DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 337 581 CE 059 035

AUTHOR Laipple Joseph S.; Jurden, Prank H.TITLE From Structure to Content: Evidence for Styles of

Thinking in Adulthood.SPONS AGENCY National Inst. on Aging (DHES/PHS) Bethesda, MD.PUB DATE Mar 90CONTRACT AG06069NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the Biennial Cognitive Aging

Conference (3rd, Atlanta, GA, March 1990).PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) --

Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Age Differences; Cognitive Processes; *Cognitive

Style; Cognitive Tests; Memory; Middle Aged Adults;*Older Adults; Old Old Adults; Problem Solving; YoungAdults; Young Old Adults

ABSTRACT

A study examined the age-related differences inimpersonal (objective) and personal (subjective) styles of thinkingand the influences these differences have on traditional cognitivemeasures. Data were obtained from two 2-hour interviews with 333participants in their homes, at senior centers, or on a universitycampus. All participants were given a battery of measures of memory,problem solving, fluid and crystallized intelligence, and affectivefunctioning. Participants were classified as young adults (17-22years); middle-aged adults (40-50 years); old adults (60-70); andold-old adults (75-99 years). Participants, responses were scored ona variety of dimensions, included the divisions of "intrapersonal,""within family," "interpersonal," "impersonal," and "other." Amultivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed significantage-related differences in the frequency of division types.Intrapersonal divisions were significantly more frequent in old andold-old adults than in young adults, whereas interpersonal divisionswere significantly more frequent in young adults. Consistent withprevious research, the sample demonstrated the "classic agingpattern" in cognitive performance. The older adults were more likelyto use an intrapersonal type of reasoning, whereas the young adultsdisplayed more abstract reasoning. The study ovserved that variouspatterns of thinking were also found within age groups, leading tothe conclusion that styles of thinking may reflect age but are notlimited to age. (33 references) (KC)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

a

Structure to Content1

From Structure to Content:Evidence for Styles of Thinking in Adulthood

Joseph S. Laipple and Frank H. JurdenWest Virginia University

DEPANTIUNT OF IOUCATIONOat at Educoeanot Ret Mote and indvoyiPmini

TIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATtONCENTER (ERIC!

Tete document has Man reproducipd soWaned trOM MO POMO Or orpartirotionOrmamatilig d

Minot chows Nos OW 1800 to oroOrowirPrOduction Qualify

Points ofwidow opouonsslatoo Ihodotmord do riot OOCOOSarrly reorgiont othceotOE Pi poaddid ot poicy

"PERMISSIONTO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TP THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC/

Running Head: STRUCTURE TO CONTENT

Poster presented at the Third Biennial Ccagrative AgingConference, Atlanta, Georgia, March, 1990.

This research was supported by National Institute on Aginggrant AG06069 awarded to Hayne W. Reese, James M. Puckett, &Stanley H. Cohen. The authors wish to thank theseresearchers for their permission to use the data reportedhere.

BEST COPY ilifiLABLE

Structure to Content2

From Structure to Content:Evidence for Styles of Thinking in Adulthood

Organismic approaches to cognitive development haveemphasized the objective, rational, and logical nature ofmature adult cognition. Exemplifying this approach, Piaget's(1970) theory stresses the "objectification" of thoughtduring development from the action schemes (subject-focusedlogic) of pre- and concrete operations, to the abstract,scientific schemes (object-focused logic) of formaloperations.

Piaget theorized that mature adult thinking is attainedin adolescence; in this view, mature adult thinking isabstract and logical. Beyond adolescence, however,researchers have found that older adult thinking becomes lessabstract and logical, and increasingly content-specific andpractical (Chena & Holyoak, 1985; Denney & Palmer, 1981;Dixon & Baltes, 1986; Rybash, Hoyer, & Roodin, 1986; Sinnott,1984).

Piaget described young adult thinking as formaloperational; Piagetians, neo-Piagetians, and contextualtheorists have described adult thinking as 4ialectical(Arlin, 1975; 1984; Basseches, 1984; Chandler, 1975; Commons,Richards & Kuhn, 1982; Edelstein & Noam, 1982; Kramer, 1983;Kramer & Woodruff, 1986; Labouvie-Vief, 1980, 1982; Pascual-Leone, 1983, 1984; Riegel, 1973; Sinnott, 1984, 1989). Theterm dialectic, however, has many meanings (Reese, 1982), andin the cognitive aging literature these meanings are diverseand include relativistic thinking (Chandler, 1975; Kramer &Woodruff, 1986; Sinnott, 1984), concrete-pragmatic thinking(Labouvie-Vief, 1980), problem finding (Arlin, 1975), andintersystematic thinking (Pascual-Leone, 1983). Dialecticalthinking, then, may be defined in a number of different ways;nevertheless, many definitions include an emphasis onpracticality and concreteness.

Many researchers have attempted to account for theseobserved differences. Organismic theorists view dialecticalthinking as a stage beyond formal operations (e.g., Kramer &Woodruff 1986), but contextual theorists view dialecticalthinking as a different "style" of thinking rather than ahigher stage (Leontyev, 1974). Cognitive changes from formaloperations to dialectical thinking may be attributed todeclines in underlying psychologtcal processes (Horn &Cattell, 1967; Pascual-Leone, 1983), cumulative health trauma(Hertzog, Schafer & Gribbin, 1978), an overreliance onautomatized processing (Pascual-Leone, 1984), or differencesin adulthood contexts (Gribbin, Schaie, & Parham; 1980).

Pascual-Leone (personal communication, September, 1989)suggests that content is an important component of olderadult's thinking. That is, old adults may rely on personalexperiences, automatized skills, and content when solvingproblems because of declines in psychological processes.

3

Structure to Content3

The goal of the present study was to test whetherpersonal experiences are more salient to older adultthinking, as well as to examine the variables that arerelated to age differences in adult cognitive development.Specifically, this research examined the age-relateddifferences in impersonal (objective) and personal(subjective) styles of thinking and the influences thesedifferences have on traditional cognitive measures.

MethodSubjects

Four hundred participants were tested in the project infour age groups selected on the basis of Pascual-Leone's(1983) theory of developmental stages (young adults, 17-22yrs; middle-aged adults, 40-50 yrs: old adults, 60-70 yrs;and old-old adults, 75-99 yrs). The participants wereinterviewed as part of a larger project investigatingcognitive development in adulthood (Reese, Puckett, & Cohen,1990). However, data from 67 participants were spoiled,unscoreable, or incomplete on the critical task and weretherefore excluded from these analyses. Thus, 333participants provided useable data and are included in thepresent analyses. Table 1 summarizes demographic informationabout the sample.grocedure

The participants were interviewed in two, 2-hoursessions in their homes, at local senior centers, or on thecampus of a mid-Atlantic university. All participants weregiven a battery of measures of memory, problem-solving, fluidand crystallized intelligence, and affective functioning.Only a subset of these measures is included in the presentstudy. Each participarc received $20.00 for participating.Instrumen

Divisions task. The participant was asked to sort 32cards. Each card identified a different everyday life event(e.g., being retired, being fired, getting married, beingdivorced, having good health [Reese & Smyer, 1983]). One ofthe 32 cards was selected by each participant as the "targetcard"; the participant was then asked to sort the cards intotwo equal piles: (a) the target pile, in which all the cardshad something in common with the target card; and (b) thenon-target pile, in which all the cards had something incommon with each other, but not in common with the targetcard. After each division, the non-target pile was discardedand the participants continued to divide the remaining cardsinto two equal piles, each time discarding the non-targetpile, until only the target card remained (a total of fivedivisions).

Digit ARAn. The forward and backward subscales of theWeschler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) were givento each participant using standard administration procedures(Weschler, 1981).

4

Structure to Content4

letter Sets. The Letter Sets test is a measure ofinductive reasoning and fluid intelligence (Horn, 1988). Itrequires finding a rule that makes four of five 4-lettercombinations alike (Eckstrom, French, Harman, & Derwin,1976).

Vocabularx. Participants were asked to define 35 wordsfrom the WAIS-R vocabulary subscale (Weschler, 1981).

Houseplants task. The Houseplants task (Kuhn &Brannock, 1977) is a test of formal operational reasoningwithin a real life context. Participants were shown foursketches of houseplants, each with different combinations of(a) plant food (dark or light), (b) water (large or smallglass), (c) and leaf lotion (present or absent).Participants were asked to predict how well a plant thatreceived a new combination of plant food and water would turnout.$corInq

Divisions tmk. Participants verbal responses to thedivisions task were recorded and later transcribed. Theprotocols were scored on a variety of dimensions, includingthe inferred basis of the divisions: intrapersonal,divisions, within-family divisions, interpersonal divisions,impersonal divisions, and other divisions. Examples ofintrapersonal divisions are "healthy versus ill," "eventsthat are personally stressful versus events that are notstressful," and "events that have to do with me versus eventsthat have nothing to do with me." Examples of within-familydivisions include "things parents do versus things thatparents don't do," "these have to do with being a fatherversus these have to do with being a son," and "husbandversus wife." Examples of interpersonal divisions include"cmployer versus employee," and "work related versus not workrelated." Impersonal divisions include "good versus bad,"and "cause versus effect." Responses that were not scoreablewere placed in an "other" category.

predominant divisi2n gmpe. For some analyses,participants were grouped on the basis of modal divisiontype. For example, participants who made three or moreinterpersonal divisions, were classified into aninterpersonal divisions group.

Digit Swin and Vocabulary. Standard scoring procedureswere used for the Digit Span and Vocabulary tests (Weschler,1981); however, separate scores were recorded for the forwardand backward Digit Span subscales.

Letter Amta. Standard scoring was used for the LetterSets test (Eckstrom, French, Harman, & Denman, 1976). Themaximum score possible was 30.

houseplants task. A modified version of Kuhn andBrannock's (1977) scoring system was used for the Houseplantstask. Scores could range from 0 (experiential; no isolationof variables) to 4 (logical isolation of the operativevariable and exclusion of the inoperative variables).

5

Structure to Content5

ResultsAga Differences ga Cognitive peaegres

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealedsignificant age-related differences on the Letter Sets task,forward and backward subscales of the Digit Span test, andVocabulary test (all Rs < .01), all in the expecteddirection. Table 1 summarizes these results. In general,these findings are comparable to the findings of previousresearchers (e.g., Mates, Dittman-Kohli, & Dixon, 1984);thus our sample is comparable to other samples of adults inthe cognitive aging literature.Asa Differences gn Divisiong Tank

A MANOVA revealed significant age-related differences inthe frequency of division types (see Figure 1). Univariateanalyses indicated age differences in the frequency ofintrapersonal divisions (E (3, 329) = 5.58, R < .001), (b)interpersonal divisions ( E (3, 329) = 8.40, R < .001), (c)

impersonal divisions ( (3, 329) = 3.46, p < .05), (d) otherdivisions (E (3, 329) = 5.75, R < .001), but not (e) within-family divisions (R < .098). Table 2 contains thedescriptive statistics relevant to these analyses.

Pairwise comparisons using the Scheffé method indicatedthat intrapersonal divisions were significantly more frequentin old and old-old adults than in young adults (Ns = 2.2402.23, and 1.30, respectively, g < .05). Conversely,interpersonal divisions were significantly more frequent inyoung adults than old-old and old adults (Ns = 1.88, 1.03,and 0.75, respectively, R < .05); the old-old adults alsodiffered from the middle-aged adults (Ns = 0.75 and 1.51, R <.05). Young adults differed from the old-old adults in thefrequency of impersonal divisions (Ns = 0.34 and 0.86, R <.05). Lastly, "other" divisions were significantly morefrequent in old-old adults than in both the middle-aged andyoung adults (ris = 0.5, 0.19, and 0.13, respectively, R <.05).Predomiunt Divisi9A =I And Cognitive performance

Participants were classified into groups based on theirpredominant division type, and a multivariate analysis ofcovariance (MANCOVA) with age as the covariate was performedusing the cognitive measures as dependent variables. Forthis analysis, twenty-seven participants were excluiedbecause of missing data on one or more of the dependentvariables.

Thz, multivariate E was significant, and follow-upunivalve analyses revealed significant differences on (a)Letter Sets, E (4, 300) = 3.89, < .01, (b) Digit Spanbackward, Z (4, 300) = 3.80, R < .01, and (c) vocabulary, (4,

300) = 4.740 R < .001.Pairwise comparisons using the Scheffé method indicated

that the impersonal divisions group differed from theintrapersonal0 within-family, and "other" divisions groups on

Structure to Content6

Letter Sets (Hs 18.52, 13.68, 13.02, and 8.32,respectively, 2 < .05). Additionally, "other" divisionsgroup differed from the remaining groups on Letter Sets (2 <.05). The interpersonal divisions group differed from thewithin-family divisions group on backward Digit Span (Ns m6.96 and 5.35, p < .05). The impersonal divisions groupdiffered from the within-family divisions group on vocabulary(gs = 58.71 and 47.52, p < .05).

DiscussionAgg Differences 2n pergprmance Neastires

Consistent with previous research, our sampledemonstrated the "classic aging pattern" in cognitiveperformance. This pattern is characterized by the divergencebetween fluid (inductive reasoning and effortful processing)and crystallized (vocabulary) abilities.Ace pifferences 2n Divisions mials

In addition to these cognitive differences, youngeradults differed from older adults on the Divisions task. Inparticular, young and middle-aged adults were more likelythan older adults to use interpersonal types of divisions.The predominance of interpersonal divisions may reflect thecontexts in which these age groups are embedded.Interpersonal relations may be more salient in educationaland work settings, which are common contexts for these agegroups; that is, social relations and interpersonal problem-solving are characteristic of school and work settings. Thisinterpersonal style of responding emphasizes public, socialrelations rather than private, personal relations and iscontext-focused rather than self-focused. This type ofresponding is different from within-family divisions in thatthe latter type emphasizes personal, family experiencesrather than impersonal or social relations.

Young adults were also more likely than old-old adultsto use an impersonal type of divisions. Impersonalresponding reflects an objective, abstract style of thinking,which may be adaptive for young adults in school contexts.Organismic perspectives would predict a predominance ofimpersonal responding in young adulthood; however, theresults of the divisions task do not support this assertion.The reasons for this discrepancy may be that the divisionstask does not adequately measure this style of responding, orthe method of coding was not sensitive to abstract responses.In either case, young adults performed better than all otherage groups on the Letter Sets test and better than the oldand old-old on the Houseplants task, both o..! which aremeasures of logical reasoning.

An alternative explanation for the discrepancy is thatage differences in interpersonal divisions partly overlapwith impersonal divisions because the content ofinterpersonal divisions was impersonal rather than personal.This possibility is supported in that the impersonal group'sperformance was significantly better than that of the

7

Structure to Content7

intrapersonal, within-family, and other divisions on theLetter Sets test, but did not differ from that of theinterpersonal group. In other words, impersonal andinterpersonal styles of responding did not differ on ourmeasure of inductive reasoning.

Old and old-old adult were more likely than young adultsto use an intrapersonal type of divisions. The frequency ofintrapersonal responding in old and old-old adults reflects aself-focused style of thinking. This style of respondingviflects personal experiences, abilities, and concerns abouttHe self. The predominance of this type of responding in theold adults and, to a lesser degree, the old-old adults mayreflect the contexts in which these age groups are embedded.That is, these populations nay be more concerned withpersonal issues and self-reflection rather than abstract,impersonal issues (Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe & Bulka, 2989).

Old-old adults were significantly more likely than theother groups to use an "other" type of division. Examinationof the "other" category indicated that it reflects adisorganize4 divisions style in which the participant namedthe items or did not divide the items. Many of theseparticipants provided a personal narrative and recountedpersonal experiences in response to the items.Predominant aivision Type Ana Cognitive performance

The performance on the cognitive measures differed forthe divisions groups in expected directions. The effects ofdivision type on cognitive measures were significant evenwith the effects of age removed, and they paralleled agegroup effects. Thus, age does not solely account fordifferences in cognitive measures. Style of responding,then, may be used to index patterns of cognitive abilities.However, since performance on the cognitive measures variedwith divisions group membership even with the effects of ageremoved, this task may also index the contexts to which theindividuals are adapting. Impersonal and interpersonalstyles of responding reflect formal and objective thinkingand were most frequent in young and middle-aged adults. Thedemands of work and educational settings may nurture thisstyle of responding as a mode of adaptation. Similarly,intrapersonal and within-family styles of responding reflectdialectical thinking and were most frequent in the old andold-old adults. These styles of responding may be adaptiveto the demands of retirement and disengagement. Differentstyles of responding, then, are age-related but not age-determined.

Differences in cognitive performance among divisionstypes with the effects of age removed may indicate thatobserved age differences on cognitive measures are notexplained by different stages of development. Rather, theseresults indicate that a style of thinking rather than stageof thinking underlie the differences. Style of thinking mayreflect different contexts that include, but are not limitedto, age. Comparing the performance of persons from different

Structure to Content8

age groups is simultaneously a comparison of differentcontexts in which the individualm are embedded and eachcontext places different adaptive demands on cognitiveabilities.

9

Structure to Content9

ReferencesArlin, P. K. (1975). Cognitive development in adulthood. A

fifth stage? Developmental psychology. //a 602-606.Arlin, P. K. (1984). Adolescent and adult thought: A

structural interpretation. In M. L. Commons, F. A.Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), peyon4 formal operations:Late adolescent And adult cognitive dOveloppent (pp.256-271). New York: Praeger.

Baltes, P. B. Dittman-Kohli, FS, & Dixon, R. A. (1984). Newperspectives on the development of intelligence inadulthood: Toward a dual-process conception and a modelof selective optimization with compensation. Life-spanDevelopment And ishayfor, §, 33-76.

Basseches, M. A. (1984). Dialectical thinking as ametasystematic form of cognitive organization. In M. L.Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Amnon (Eds.), Beyondformal operations: LAIR Adolescent And adult cognitivedevelopment (pp. 216-238). New York: Praeger.

Chandler, M. J. (1975). Relativism and the problem ofepistemological loneliness. figman Development, 11, 171-180.

Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoningschemas. Comaitive Psychology, 12, 391-416.

Commons, M. L., Richards, F., & Kuhn, D. (1982).Metasystematic reasoning: A case for a level ofsystematic reasoning beyond Piagetts stage of formaloperations. child Development, 111 1058-1069.

Denney, N. W., & Palmer, A. M. (1981). Adult age differenceson traditional and practical problem-solving measures.Journal of Gerontoloav, lfi, 323-328.

Dixon, R. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1986). Toward life-spanresearch on the functions and pragmatics ofintelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.),Practical intelligence: Pature and origin of competencein thA everyday world (pp. 203-235). Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Eckstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, Hs, & Derman, D.(1976). yit 21 factor-referenced cognitive tests, 2.976,revision. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Edelstein, W., & Noam, G. G. (1982). Regulatory structuresof the self and "postformaln stages in adulthood. =AnDevelopment, 25, 407-422.

Gribbin, K., Schaie, K. W., & Parham, I. A. (1980).Complexity of life style and maintenance of intellectualabilities. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 47-61.

Hertzog, C., Schaie, K. SC, & Gribbin, K. (1978).Cardiovascular disease and changes in intellectualfunctioning from middle to old age. journal ofGerontology, 33, 872-883.

Horn, J. L. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J.R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.) Handbook at

10

Structure to Content10

multivariate experimental psvcholoay (2nd. ed.) NewYork: Plenum.

Horn, J. L. & Cotten., R. B. (1967). Age differences influid and crystallized intelligence. Agtg psychologica,26, 107-219.

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need forfurther conceptualization. mamAn Development, 21, 91-105.

Kramer, D. A., & Woodruff, D. S. (1986). Relativistic anddialectical thought in three adult age groups. ligmAnDevelopment, 21# 280-290.

Kuhn, 1:0*, & Brannock, J. (1977). Development of theisolation of variables scheme in experimental and"natural experiment" contexts. DeveloppeqtalFAX0212gX, 12, 9-14.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). Beyond formal operations: Uses andlimits of pure logic in life-span development. HumanDevelopment, 22, 141-161.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and matureautonomy: A theoretical prologue. Hyman Demelgyment,2A, 161-191.

Labouvie-Vief, G. DeVoe, M., & Bulka, D. (1989). Speakingabout feelings: Conceptions of emotions across the lifespan. psychology and Acing, 1, 1-13.

Leontyev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity inpsychology. fisniat_Eurchglwx, 1974, 12(2), 4-33.(Trans. by E. Berg from Voprosy filosofii, 1972, No. 9,95-108.) Reprinted in J. V. Wertsch, Ed. & trans., Thecortcept of activity in $oviet psychology (pp. 37-71).Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1981.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1983). Growing into maturity: Toward ametasubjective theory of adulthood stages. lift=aptanDevelopment And Dehavior, 2, 117-156.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1984). Attentional, dialectic, and mentaleffort: Toward an organismic theory of life stages. InM. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), pumaformal operations: Late adolescent ond adult cogn#ivedevelopment (pp. 182-215). New York: Praeger.

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),CArmighAel'a pima gf child psycholoay (Vol. 1, 3rded., pp. 703-732). New York: Wiley.

Reese, H. W. (1982). A comment on the meaning of°dialectics.' Egamjayalsimnant, 22, 234-429.

Reese, H. W., Puckett, J. M., & Cohen, S. H. (1990).Cognition and old age. National Institute on Aginggrant (1 RO1 AG06069), United States Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Reese, H. W., & Smyer, M. (1983). The dimensionalization oflife events. In K. A. McCluskey & E. C. Callahan(Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Non-Darmatkve life events. New York: Academic Press.

1 1

Structure to Content11

Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectic operations: The final periodof cognitive development. Hunan Develppment, 11, 346-370.

Rybash, J. M., Royer, W. J., & Roodin, P. A. (1986). Adultcganitien and aging= DevelopPOntal d3=122 inprocessing, Icnowing, And thinking. New York: Pergamon.

Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: Therelativistic stage. In N. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, &C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond Soma], operatipns: Lateadolescent And /adult cognitin dtpveloppent (pp. 298-325). New York: Praeger.

Sinnott, J. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday andabstaeact problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.),rveryday =gam solyinq: Theory And Applications. NewYork: Praeger.

Weschler, D. (1981). Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.

1_2

4

Table 1

Ms ALL nantiaa deviations, awl aisnifiranu Luta& a demographic ant Rsifiumanc& variables

Ia fan ago. small (N=333).

Age Group

Young Middle age Old Old-oldN=88 N=82 N=87 N=76

hi SD M 3,12 M IR M 31/ itDranagrAphiaVariables

Age 20.3 1.64

% Female 52.3 _ -

Education 13.28 1.71

Health 5.93 1.74

Depression2 14.70ab 9.12

performanceVariables

Digit SpanForward 8.73a 2.36Backward 7.15a 2.08

Letter Sets 20.20a 5.13

Vocabulary 49.54a 12.20

LogicalReasoning3 2.85a 1.48

44.3 3.20 65.9 2.95 80.3 4.23 Mb MP

53.7 ... 54.0 - - 55.3

14.07a 2.73 13.88 3.03 12.73a 3.84 .05

6.34ab 1.67 5.18a 2.29 53 gb 2.23 .01

10.75 9.67 10.28a 7.68 10.36b 7.94 .01

8.00 2.37 7.77 2.15 7.10a 2.28 .0016.34 2., 6.47 2.08 5.75a 2.26 .005

17.03a 5.68 12.10a 5.84 7.31a 4.05 .001

56.25a 11.52 54.52 12.65 53.60 12.93 .01

2.46b 1.56 2.05a 1.43 1.57ab 1.24 .001

1Means with the same superscript are significantly different at the .05 level.

2 Higher numbers indicate higher self-reported depression.

3Scores could range from 0 (experiential; no isolation of variables) to 4 (logical isolation ofthe operative variable and exclusion of the inoperative variables).

13

90

BO

70

00

50

40

30

20

10

Proportion of Divisions Typeby Age Group

4Young Middle Old

AGE GROUPOld-Old

Divisions Type

Other

Impersonal

22] Interpersonal

Within-family

Intrapersonal