities, that while different, are egually

culturally desirable.

Fourth, findings from both the analysis of all

Enneagram instruments combined, and the analysis of all the

instruments together were egually encouraging. The loading

of like-named scales from various instruments on the same

common factors reinforced the assertion that Enneagram

instruments did, in part, measure the same psychological

constructs. These like-named scales did not always carry

the same weight on each factor, implying that they measured

similar and correlated constructs that were not always

identical. Another possibility was that they measured both

similar and unigue constructs. The similar constructs were

possibly sampled in different proportions, thereby

accounting for the different weights of like-named scales

on common factors. The additional appearance of these same

scales on more than one factor supports this idea as well.

The notion that the Enneagram instruments measured the

same constructs in different proportions, and that each

inventory measured unigue constructs was supported by the

appearance of two factors on the final factor analysis.

One factor was the Wagner-General factor (number eight).

169

and the other factor. Conformity (number ten) was primarily

a Zinkle factor. It is reasonable to believe that each of

these Enneagram inventories measured sufficiently unigue,

highly correlated, constructs compared to the others.

Therefore, each inventory defined an instrument-specific

factor. Nevertheless, the Enneagram inventories correlated

greatly, and the conseguence was the appearance of the

General Enneagram factor.

A fifth conclusion is that, although this study

supplies data supporting the construct validity of the

Enneagram instruments, little evidence supports the

concurrent validation of the Enneagram instruments. The

minor relationships between the Holland and Enneagram

instruments may be partially explained by the different

design of the instruments. The VPI is composed entirely of

occupational titles. In contrast, the Enneagram

instruments are composed of complete statements. The

difference in construct-sampling methods may facilitate

different response styles or sample different constructs.

Another explanation is that college students experience

greater difficulty in endorsing occupational titles, and

they may be ignorant of the full scope and definition of

many professions. Finally, it is important to realize that

the ability of the VPI to measure personality types was

questionable to begin with.

170

Limits of the Study

The sample population for this study may limit the

generalization of the results in two ways. First, the

majority of subjects (75%) were either college freshmen or

sophomores. Conseguently, it is important not to

generalize the results too readily to the public.

Nontraditional subjects, who were either graduate students

or employed college graduates, composed 21% of the sample.

Second, the sample was predominately composed of females

(61%). This may have skewed the resultant data and

influenced the subsequent interpretation of the factors.

Third, the interpretation of the data relied in part upon

the assumption that the inventory items chosen and scales

composed to differentiate the types were effectively doing

so. To the degree that this assumption is inaccurate, the

interpretation should be treated with caution.

An uncontrolled variable that potentially influenced

the results was the order of instrument administration.

The order of administration was varied but not completely

randomized. Therefore, one might argue that the results

reflected some effect of this procedure, although the study

design was not experimental.

Recommendations

Data produced by this study partially supports the

validity of the Enneagram instruments. Nevertheless,

171

further research using the factor analytic procedure would

be invaluable. Subsequent researchers would do well to

increase both the sample size and heterogeneity of their

subject pool. Data produced from more mature populations

may well yield a different outcome, because, presumably,

they would have more definite knowledge of personal

characteristics.

Additionally, future investigators may consider

randomizing the order of test administration. Because the

instructions vary somewhat from test to test, randomization

of the questions was not considered an option for this

dissertation. It may be appropriate to use a single set of

instructions for all three Enneagram instruments in later

investigations.

Further valuable information may be gained by using an

Enneagram adjective check-list, comparing it with the VPI.

Such a comparison might enable the researcher to identify a

stronger relationship between the two theories. In

contrast, Holland's Self Directed Search may provide a more

comparable measure of Holland's personality types, when

used with current Enneagram inventories.

Finally, factor analyses of the inventory items would

yield evidence either for or against the item composition

of the scales. Such analyses would provide data and clues

regarding what characteristics or gualities the scales

actually measure. The results might lead to the

172

construction of a more effective inventory for identifying

Enneagram personality types, and provide a clearer picture

of the degree of relationships between the VPI and

Enneagram inventories.

REFERENCES

Athanasou, J. A., O'Gorman, J., & Meyer, E. (1981). Factorial validity of the vocational interest scales of the Holland vocational preference inventory for australian high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(2), 523-527.

Bennett, J. G. (1973). Gurdjieff; making a new world. London: Turnstone Books.

Bennett, J. G. (1983). Enneagram studies. York Beach, MA: Samuel Weiser, Inc.

Benninger, W. B., & Walsh, W. B. (1980). Holland's theory and non-college-degreed working men and women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 81-88.

Capretta, P. J. (1967). A history of psychology in outline. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, IL.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adeguacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 43-47.

Chaplin, J. P. (1975). Dictionary of psychology. New York, NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc.

Crabtree, P. D., & Hales, L. W. (1974). Holland's hexagonal model applied to rural youth. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 22, 218-223.

DiScipio, W. J. (1974). A factor analytic validation of Holland's vocational preference inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 4(3), 389-402.

173

174

Florence, J. w. (1973). A further investigation of Holland's theory of vocational psychology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tulsa.

Gamard, W. S. (1986). Interrater reliability and validity of judgments of enneagram personality types (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3152.

Gaston, L., & Marmar, C. R. (1989). Quantitative and qualitative analyses for psychotherapy research: integration through time-series designs. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 26(2), 169-176.

Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.

Holland, J. L. (1973). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices; a theory of vocational personalities and work environments. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Holland, J. L. (1985). The vocational preference inventory; professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Hurley, K. V., & Dobson, T. E. (1991). What's my type? San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco.

Johnson, J. A. (1987). Influence of adolescent social crowds on the development of vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(2), 182-199.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.

175

Keen, S. (1973, July). A conversation about ego destruction with Oscar Ichazo. Psychology Today, pp. 64-72.

Lilly, J. C , & Hart, J. E. (1975). The arica training. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (pp. 329-351). New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Myers, I., & Briggs, K. (1976). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Palmer, H. (1988). The enneagram: understanding yourself and others in your life. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers.

Ranaghan, D. G. (1989). A closer look at the enneagram. South Bend, IN: Greenlawn Press.

Randall, S. (1979). The development of an inventory to assess enneagram personality type (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Asian Studies, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4466B.

Riordan, K. R. (1975). Gurdjieff. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies (pp. 281-328). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Riso, D. R. (1987). Personality types. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Riso, D. R. (1990). Understanding the enneagram: a practical guide to personality types. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rohr, R., & Ebert, A. (1990). Discovering the enneagram (P. Heinegg, Trans.). New York: Crossroad Publishing Co. (Original work published 1989)

Rounds, J. B. (1985). Review of the vocational preference inventory. In Mitchell, J. V. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1683-1684). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.

176

Shepard, J. w. (1989). Review of the vocational preference inventory. in Conoley, J. C , & Kramer, J. J. (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 882-883). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.

Speeth, K. R. (1989). The Gurdjieff Work. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.

Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (4), 414-424.

Wagner, J. P. (1981). A descriptive, reliability, and validity study of the enneagram personality typology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 11-A, 4664. (University Microfilms No. 81-09,973).

Wagner, J. P., & Walker, R. E. (1983). Reliability and validity study of a sufi personality typology: the enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, ^ ( 5 ) , 712-717.

Wakefield, J. A., & Doughtie, E. D. (1973). The geometric relationship between Holland's personality typology and the vocational preference inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2^(6), 513-518.

Ward, G. R., Cunningham, C. H., & Wakefield, J. A. Jr. (1976). Relationships between Holland's VPI and Cattell's 16PF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 8, 307-312.

Webb, J. (1980). The harmonious circle. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Zinkle, T. E. (1974). A pilot study toward the validation of the sufi personality typology (Doctoral dissertation. United States International University, 1974/1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 2418B.

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT DATA

177

178

Table 13 Summary of Subject Data

Males Females White Black Other Unknown

129 206 267 29 6 33

EDUCATION

Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student

184 35 19 14 7

College Graduate Unknown High School Elementary School

65 14 5 2

AGE

11-16 17-21 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-67 Unknown

3 216 27 42 19 6 22

N = 335

179

Table 13 Continued

DEGREES REPORTED

AA BA/BS MA/MS PhD/EdD

16 8

DEGREE MAJORS OCCUPATIONS

Agriculture Business Counseling 2 Criminal Justice Education 3 English Engineering Marine Technology Math Education Medical Technology Nursing Philosophy Political Science Psychology 5 Recreational Counseling Social Science Social Work Sociology Student Personnel 2 Special Education 2

Abstractor Attorney Bank Representative Counselor 5 Engineer Graduate Students: in Counseling 3 in Psychology Mediator Psychologist School Counselor Speech Therapist Teacher Therapist

APPENDIX B

ENNEAGRAM INVENTORIES

180

181

The Cohen-Palmer Enneagram Inventory

SCALE: 0= NOT LIKE ME; 1= LIKE ME

0[] 1 (9

0[] 1 (8

0[] 1 (5

0[] 1 (4

0[] 1 (4

0[] 1 (7

0[] 1 (1

0[] 1 (2

0[] 1 (4

0[] 1 (4

0[] 1 (6

0[] 1 (2

0(] 1 (9

1 1 1

1 2

] 3

I may look and act busy, but inside I'm spaced out on details of the room, old memories, or unfinished business.

In a confrontation I want the other person to oppose me strongly.

I avoid putting time and money into extravagance. I prefer to reduce my needs to a few simple objects.

] 4. People have accused me of being overly dramatic, but they really don't understand my intensity.

] 5. I feel that sadness and pain are the wellspring from which come great art and love.

] 6. I have multiple projects and interests. I'm not after a big success. I don't want to miss out on an experience.

] 7. I procrastinate in decisions because I'm afraid of making mistakes.

] 8. I'm sensing other people's needs so that I can help them and get their affection.

] 9. I resonate with the "tragic clown" figure, smiling through the tragedy.

] 10. I have a special attraction to the mood of melancholy.

] 11. I have a longstanding fear of the dark. Unseen threats might harm me.

] 12. I get confused about how to act when friends from different parts of my life are together in the Scune room.

] 13. I appear to go along with what people want because it's so hard to say no. That doesn't mean that I necessarily agree.

182

0[1 1 (8

0[] 1 (3

0[1 1 (3

0[] 1 (5

0[1 1 (8

0[] 1 (5

0[] 1 (8

0[] 1 (2

0[] 1 (3

0[] 1 (4

0[] 1 (6

0[] 1

(1

0[] 1 (5

0[] 1

(1

0[] 1 (6

] 14. I'm an aggressive, self-assertive person; and I can handle anger directed at me. I'm not afraid to confront other people, and I've done it.

] 15. Hanging around with friends is a waste of my time.

] 16. Being able to organize, set priorities, and make deadlines comes naturally to me.

] 17. I conserve my time, money and self. I really hate it when I don't get my money's worth.

] 18. I fight with people to see their strengths; if they are strong, I can trust them.

] 19. I experience most people as intrusive; they do not respect my space.

] 20. I sense others' weak points quickly, and I will push them there if I am provoked.

] 21. I feel I deserve to be first in someone's life because of all the help I've given them.

] 22. I get so caught up with my worker role that I forget who I am. When I recall my past, I tend to remember what I did well and right.

] 23. I'm eaten by regret for past relationships that can never be regained.

] 24. I get frightened in successful situations (or when I am doing well); I doubt my successes.

] 25. My mind constantly judges how I stand in comparison to others.

] 26. I control myself and feel that expression of strong emotions is self-indulgent.

] 27. People give me feedback that I'm angry though I don't think I am.

] 28. When its time to follow through or take action on my good ideas, I doubt them.

183

0[1 1[1 29. I often criticize myself for not doing better. ^1) Critical voices chatter in my head.

0[1 1[] 30. The worst feeling I have is being criticized by (1) other people.

'm 0[1 ![] 31. Old memories keep surfacing not because I'l.. ( ) nostalgic but because I haven't finished with

them yet.

0[] 1[] 32. I get the feeling that others set me up to (8) fight their battles for them.

0[] 1[] 33. I get so overwhelmed with sidetracks that life (9) seems like a great effort to me.

0[] 1[] 34. I like to have several things to do in the same (7) time slot, so that I can go with the one that

draws me at the time.

0[] 1[] 35. I don't remember my successes. Each time that (6) I have to act, it's like I haven't done it

before.

0[] 1[] 36. I like the theater and dramatic people; I often (4) feel like I'm playing the part of an actor in

my own life.

0[] 1[] 37. When something painful comes up I can put it on (7) a mental "back burner" where it doesn't bother

me.

0[] 1[] 38. I can intuit and meet everybody's needs, but (2) very few people meet mine.

0[] 1[] 39. In working on a project or job I'm concerned (1) that every step of every procedure must be

correct. I can't work at a job that compromises my integrity.

0[] 1[] 40. I often space out or feel sleepy when I'm not (9) really tired.

0[] 1[] 41. My idea of leisure time is strategizing for the (3) next job to be done. I don't like to face a

Sunday with nothing to do but hang out.

0[] 1[] 42. I'm good at standing up and fighting for what I (8) want. I find it easy to express my

dissatisfaction with things.

184

0[] ![] 43. I experience intimacy and strong feelings for ^^) others most when I'm alone; when I'm with them

I seek intimacy but withdraw.

0[] 1[) 44. I can relate to everyone else's position, but (9) I'm unclear about my own.

0[] 1[] 45. I'm like a chameleon in my job; I can present (3) myself differently as the job requires to get

it done.

0[] 1[] 46. Privacy and time alone are essential to me. (5) When I am alone I often wish to share myself

with others.

0[] ![] 47. I'm fearful when I'm exposed as successful in (6) the eyes of others.

0[] 1[] 48. When I give to others I'm keeping score about (2) what I hope to get back.

0[] 1[] 49. There are many fascinating things to do. I (7) avoid getting dragged down by life.

0[11[]50. Icun proud to be recognized as a giver; the (2) recognition is essential to me.

0[] 1[] 51. I'm aware of how I come across to people and (3) will change my presentation to do a more

effective job.

0[] 1[] 52. I want my activities to make life an adventure; (7) if they don't I adapt to backup possibilities.

0[] 1[] 53. I tend to move from one interest to another (7) rather than go into depth in anything.

0[] 1[] 54. I instinctively look for what is threatening in (6) any situation.

0[] 1[] 55. Once I get used to something I don't want to (9) "rock the boat" by changing it.

0[] 1[] 56. Most people don't know it, but they create (8) their own problems.

0[] 1[1 57. I like to place myself on the outskirts of the (5) crowd and watch other people interact.

185

0[] 1[] 58. The arts and artistic expression are very ^^) important for me as a means of channeling my

emotions.

0[] 1[] 59. When I'm in misery and pain I don't want people ( ) to "fix it" and make me happy. There's a

special richness in the quality of sadness.

0[] 1[] 60. It's important to experience a lot of things a (7) little bit, so you really have a taste of

everything in life.

0[] 1[] 61. I find my mind flooded with critical judging (1) thoughts.

0[] 1[] 62. I often feel that my friends don't know the (2) real me. Really, I've fooled them, because

I've shown them only the aspects of myself that they like.

0[] 1[] 63. I use antiquity, elegance and unique (4) surrounding to raise my sense of myself.

0[] 1[] 64. I'm attracted to what is authentic in other (4) people because it makes me feel real myself.

0[1 1[) 65. Even when I know a project will work my mind (6) says "I can't" and "it won't work."

0[] 1[] 66. I feel inspired when merging with powerful, (2) important people.

0[1 1[] 67. I find myself merging into all sides of a (9) conversation. I think that my opinion is all

of the conversation.

0[] 1[] 68. I enjoy the exercise of power. My worst fear (8) is to be controlled by incompetents.

0[] 1[] 69. I identify myself by the job that I do. I (3) compete well and especially enjoy winning.

0[] 1[] 70. I like high-energy, high-status positions. I (3) keep emotions from getting in the way.

0[] 1[] 71. When people want things from me I often wish to (5) withdraw from them.

0[] 1[] 72. I think that most therapy and tests like this (8) are for weak people who can't get it together.

186

0[] 1[] 73. Self-controlled people can shut down their (5) feelings.

0[1 1[] 74. If I get a little of something I want, I won't (8) stop until I'm over-satisfied.

0[] 1[1 75. When I sense someone withdrawing from me I (2) alter myself to become more desirable to them.

0[] ![] 76. I tend to be an assertive, go-getter kind of (3) person. I would do very well in the

promotional aspect of a project.

0[1 1[] 77. I have intense mood swings, I live higher and (4) lower than other people.

0[] 1[] 78. I present myself badly to test out which people (6) will like me and which people won't accept me.

0[] 1[] 79. I am preoccupied with other people's character (1) and the moral systems they live by. I feel

compelled to keep trying to better myself and other people.

0[] 1[] 80. People who show their anger appear out of (5) control to me.

0[] 1[] 81. I am annoyed by the awareness of how perfect (1) any situation could be at the Scurie time I

notice what's wrong with it.

0[] 1[] 82. If someone doesn't like me I'm afraid of them. (6)

0[] 1[] 83. I feel almost compelled to be honest. I (1) sometimes sense a Puritanical streak in

myself.

0[] 1[] 84. I'm often irritated because things aren't the (1) way they should be.

0[] 1[] 85. I have to motivate myself to keep going, (9) because if I come to a halt, I know that I

can't start up again.

0[] 1[] 86. It makes me angry when people that I think are (8) strong fall apart emotionally.

187

0[] 1[] 87. I lose track of the priorities in my life by <^) getting lost in details and irrelevancies. I

space out on activities like inessential projects, shopping, T.V., and collecting things that interest me.

0[] 1[] 88. Making a commitment to a single course is hard (7) for me. It limits other pKDssibilities. I

like to keep my options open.

0[]1[]89. I'm so busy scanning faces for hidden meanings (6) that I often forget people's names.

0[] 1[] 90. I have a sense of longing for what is missing (4) in my life. The present holds the hope that

the future will bring me love.

0[] 1[] 91. I have many interests. I can pursue my (7) interests endlessly. If someone wants to join

me that's fine, but I won't change my interests for them.

0[] 1[] 92. I often feel unappreciated for what I've done (2) for others.

0[] 1[] 93. I have a sharp eye for details that are out of (1) order. Often the least flaw can ruin the

whole thing for me.

0[] ![] 94. If someone makes me do something, I get (9) stubborn inside. I will agree. I think about

it over and over again. I intend to do it, but it doesn't get done.

0[) 1[1 95. I drive myself in order to win. People who (3) don't push themselves are ineffective.

0[] 1[] 96. If someone is holding out I'll push them so we (8) get to the truth of the matter.

0[] 1[] 97. I can withdraw my presence so that I feel that (5) I'm not seen by others.

0[] 1[] 98. My attention gets diverted in conversations. I (9) wake up in the middle and realize that I'm

thinking about details in the environment, old memories, or unfinished projects.

188

0[] 1[] 99. I lead because it's so important to me to get (3) the job done efficiently.

0[1 1[] 100. Detachment feels natural to me, and I prefer it (5) to heavy involvement in relationships.

0[] 1[] 101. When I want something, I'm afraid that someone (6) stronger than me will prevent me from getting

it. So I don't act.

0[) 1[1 102. Many different people think I'm their best (2) friend, but they are not mine.

0[1 ![] 103. I avoid getting into heavy issues. (7)

0[] 1[] 104. Each of my close friends causes me to alter so (2) as to make them feel comfortable.

0[1 11] 105. I like relationships based on activity; I get (3) uncomfortable when relationships get to

emotional.

0[] 1[] 106. I make plans about how much better my present (7) activities will be in the future.

0[] 1[] 107. I really don't like to work unless it feels (7) like an adventure.

0[] 1[) 108. I'm afraid of people when I have more than they (6) do.

189

Wagner Enneagram Inventory

Some of these characteristics and attitudes may not be as true of you now as they were at an earlier time in your life. So, consider these statements in the context of your whole life. Are these statements true of you now OR was there a time in your life when they fit you pretty well.

There are no right or wrong answers to this inventory. So, simply circle each answer how you are or how you have been rather than how you think you should be or how you would like to be.

1.(2) I usually think of myself last.

2.(5) I often feel outside of what's going on, and I don't know how to get in the game, even though I'd like to.

3.(8) I have a sense of immediacy and urgency. It's got to be now. I like to intensify the now.

4.(3) I identify with professionalism.

5.(1) I feel a need to be accountable for most of my time.

6.(6) I seem to sense danger and threat more than others do.

7.(4) My environmental surroundings are very important for me.

8.(7) I'm better at planning things than really doing them.

9.(9) My instinct is not to trust or like conflict.

10.(1) Often the least flaw can ruin the whole thing for me.

11.(3) Being able to get things organized and accomplished just seems to come naturally to me.

12.(9) I can be a dispassionate arbiter because there are good values on both sides.

13.(6) I think of myself as a "God-fearing" person.

14.(2) I frequently feel drawn toward surrendering myself or toward giving myself for others.

15.(8) Justice and injustice are key issues for me.

190

16.(7) I often opt for quantity over quality. For example, I'll read ten books rather than digest one thoroughly.

17.(4) I think of my past with nostalgia and a sense of loss.

18.(5) I have trouble reaching out or asking for what I want.

19.(9) I take pride in being a stable person.

20.(4) I find myself swinging back and forth between highs and lows. Either I'm very up or very down. I don't feel very alive when I'm in the middle.

21.(2) A lot of people feel close to me.

22.(1) If something isn't fair, it really bothers me.

23.(3) I can get so identified with my work or role that I forget who I am.

24.(6; 'Caution" is a very important virtue for me.

25.(8) I have trouble accepting and expressing my tender, gentle, softer, "feminine" side.

26.(5) I often quietly enter or leave a room so others won't notice me.

27.(7) I like to consider the cosmic ramifications of events, the universal importance of everything that happens.

28.(3) People say I'd make a good salesperson.

29.(8) I am a self-assertive person.

30.(2) I like to be asked to do things so I can feel

important and get attention for the warmth and love I give.

31.(1) I resent sometimes that I didn't get the breaks some others did.

32.(6) I tend to take sides and be concerned about whose side people are on.

191

33.(5) I often feel helpless and ineffectual in situations and end up doing nothing.

34.(9) Generally, I don't let myself get too enthusiastic about things.

35.(4) I like to do things properly, with class and good taste.

36.(7) I like to rank people into hierarchies: e.g., who is more enlightened, less enlightened, etc.

37.(9) It's important for me to feel relaxed.

38.(2) I take more pride in my service of others than in anything else.

39.(5) When I feel out of a group or discussion, I sometimes feel contemptuous of their small talk or superficial conversation.

40.(3) I like to have clear goals set and to know where I stand on the way toward those goals.

41.(1) Honesty is very important to me.

42.(8) I find it easy to express my dissatisfaction with things.

43.(4) I sometimes pick up the feelings of another person or of a group to such a depth that it is overwhelming.

44.(7) I like to think of myself as a childlike, playful person.

45.(6) Whether people are for or against my principles is an important issue for me.

46.(1) I put a lot of effort into correcting my faults.

47.(5) I hate to look foolish or to be taken in.

48.(4) I like to think of myself as special.

49.(9) I'm an extremely easy-going person.

50.(8) I like to think of myself as a non-conformist or as a counter-culturalist.

51.(3) I like to keep myself on the go.

192

52.(2) I'm almost compelled to help other people, whether I feel like it or not.

53.(6) I have many fears.

54.(7) Dreams, visions, prophets, mystics appeal to me.

55.(3) I believe that appearances are important.

56.(5) I seem to be more silent than most others. People often have to ask me what I'm thinking.

57.(1) I feel almost compulsively guilty much of the time.

58.(7) I like to tell stories very much.

59.(6) I often end up defending the traditional position.

60.(9) I have an inner sense when things jell and are harmonious.

61.(8) I have a sense for where the power resides in a group.

62.(4) I can dwell on the tragedies of life — suffering, loss, and death — for long periods of time.

63.(2) I feel I deserve to be first in someone's life because of all the care I've shown them.

64.(3) I think of myself as a very competent person.

65.(7) I like to cheer people up and take them away from their suffering.

66.(4) I would like to do something "original" during my lifetime.

67.(9) I generally have little trouble sleeping.

68.(5) When I don't feel a part of what's happening, I withdraw rather quickly.

69.(6) "Doing what my father wants" is important for me.

70.(8) I sense others' weak points quickly.

71.(2) I like to rescue people when I see they're in trouble or are in an embarrassing situation.

193

7 2 .

7 3 .

7 4 .

7 5 .

7 6 .

7 7 .

7 8 .

7 9 .

8 0 .

8 1 .

8 2 .

8 3 . {

8 4 . 1

8 5 . 1

8 6 . (

8 7 . (

8 8 . (

8 9 . (

9 0 . (

( 1 )

( 7 )

( 1 )

( 6 )

( 9 )

( 2 )

( 3 )

( 5 )

( 4 )

( 8 )

(6 )

[7)

[1)

8 )

4 )

9 )

3 )

5 )

2 )

I have trouble relaxing and being playful.

I tend to spiritualize, intellectualize, generalize my experience.

I find myself being impatient much of the time.

People are always getting away with things and that bothers me.

I'm almost always peaceful and calm.

Many times I feel overburdened by others' dependence on me.

When I recall my past, I tend to remember what I did well and right rather than what I did poorly or wrong.

I need a lot of private space.

When I feel lonely, I often feel abandoned by others.

I feel compelled to stand up for my rights and others' rights.

My own fears are my greatest enemy.

I often don't carry out plans because I'm too busy making new ones.

I hate to waste time.

I am not afraid to confront other people and I do confront them.

The arts and artistic expression are very important for me as a means of channeling my emotions.

I generally feel one with other people.

I'm envied a lot by other people for how much I get done.

I frequently feel underhanded in the way I get what I want. I'm something of a sneak.

People often come to me for comfort and advice.

194

91.(4) Patterns or rituals help me to do what I really want to do in my life.

92.(2) I naturally compliment other people. I often compliment others before I'm even aware I'm doing it.

93.(8) I am very much opposed to having others lay their trip on me.

94.(9) I hate to waste my energy on anything. I look for energy-saving approaches to things.

95.(7) It usually takes me time to warm up to strangers.

96.(6) I don't like to speak on my own authority.

97.(3) Accommodation, compromise, taking calculated risks are my approaches to things.

98.(5) I don't know how to engage in small talk very well.

99.(1) As long as I try hard, people can't criticize me.

100.(7) I get into head trips a lot without really carrying out my fantasies and plans.

101.(3) Making decisions is usually not a problem for me.

102.(6) I wonder if I'm brave enough to do what must be done.

103.(1) I often blame myself for not doing better.

104.(5) I go blank when I'm embarrassed or when someone asks how I feel right now.

105.(4) Others often can't understand how deeply I feel about something.

106.(8) I get very irritated when I know I'm being lied to. I can sense deceit and shcun very readily.

107.(2) I sometimes feel that others really don't appreciate me for what I've done for them.

108.(9) I tend to play things down to help other people get settled down.

109.(5) I often sit back and observe other people rather than get involved.

195

110.(2) Most people don't listen to others as well as I do.

111.(1) Being right is important for me.

112.(8) For my taste, there is too much bullshit in this world.

113.(9) Most things are no big deal, so why get excited and carried away? "Much ado about nothing" says it well.

114.(3) I'm a very efficient person.

115.(4) I make an effort to look casual and natural.

116.(6) I tend to be aware of and sensitive to contradictions a lot.

117.(7) I'm a happy, fun-loving person.

118.(7) I tend to throw myself into things enthusiastically and then throw myself into something else enthusiastically. I like to really immerse myself in whatever I'm interested in.

119.(8) I would rather give orders than take orders.

120.(9) I like to put things on "automatic pilot" so I no longer have to worry about them.

121.(4) I often long to have something I don't or to be someone that I'm not.

122.(3) I like to project a youthful, enthusiastic, vigorous, energetic image.

123.(1) Somehow I'm never satisfied; I can never get things good enough.

124.(2) I like to feel close to people.

125.(6) I have trouble with decisions and so am always seeking affirmations and cun constantly getting prepared.

126.(5) I'm very sensitive to any kind of invasion by others, any uninvited intrusions, or any sense of being pushed.

127. (7 I need to get in touch with sobriety and moderation.

196

128.(6) Loyalty is very important for me.

129.(4) People often don't see how sad and weary I cun.

130.(1) I feel almost compelled to keep trying to make myself and what I aun doing better.

131.(3) It's important for me to get things done, to feel I've accomplished something — even though it may be minor.

132.(8) I don't like to leave things, feelings, etc. hanging. I need to have it out.

133.(5) I don't pay that much attention to my feelings. When people ask me how I feel, I frecjuently don't know.

134.(2) I feel at my best when I'm helping someone.

135.(9) I really hate to be unsettled.

197

ZINKLE ENNEAGRAM INVENTORY

PLEASE MAKE A CLEAR MARK BY EACH STATEMENT THAT YOU IDENTIFY AS BEING LIKE YOU OR SOMETHING LIKE YOU

(Two)2

My goal in life is to help others. A lot of people depend on my help and generosity. I take more pride in my service of others than in anything else. Other people don't seem to think of giving, sharing, or helping as much as I do. Most people in life are far to selfish. I sometimes wear myself out helping others. Other people often take advantage of my generosity. My whole life is oriented toward others. My greatest satisfaction comes from making others feel good. A lot of people aren't as grateful as they should be when you help them. I like taking care of others. A lot of people feel close to me. I spend quite a bit of energy trying to satisfy my own needs. I usually think of myself before I think of other people. I regularly go out of my way to compliment other people. I usually get close to teachers, leaders, and such people. Human suffering bothers me more than it bothers most people. I'm very important in the lives of a lot of other people. I usually think of myself last. I'm an exceptionally warm, loving person. I feel good each day if I can help just one person. I am totally generous. I'm almost compelled to help other people. Everything would be okay in this world if there were just more love and kindness. It is my goal in life to offer advice and comfort to those in need.

198

(Three) I am a very goal oriented person. I'm constantly on the go. I'm often puzzled by the inability of others to get things done.

I enjoy working with people who are hard driving. I identify with precision and professionalism. By presenting things just the right way, I often convince others by a good sales pitch. I'm a very forceful, outgoing person. Being able to accomplish, just seems to come natural to me. I'm an excellent, hard driving competitor. I'm better at getting things done than most people. I probably could have made a good salesman. I'm an extremely competent person. Success is more important to me than it seems to be to most people. I'm a very orderly, systematic person. I get more done than the average person. My main sense of identity comes from what I get done. I like constantly having some specific, well-defined goal or standard to work toward. You only get ahead with consistent hard work. I like progress charts, grades, and other indications of how I am doing. I often lose interest in things before they are finished. Getting ahead is extremely important to me. I'm envied a lot by other people for how much I get done. I'm an extremely efficient person. I seem to have more energy than most people. I sometimes have a hard time getting myself up for things psychologically.

(Four) Most people don't appreciate the real beauty of life. My past is very special to me. I have a real sensitivity for art, music and poetry. I sometimes fear that, despite all my efforts, others are somehow more natural than myself. I long to break free to simple spontaneity. I sometimes have prolonged periods of sadness and mourning. I can identify with Thoreau living by himself in the woods.

199

I often imagine and rehearse scenes in my own mind. Other people often lack the capacity to understand how I feel. I like ritual and ceremony. Most people don't appreciate the drama of life like I do. Sometimes I feel isolated in my suffering. I fit in well with almost everyone I meet. I very much like the theater, and fantasize myself being on stage. I like doing things with class and flair. Manners, good taste, and high style are important to me. I strongly dislike thinking of myself as ordinary. I sometimes get caught up in my self-pity and depression. I have an elaborate fantasy life. I sometimes get preoccupied with suffering and loss. Sometimes art seems almost as real as actual life. I long for the natural and spontaneous but never seem to attain it. I am a very happy person. People often don't see how sad and weary I really am. I sometimes feel deprived and left out. (End of Page)^

(Five) I cherish my privacy very much and need a great deal of it. I only talk when I am sure I have something to say. I sometimes feel contempt for the shallowness of others. I am keenly observant. I am more interested in knowledge for its own sake than in how it can be used. In some ways, I live more in thought than in the real world. I often avoid other people. I enjoy using my intellect to organize things into categories. I am a very sensuous person. I need a good deal of time for myself. I am an unusually perceptive person. I take more pride in what I know than anything else. I would like to get more involved with others, but for some reason I can't break out. I'm a rather withdrawing person. I strongly like intellectual systems.

200

I rarely identify with or feel a part of a group effort. Others consider me quiet, cool and aloof. Almost any intellectual topic fascinates me. Most people lack depth. I have an insatiable quest for knowledge. I often sit back and observe other people rather than get involved. Deep, deep down sometimes I feel very empty. I am a very philosophical person. I sometimes bother people because I don't say much. At parties I often end up discussing intellectual things.

(Six) I'm basically a conservative person. Loyalty to some group is very important. I like to proceed slowly, to be careful. I sometimes enjoy going against authority. I almost always do what I am told. I'm usually prepared for all possibilities. It generally takes me a long time to make up my mind. I'm a hesitant, cautious person. I often wonder if I am brave enough to do what must be done. I'm plagued a lot by doubt. I like to be very sure before acting. I often end up defending the traditional position. Everyone needs to look to authority figures for guidance. Without strict laws, it's hard to tell what people might do. Fear and doubt often interfere with my doing. Prudence is more important than enthusiasm. I'm a very dutiful and obedient person. It's important to have a very definite, well-defined code to live by. I sometimes go against recognized authority. It's very important to me to be approved of by authority. I always like to know who my enemies are. Other people admire me for all that I get done. I like to foresee all outcomes before acting. I dislike having limits in which I have to work. It's very important to have some heroes to look up to.

201

(Seven) I like to keep things light and humorous. I enjoy entertainment, stories, and humor more than most people seem to. I'm better at planning things than really doing them. I'm almost totally without suspicion of people and their motives. I seem to enjoy life more than most people do. There are very few things in life which I don't enjoy. I have had very little pain or unhappiness in my life. Other people consider me an unusually friendly person to be around. I had a very enjoyable, happy childhood. Most of my life has been made up of neat, fun, happy times. Things always work out for the best. I enjoy making elaborate plans for the future. I can foresee some hard times ahead. I often don't carry out plans because I'm to busy making new ones. It usually takes me time to warm up to strangers. I'm an unusually optimistic person. I wish other people were more light-hearted about things. Everything in life can be fun. I like other people to see me as an extremely happy person. There is very little reason in life for people to be unhappy. I have very little tolerance for pain and suffering. I have a lot of warm, close friendships. I usually don't see the negative side of life. I converse more easily than the average person. I like almost everyone I meet. (End of Page)

(Eight) Manners and etiquette are important to me. I would rather get my way and be disliked than be liked but not get my way. I enjoy positions of authority. I see others' weak points quickly. I like being in a position of leading others. I'm very good at standing up and fighting for what I want. I find it easy to express my dissatisfaction with things.

202

I often don't go along with what those in positions of authority recommend. I'm not afraid to confront other people. I tend, at least initially, to oppose and reject things. I am pretty readily taken in by "sob stories." I enjoy power. I have very little tolerance for other people telling me what to do. I usually gravitate to where the power is. Most people let themselves get pushed around to much. Many people are too weak, gullible, and wishy washy. Having power is very important to me. I would rather give orders than take orders. In some ways, I'm a fairly weak person. I often use vulgarity. I am very good at most everything I do. I'm almost never embarrassed or put down. I'm not a very bold, daring person. I take pride in being powerful. I'm an aggressive, self-assertive person.

(Nine) I sometimes need outside sources of excitement to get going. I use very few gestures when I talk. I very seldom get anxious. I like getting in a routine. I often play down the importance of things with humor. Most people get too worked up over things. I take pride in being calm and settled. I almost never lose my temper. Most things in life aren't that important. I am almost never upset by inner turmoil. I put a lot of forethought and energy into almost everything I do. Nothing is so sacred that it can't be joked about. I am a very complacent person. I am almost always very peaceful and calm. I like a lot of time to just do nothing. I'm an extremely easy going person. I sometimes offend people by being too pushy.

203

Very few conflicts are so big that they won't go away themselves. Almost nothing in life is that urgent. I see myself, as a very casual, carefree person. I am extremely stable and settled. I can't remember the last time I had trouble sleeping. Comfort and ease are important goals for me. There has been relatively little conflict and turmoil in my life. While there are some differences, most people are pretty much the same.

(One) I keep things neat and in their place. I spend considerable time in the way I groom and dress. I put a lot of effort into correcting my faults. I'm often bothered because things just aren't the way they should be. I am slow but methodical. I often worry about how I am doing. I seem almost compelled to set things right. I am often on edge. I often get impatient with myself. I find myself never satisfied with the way things are. I often resent people making demands on my time. I'm very particular. I am often restless and fidgety. I very much dislike being hurried. I often blame myself for not doing better. I worry about things a great deal. I'm very hard to please. I especially hate to waste time. I often get quite upset with the way other people do things. I am often late. I take more pride in doing something right than most people seem to. I often wonder if the way I'm doing something is really the best way. I feel compelled to fight sloppiness, to clean things up, to impose order. I'm a perfectionist.

204

Somehow, I'm never satisfied; I can never get things good enough. (End of Page)

205

Notes

^The number in parentheses indicates the type scale that this item represents. These numbers did not appear on the test inventories administered to the subjects.

^The scales were not identified on the test inventories given to the subjects.

3Items were grouped by type and three types were included per page.

APPENDIX C

ORDER OF TEST ADMINISTRATION FOR WORKSHOPS

206

207

Table 14 Order of Test Administration for Workshops

Workshop 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Order^ PVWZ

PVWZ

PVWZ

PZVW

PZVW

PVWZ

PVWZ

VZPW

PVWZ

WVPZ

PZVW

PVWZ

PVWZ

Nb

16

13

21

22

24

21

17

18

15

10

14

24

50

Males 9

3

8

8

9

16

6

13

6

4

6

6

12

Females 7

10

13

14

15

5

11

5

9

6

8

18

38

White 14

13

20

20

23

18

12

17

12

7

13

14

48

Black 2

0

1

2

0

2

5

1

3

3

1

7

2

Other 0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

14 VPZW 28 10 18 17

15 PVWZ

16 PVWZ 50 18 32 40 10

^rder in which the inventories were administered. Cohen-Palmer Inventory (P), Vocational Preference Inventory (V), Wagner Inventory (W), and Zinkle Inventory (Z).

"Total Number of Participants