C. J. Krauskopf -
Ohio State University
The radical hypothesis described here, along with a theory based on
it, is that differential aptitudes are a "cause" of much of the
preferential behavior we call personality. Other things being equal,
people would rather use the aptitudes they feel they are better at and
avoid using those in which they feel weaker. This hypothesis is
apparently radical, because it has not been taken seriously. Some have
come close. Witkin's (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson. Goodenough & Karp, 1962)
concept of Field Independence/Dependence (FI/D) comes close. Baron
(1994) does say that people would rather do what they are good at, but
does not develop the idea. Cantor (Cantor & Kihlstrom 1987) gives
intelligence a central place. She posits intelligence as an aptitude
that can be applied to developing social skills and behaviors that we
might consider a part of personality. She appears to consider
intelligence a general concept and differential aptitudes not very
"This hypothesis is
apparently radical, because it has not been taken seriously. "
Many have made connections between personality variables and
intelligence, but when they consider causative direction at all, it is
that personality "causes" differential aptitudes. (Mathews & Dorn
1995;Barat, 1995; Goff & Ackerman, 1992) Connecting personality and
differential aptitude has a long history going back, at least, to
Pressey (1918) who grouped different kinds of items on the
Stanford-Binet test and tried to make personality inferences. The most
elaborate of these tries at application was Rapaport, Gill & Schafer
(1945), inferring various forms of abnormal behavior from patterns on
the Wechsler scales. After the disappointing results of Rapaport, Gill
& Schafer such efforts nearly ceased, other than occasional
application of Wechsler's sign approach (1958).
The essence of the scientist-practitioner model of applied psychology
is that applications should be based, insofar as possible, on good
science and that practice should inform science in the generation of
hypotheses and information about what seems to work. I want to tell
two stories here. The first is about a practitioner developing an
assessment method beginning with a connection of test "signs" with
behavior, and proceeding to a descriptive system which could mystify
observers. The second is about the application of scientific methods
to try to answer the question, "How does he do that?"
The First Story
Shortly after World War II John Gittinger was appointed the Chief
(and only) psychologist at the Norman State Hospital in Oklahoma.
Psychologists were expected to give diagnostic tests in those days and
one of the most popular was the Rorschach. Gittinger found that in
that hospital population responses to the Rorschach were quite sparse,
giving little information to use. In contrast, when he gave the
Wechsler-Bellevue they would try hard. They seemed to have the
attitude that if they could show they had some intelligence, they
might get out of the hospital.
In the days before the dominance of franchised fast food, small
diners were common, and one source of jobs for marginal workers. The
common jobs were fry cooks and dishwashers. Gittinger's first
test-behavior connection was that dishwashers did relatively poorly on
the Digit Span subtest (D) and that fry cooks did relatively well.
This became the first variable in his descriptive system. He reasoned
that a dishwasher could function even in a distracting environment and
that the fry cooks had to keep orders straight in kind and time,
having to have some way of avoiding the distractions. He calls this
Internalization-Externalization using the Jungian notion of "direction
of libido". Some people are able to store and retrieve information in
their internal world easily, some less able to do this are more able
to perceive external information and detect changes there. This
difference makes the internal world more "real" for some and the
external world more for others.
"This difference makes the internal world more "real" for some and the external world more for others."
After Gittinger moved to New York and was working with a much better
educated population, the connections between Digit Span,
distractibility and the other behaviors he thought related
disappeared. The key to the disappearance seemed to be the Arithmetic
subtest (A). When Arithmetic was high relative to all the other
subtests, the original relationship was partially reversed. There was
an interaction between the subtests such that when D was low and A was
low the original relationship obtained. When D was low and A high, the
person behaved more like the original high D person. Gittinger called
this apparent reversal of behaviors compensation. Learning is
compensating for an originally weaker ability by providing what now
would be called procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1982), learning
acquired over long periods of time.
Over the next several years the system took on more variables and
more interactions until there were three clusters of subtests, three
which are called "primitive" modified by two additional, interacting
levels, the second level called basic and the third surface, primarily
of increasing specific content of the subtests.
High or low refers not to a high or low scaled score on the Wechsler,
but to a concept Gittinger calls Normal Level (NL). None of the usual
measures of central tendency capture his use of NL to determine what
are high or low subtests. Saunders (Krauskopf & Saunders, 1994) has
been able to generate a formula to predict what Gittinger would say is
the NL of a profile which correlates +.89 with Gittinger's judgment.
The first cluster is the three
subtests of the Wechsler which describe
Internalization-Externalization. The first is D which Gittinger
considered "Primitive". Primitive means that it is governed more by
neural structure than by learning, although some learning seems
necessary. Without extensive learning, development reduces to simple
maturation. The second subtest is A which seemed to require both
internal and external capacity. Gittinger calls this level basic.
Basic level requires very long term learning and is determined by the
demands and rewards in the environment. The basic level stabilizes in
late adolescence. Up to this point learning has been primarily
directed by others. The third level is called surface, but has also
been called ideal. At this point awareness and volition of the
individual begin to play a larger part in development. The Information
(I) subtest is used as an estimate of development at this level.
Failure of either the external capacity to notice things or the
internal capacity to store information in a retrievable form will
result in a low score on this subtest.
Regulated - Flexible (R-F)
The second cluster is called
Regulated-Flexible (R-F) and refers to style of learning. Regulated
people are more able to learn by rote, by bits and pieces. Flexible
people are more able to see relations among things. Regulated people
have been described as needing to learn in order to understand and
Flexible people as needing to understand in order to learn. Flexible
people are more likely to see the forest and regulated people the
trees. This dimension is closely related to Witkin's (Witkin, Dyk
Faterson, Goodenough & Karp, (1962) dimension of Field
Independence/Dependence. R-F is related to emotional sensitivity as
well as learning. F people more readily see connections between people
and their environments. R people, seeing one element at a time are
more likely to accept the world around them as it is. Block Designs
(BD) is the primitive indicator for this dimension. R people seem to
begin the test by identifying a block's place in the design and
proceeding to the next one rapidly. F people seem to lose speed by
needing to consider the whole design determining what to do with an
individual block. For PAS purposes the Wechsler Bellevue I was
probably better than subsequent versions because F's spent time
wondering what to do with the additional colors on the original Kohs
blocks. Similarities (S) is the basic level subtest. For an R it
represents a learned capacity for seeing relationships. For an F a
good score is more easily obtained. For the F a low score represents
learning the behavior more typical of the R to the point of damaging
their capacity to see relations. The Surface level subtest is
"Flexible people are more likely to see the forest and regulated people the trees. "
Role Adaptable - Role Uniform (A-U)
The third cluster, Role
Adaptable (A) and its opposite, Role Uniform (U), refers to a persons
skill in meeting demands others make of him. It is an output dimension
and the behavior is done without awareness. At one extreme is the A,
charming, moving easily in many situations, always making a good first
impression. At the other end is the U, at best able to handle only a
few social roles and often socially inept. The behavior is exhibited
mostly in new social situations for in familiar situations the U may
appear very comfortable and accepted. The primitive measure in this
cluster is the Picture Arrangement (PA) subtest. The basic level
measure is Picture Completion (PC). These subtests have been connected
with social intelligence, but PA has more often been called planning
ability. The surface level subtest is Object Assembly (OA), which has
been interpreted as a measure of social anxiety.
"The behavior is exhibited
mostly in new social situations"
Gittinger assigned a special role to the Digit Symbol (DS) subtest.
It has carried several labels over the years, none of them really
satisfactory. Most often it has been called "Activity Level", or some
kind of available psychological energy.
Interpretations, or personality descriptions, were worked out for
each of the 512 patterns resulting from combinations of the three
clusters. One can be either I or E at the primitive level, can
continue or reverse the direction at the basic level and at the
surface level giving 8 possible arrangements (2x2x2=8) for each
cluster. Combining with the other clusters yields the 512 patterns
(8x8x8=512). DS is treated as a moderator variable. The
interpretations (Gittinger, 1964) were written as a combination of
Gittinger's insight and experience, aided by sorting a data bank of
profiles by pattern and searching for common behaviors. The data bank
at the time the descriptions were written was approaching 10,000
protocols. Associated behaviors ranged from complete case histories to
nothing. The cases came from Gittinger's files, those who worked with
him, and many people doing research with Wechsler scales who were
willing to share data. The descriptive Atlas contains, in addition to
pattern descriptions, a description of behaviors which ought to be
associated with each trait.
People found it uncanny to listen to Gittinger interpret a Wechsler
profile, often using only the subtest scores, age and sex. After the
descriptive Atlas was published, it was also sometimes startling to
read the pattern descriptions and compare them to characteristics of
known people. In fact, this is the process by which some people of a
more scientific turn of mind got interested in the PAS. This brings us
to the next story.
"People found it uncanny to listen to Gittinger interpret a Wechsler
profile, often using only the subtest scores, age and sex"
The Second Story
Many psychologists who come into contact with the PAS dismiss it
immediately. For example, Eysenck (199 ) says he could find no reason
why anyone should believe it. Kaufman (1990) merely says he does not
like it. Robinson (1985) refers to its near miraculous correspondence
with the WAIS, then proceeds apply the interpretation of uncompensated
I's and E's to a highly compensated sample of medical students, before
saying it does not work. Many who dismiss the PAS quickly mention
Cohen's (1952; 1957) factor analysis which yielded 3 factors and point
out that this interpretation of Wechsler scales would require 9 or 10
Some psychologists, however, did respond to the challenge of the
question, "How does he do that?" This response was always after seeing
Gittinger interpret profiles, usually from persons who were not known
to Gittinger, but were well known to others. D. R. Saunders was one of
the early ones who responded. He was aware of Cohen and the common
belief that there were only 3 factors in Wechsler scales, but
intrigued by the interpretations. He then gave several tests himself
to people Gittinger could not possibly have had contact with and was
sort of captured by the resulting session where Gittinger said things
about these people that there was no way he could have known other
than getting some clue from the tests.
One of the first things Saunders did was consider what might be the
problem with the factor analyses of Cohen (1952; 1957) and others. If
Gittinger were doing what he said, there must be many more than 3
factors. Using Thurstone's (1947) criteria one always can obtain a
perfect fit between factors and correlations in 7 factors or fewer
when starting with an 11x11 matrix. There was one factor analysis of
Wechsler scales which did obtain more factors. Davis (1956) expanded
the matrix by adding variables, for example the MMPI scales. There are
other ways of expanding a matrix from Wechsler scales. One can use
split half scoring, or item level factoring. Saunders employed both of
these methods (1959; 1960a; 1960b). His results were in reasonably
good agreement with the PAS.
Table 1 is the result of a factor analysis done as an example. The
sample is 46 high school students, 16 and 17 years old, tested with
the WISC III as part of an evaluation for emotional or learning
disabilities. To expand the matrix the simple device of subtracting an
average of the subtests from each subtest score was used and the
results put in as additional variables. Digits forward and digits
backward and the identification number were also entered. An
orthogonal extraction with quartimax rotation was used. The result is
8 factors which meet the common eigenvalue criterion and a scree plot
suggests 10 or 11. The factors are in good agreement with the PAS use
of the test. Arithmetic is an exception and may result from sample
dependent variance with this sample generally scoring low with small
variance. Other factor analyses show Arithmetic dominating a factor.
| A Wechsler Factor Analysis Rotated Factor Matrix |
Note: Verbal subtests are indicated by first letter, Performance subtests by first letters of each word. ID is the case identification number. Dbak is digits backward. X is an average of all subtests.
Using this same sample with the usual 11x11 matrix, a principal
components extraction and varimax rotation yields three factors by the
eigenvalue criterion and a scree plot also suggests three factors,
resembling the usual published factor analytic results from Wechsler
Saunders also factor analyzed the Japanese version of the WAIS
(Kodama, Shinagawa & Indo, 1964) with results similar to his factor
analyses of American samples (Saunders (1959). The most extensive
factor analytic study was by Klingler and Saunders (1975). They used
item level factoring of nine subtests (Digit Symbol and Vocabulary
were omitted) with a sample of 980. They found a 15 factor solution
necessary to account for the item intercorrelations. Factor analyzing
an 11x11 matrix of Wechsler scores just does not take seriously the
hypothesis that there may be more than three factors.
All of these factor analyses have some degree of fit with the PAS
arrangement of the subtests. The larger and more varied samples have
the best fit. What the PAS calls primitive subtests are generally
factorially more clear. Information, a surface level subtest has items
that load on 5 or 6 factors. The conclusion must be that we have the
dimensional complexity to support a scheme like the PAS, and that its
more fundamental dimensions have good support.
Early Validity Studies
William Thetford and Helen Schucman at the College of Physicians and
Surgeons, Columbia University were early researchers interested in the
PAS. They initiated a program of research more like orthodox validity
studies, developing hypotheses from the PAS for testing. An early
study (Schucman & Thetford, 1968) reasoning from the fundamental
hypothesis was that conversion symptoms should interfere with
preferred modes of cognitive functioning. They studied two symptom
groups, pronounced psychomotor symptoms and severe headaches. The two
psychomotor symptom groups each had significantly more Externalizers
than control groups. The two severe headache groups contained no
Another interesting study by Thetford & Schucman (1969) concerned the
acceptance of the PAS personality descriptions by the people tested.
They concentrated on the R-F dimension and using the PAS idea that
compensated people generally are not aware of such compensation and
are more likely to think of themselves as having the characteristics
of their basic pattern, hypothesized that those testing R without
compensation would be more likely to select a description of
themselves containing theoretical R characteristics, but those whose
tests showed compensation toward F would select F descriptions as
being more like them. Uncompensated F should select F and compensated
toward R should choose R. There were not enough F compensated toward R
in the sample, but otherwise the selections were as predicted. These
results were replicated by Mojonnier (1971). The studies are, at
least, some indication that people are not just seeing themselves as a
result of the "Barnum effect".
Another idea that seems reasonable is that if a test predicts
behavior, then the reverse should also obtain. York (1963; 1994) has
provided a study on this point. He recruited a sample of people he had
some chance to observe and who were willing to provide Wechsler scores
or to be tested. His next step was to predict the direction of score
deviations from NL for each subject. He then compared his predictions
to the tests with significant results. He also speculated on his
mistakes, which were more on the A-U dimension than the others. He
concluded that he had been reluctant to assign the U direction both to
females and to people he liked.
The PAS assigns no value to any of the patterns, but many people do.
Psychologists value interpersonal skills. Many years of training
applied psychologists has shown me that they place enough positive
value on the A descriptions that they are reluctant to accept U
descriptions of themselves. Some go so far as to believe that there is
something "wrong" with people who test U.
If some forms of abnormal behavior are exaggerations of normal
characteristics, then some abnormal behaviors should be concentrated
in appropriate PAS patterns. At least one variety of schizophrenia is
characterized by behavior which the PAS would describe as extreme IRU.
That is they are withdrawn from their environment, perseverative and
non-responsive to people. Goodnow (1961), using a version of the
Wechsler standardized for Chinese, compared a sample of Hong Kong
Chinese diagnosed as schizophrenic with a sample of Chinese workers
and a sample of Chinese students. Both of the normal samples were
significantly different from the schizophrenics. 100% of the
schizophrenic sample were I, 95% were R and 70% U.
Cohen (1955) had a group of experienced clinicians attempt to
differentiate the broad categories of schizophrenia, neurosis and
brain damage using Wechsler scales. In this study the clinicians were
using whatever their experience or their own theoretical positions
taught them, and the results were very discouraging to those
interested in Wechsler pattern analysis. Saunders wanted to see if a
more coherent theoretical position, such as the PAS, could do better.
He took a separate sample of 125 schizophrenics and rank ordered the
64 possible PAS basic patterns by the number of schizophrenics in
them. Then the 200 schizophrenic and neurotic cases of the Cohen
sample were analyzed for PAS patterns, and ranked according to the
ranks of the new sample of 125 schizophrenics. After this ranking the
top 100 of Cohen's cases were found to have twice as many
schizophrenics as neurotics. Beyond the ranking no attempt was made to
optimize indicators (Saunders & Gittinger, 1968). It would seem that
there is enough information in Wechsler profiles to make valid
classification into such a rough dichotomy.
My own introduction to the PAS was similar to Saunders experience.
Perhaps I was prepared to listen because I had been speculating on
aptitude-personality connections. However, I too had read Cohen (1952;
1957). Saunders offered to send me interpretations if I would send
WAIS protocols. The interpretations he sent were from Gittinger's
Atlas (1964). They were impressive. For example, more than half
mentioned alcoholism as a potential problem. The cases were, in fact,
hospitalized alcoholics. The only information available for
interpretation was the scaled scores of the subtests, age and sex.
There was no information about who the people were or where they came
In addition to the dimensionality problem discussed above, there was
another fundamental problem to be addressed, reliability of the
subtests. Using the published reliabilities and the significance
testing procedures commonly recommended (McNemar, 1957; Silverstein,
1982) a Wechsler profile does not often have more than two or three
subtests that should be interpretable. this is a problem for both the
clinician and the scientist. The case for interpretation has been
argued more extensively elsewhere (Krauskopf, 1991), and is only
briefly presented here. Both Type I and Type II errors deserve
consideration. The conventional view considers only Type I error.
For the clinician balancing the two results in a difference of a
subtest from an average of all subtests approximately that recommended
by Wechsler (1958). Cahan (1988; 1989) has argued that the probability
of the null hypothesis being true when analyzing a WAIS profile is so
low that all such testing should be abandoned. My argument is that the
clinician is better off basing hypotheses about a client on a 10:1
probability of a real test difference than to act as if there were no
information at all.
For a scientist happy ignorance is not a desirable state, yet
indiscriminant tolerance for Type II errors facilitates that state.
An embarrassment of research directions seemed needed. More validity
studies like the ones Shucman and Thetford did were needed. Making
connections to other psychological research and theory seemed highly
desirable. And, many of these were done, but another direction made
possible by the large data bank that had been collected was what I
call the Life Circumstance hypothesis.
If there is preferential choice by personality pattern, and if people
have a reasonable degree of free choice in what they do, or
alternatively if there is forced distribution based on behavior, then
there should be higher proportions of patterns which are appropriate
to the dominant activities, or to the sanctioned behaviors. An example
is in Krauskopf & Saunders (1994) in the tables based on the
standardization sample of the WAIS (Wechsler,1955) and another table
based on college students. The differences are highly significant. C
hi-square is more than 30 times the degrees of freedom, and this
without using IQ or NL. One of the differences that should appear is
that uncompensated and unmodified E, being a very unintellectual
pattern, should be, and is, very rare in the college students. This
pattern is much less frequent in college students than in either the
standardization sample or in prisoners. The Life Circumstance
hypothesis is not really a new idea. For example, Holland (1985) uses
it to describe the "personality" of occupations.
The schizophrenic studies above are also Life Circumstance studies.
If people are called schizophrenic, then there should be some
restricted range of patterns on any multiscale measure. Another
example in Krauskopf & Saunders (1994) is imprisoned felons. The data
bank has several samples and they are individually and collectively
different from the standardization sample. What PAS would call
psychopathic derives from a primitive IRA pattern, is largely
uncompensated, especially on the A-U dimension. This pattern is
heavily overrepresented in imprisoned populations.
Saunders has proposed a more sophisticated, and perhaps more
persuasive, form of the hypothesis. That is if two or more people show
test patterns that are highly alike, then there should be some salient
behaviors that are alike. We agree with Sines (1964) proposed that
this should be the direction of the best validity studies, form
homogeneous groups with variables thought to be important and then
look for the similar behaviors. Sines did a d2 sorting of MMPI
patterns and discovered a group of highly homogeneous profiles for
which the salient behavior, for 80% of the sample, was violence.
Saunders calls his method Reference Grouping (Saunders 1989; Krauskopf
& Saunders, 1994). This method takes some advantage of the large
collection in our data bank. Briefly, the method is to factor analyze
a group of profiles which have some degree of resemblance, using a
factor score "key", compute the distance of each profile from the
group centroid. The farthest cases are discarded and the process is
repeated until a highly homogeneous group is left. Then a larger
collection can be scanned for possible additional members.
One of the first groups was called ERA Psychopath. There were 84
members, half of which were imprisoned felons. Others were from a
juvenile detention center, five mental hospitals and several other
places. Hospitalized cases contained notations such as, sociopath,
character disorder, larceny, drunkenness and so forth.
Other groups that have been discovered include, Applied Scientist,
Rapists, Professional Generalists, several kinds of alcoholics, and
Performing Artists among many others. The proportion of people with
the pattern, and not in the originally formed group, showing the
common salient behavior can be turned into an approximate correlation
by taking the square root of the proportion. The Applied Scientist
group yields a correlation of +.75.
Before 1980 Saunders had at least one reference group for each of the
64 possible basic level PAS patterns. Some of the groups showed
prominent abnormal behavior, some normal. A few had both. Gittinger
had said very early that it was difficult to look at a Wechsler
protocol and tell if someone would be diagnosed as abnormal or
disturbed, but if it were known that there was a problem, he could
tell what kind of behavior it would involve. The reference groups that
contained both normal and abnormal cases seemed like an empirical
demonstration. One of the groups was labeled Professional/Paranoid. It
was not that these people made their living being paranoid, but that
the group seemed either to have responsible, professional occupations,
or to be in some sort of difficulty over paranoid behavior. Many of us
think that at sometime we worked for one of these. These dual
reference groups are examples of diathesis-stress.
Finding at least one group representing each of the basic PAS
patterns, combined with the observation that frequencies of people
across PAS patterns is very uneven suggests that PAS patterns are not
any form of multivariate normal distribution, or the result of any
random process. Such a lumpy distribution suggested to Saunders the
possibility of creating a Reference Group scheme in which every
profile could be placed. He has been working on this problem for
several years with some success. One indication of progress is the
hypothesis that in such a lumpy, multivariate distribution, randomly
generated profiles should be harder to place than those generated by a
real person. Therefore, it should be possible to tell the difference
between real profiles and randomly generated profiles. With another
person generating 150 randomly rearranged profiles, he undertook to
differentiate real people's profiles from an unrestricted random
arrangements of subtests. That is the subtests were randomly
relabeled. This was done with 80+% accuracy. Then a sample was
generated with the restriction that the variances of the subtests
should be preserved. In this Saunders achieved 67%. When the
intercorrelations among the subtests were preserved it became harder
to identify the otherwise randomly arranged profiles (Krauskopf &
This is interesting evidence. First, it would not have been possible
to make the Reference Group arrangement for all cases without a good
place to start, which the theory provided. The theory also provides
behavioral expectations for resulting groups. Second, the way of
identifying the random profiles would not have been possible without
the sorting scheme for real profiles to compare it to.
Any good theory should be able to make predictions. With the PAS this
is complicated because with the explicit consideration of
interactions, it should be a rare behavior which is influenced by one
variable sufficiently to test many of the variables directly. One
possible method we have used is to make predictions using the whole
profile. An early study (Krauskopf & Bielefeld, 1981) was to test an
entire class in psychological testing and to predict the rank order of
their grades in the class. The rank order correlation of predictions
with grades was +.51 (p<.05). Numbers were too small to try to
generate actuarial rules for the predictions, but the correlation of
IQ with grades was +.03.
Another whole profile study was Fallahi (1989). She predicted the
most frequent problems students would pick on the Mooney Problem Check
List as applying to them. There was no interest in the Mooney other
than it was a list of real problems that real people would
acknowledge. Two people made the predictions for a sample of 160. One
did an additional 52 for which the data was less complete. Both
predictors did significantly better than chance. They also were more
accurate than identifying the three most frequent categories college
students endorse and always selecting them.
Connections with other Differential Psychology
Two studies have been done connecting the PAS to Witkin's concept of
FI/D, Frank, (1969) and Johnson, (1970). Factor analyses including Rod
and Frame and Embedded Figures tasks from Witkin and the PAS suggest
that the PAS R-F dimension is closely related to FI/D. Witkin had
recognized this and indicated willingness to use Block Designs as an
alternate measure. There is some suggestion that the PAS principle of
compensation might help sort out some of the confusing relations of
FI/D with personality.
I-E has been studied in relation to several other ideas of
extraversion, Eysenck's measure (Sell, 1971), Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (Austin, 1983; Saunders, 1982), Cattell's 16PF (Saunders,
1982; Turner, Willerman & Horn, 1976). Wagner (1967) used several I-E
measures including the PAS. All are positively related, but all are
somewhat different from each other.
Jackson & Krauskopf (1986) factor analyzed two social self
instruments, Fenigstein, Schier & Buss's (1975) Self-Consciousness
Scale and Snyder's (1974) Self-Consciousness Scale along with the PAS
and found some expected relations with the A-U dimension. Primitive A
is negatively related to social anxiety and unrelated to
self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is more related to primitive F.
A-U is related to Self-Monitoring, primarily in the quality and
quantity of social relationships (Gabrenya & Arkin, 1980) and to using
others behavior as a reference point.
The above mentioned studies are a sampling of studies that have been
done. Over many years we have done some speculation about what it
means to have a "primitive trait". Saunders suggested that if we
separated abilities into aptitudes and achievements, we could make
some hypotheses about distributions in large samples. After O'Conner,
(1928) an aptitude is defined as an ability whose development is
mostly controlled by maturation and later by deterioration beyond the
control of the individual and the environment. An achievement is an
ability that is dependent on the experience of the individual, either
the striving of the individual for some goal or the press of the
environment forcing particular sorts of learning. The distribution
hypotheses were that the more primitive aptitudes would be closer to
normal distributions and that achievements would be mostly negatively
skewed because an "overachievement" in one area would be at the cost
of disproportionate underachievement in some other area, or areas.
Using a sample of 12111 he found that departure from normality was
less on those subtests the PAS considers primitive, D, BD, PA and DS
(Saunders & Gittinger, 1968).
Until recently the psychology of learning was not very helpful
because there were very few studies of learning that extended over
more than a few hours. Cognitive psychology has proposed some useful
ideas. What we are considering the basic level of personality
organization very much like what they call procedural knowledge.
Learning related content, not only results in the learning of the
content, but the experience teaches methods of learning more related
things (Anderson, 1982). PAS theory suggests an even deeper layer of
rule learning than that studied to this point. Saunders and I have
predicted that as cognitive psychology develops they will discover
such a level and it will contain more general problem solving rules
than what is now called procedural knowledge (Krauskopf & Saunders,
1994, p. 84)
We have not systematically searched, but we have noted some work in
psychobiology which relates to PAS. For example Mirsky (1987) has
located brain pathways active in digit span tasks in the reticular
formation and forebrain. Using Mundy-Castle's data (1955), then a
cross validation sample Saunders (1960) found a positive correlation
between alpha frequency and Digit Span score.
Frequently asked Questions
You are talking about genetics and genetics cannot be changed. How
can I believe in such a hopeless theory?
The principle of compensation is how the effects of genetics are
changed, even if one cannot change the genetic endowment. Behavior
genetics does seem to be enjoying increased popularity. Buss' (1991)
review of recent activity in this area does show how person-situation
interactions can be explained. If we were to speculate in a way
similar to the way Buss talks about sexual selection, we would think
about how PAS characteristics could have survival value in a group
living, hunter-gatherer animal. Variety on the dimensions we propose
should have survival value.
PAS seems tied to the Wechsler scales in a "near miraculous" fashion.
Is the theory tied to the Wechsler scales?
No. Wechsler's wide ranging idea of intelligence provided subtests
which do seem to provide measures of important individual differences,
and were instrumental in the beginnings of the theory. However, they
also provide information on possible expansion of the variables
considered (cf Klingler & Saunders, 1975) which might also be used to
construct a better intelligence test. Saunders (Krauskopf & Saunders,
1994) has used factor analytic data to search for other possible
variables to fill "empty space". He has proposed adding a version of
the Stroop procedure (MacLeod, 1991) and a time estimation task to PAS
measures. We have (Miller & Krauskopf 1986) found a pattern of these
two measures and Digit Symbol that relates to "Type A " personality.
Jackson's Multiple Aptitude Batter, which is keyed to the Wechsler
does provide an alternative for compensation and modification
variables, and possibly two of the primitive variables. The
Woodcock-Johnson is also contains a wide variety of aptitude and
achievement measures and might be tried. Ideally, we would be able to
construct a test specific to the PAS.
Other measures have been tried. The most promising at the moment is
Jackson's Multi-aptitude Battery (1989). Questionnaire measures have
been tried, none of which are satisfactory. They violate the basic
assumption of the theory, which may be why they do not work well.
Can I do diagnosis with PAS? Can I determine DSM categories?
No. PAS dimensions are related to the rich variety of normal
variation. Some DSM categories may be exaggerations of normal
characteristics and may relate well to PAS. Some other kinds of
abnormal behavior may be reflected in aptitude and ability patterns,
but we have had only a little success in trying to match DSM. For
example, Konar (1985) found little relationship with official
diagnosis in his sample, but clear relations with the problematic
behaviors that brought the children to the hospital in the first
PAS seems to violate the law of parsimony. How do you justify that?
The law of parsimony actually says that one should not unnecessarily
complicate explanations. People are complex creatures and need a
complex theory to explain their behavior. We would like to keep
explanations as simple as possible, but so far we have not found
anything to throw out.
Doesn't the "Big 5" idea show that you don't need so many dimensions?
The Big 5 theory (Digman; Goldberg; Costa & McRae) summarizes the
factors that account for a large proportion of the variance found in
self report instruments. There are some resemblances with PAS. There
is an I-E cluster. The added stress dimension resembles neuroticism.
However, the main difference is self report. While people are able to
report much about themselves, it is likely that there are aspects that
are not available to conscious awareness. Gough has reported on the
difficulty of finding subtle items for personality inventories. The
studies by Thetford and Schucman (1969) and Mojonnier (1975) suggest
that people sometimes pick what they would like to be.
PAS is a trait theory. Hasn't trait theory been discredited?
We think the ills of trait theory are more related to researchers
tendency to postulate a trait for about anything that might be
measured. Trait theory seems to us to be the theoretical style most
consistent with biology which is at the base of all behavior. We do
believe that situations (the environment) must be considered when
making behavioral predictions, but it is desirable to distinguish
person characteristics from situation characteristics.
If PAS theorizing has some validity to it, there are implications for
assessment, treatment, education, child rearing and self improvement
at a minimum. For example, beyond assessment the strategy for
treatment of behavior disorders would pay more attention to the
surface level, or what a person might be striving for. Our ideas of
connecting this kind of learning to current cognitive psychology
should change cognitive therapy from how one talks to oneself to how
one adds to long term learning and problem solving styles. In
education we think that the several changes in mathematics education
over the past 50 years have been making math easier for one kind of
child and making it more difficult for those who found the former
method easier. That is, 50 years ago R children did not have much
trouble with the normal teaching style, but did have difficulty when
understanding was stressed early. Trying to teach understanding
benefited the F children. For child rearing, since we know from our
life circumstances studies that people in the more advantageous places
in our society, and groups judged to be psychologically better off,
are compensated on the I-E dimension, we would suggest efforts to make
this happen. Krauskopf (1995) has written about the implications for
For assessment, we believe that we could now create a better strategy
for making an intelligence test. For one "g" would be less important
as a goal and a variety of aptitudes would be more deliberately
This is not really a summary, nor is it conclusions. I hope I have
provided two interesting stories, neither of which has an ending. For
those who wish to learn more about the PAS I recommend Bem's (1982)
summary in the Nebraska Symposium for Motivation; Winne and
Gittinger's (1973) Clinical Psychology Monograph; Saunders and
Gittinger (1968); and Krauskopf and Saunders (1994).
The hypothesis that differential aptitudes are causative of much of
the variety of behavior we call personality does seem a bit radical.
But, by taking it seriously we have been able to gain insights into
both intelligence and personality assessment, make some predictions
and better understand people and the circumstances we find them in.
Copyright Sage Publications. Used with permission of the publisher