ultimate worldview technique

243

APPROACHING WORLDVIEW STRUCTUREWITH ULTIMATE MEANINGS TECHNIQUE

DMITRY A. LEONTIEV, PhD, is professor in theDepartment of Psychology at Moscow State Univer-sity, Russia. He develops theoretical views in the fieldof personality and self-regulation at the intersection ofcultural-historical and existential traditions. Hisabundant research activity is centered at the problemof personal meaning as the foundation of a distinc-tively human way of conduct.

Summary

A person’s worldview as a system of subjective generalizations aboutreality is an important though nearly neglected focus of study. Theultimate meanings technique (UMT) elaborated by the author duringthe last decade is presented as a research and clinical instrumentthat makes it possible to reconstruct the system of a person’s beliefsabout the goals and meanings of human life. Structural and contentanalytical indices applicable to UMT, along with qualitative phenom-enological analysis, make it a helpful research instrument.The resultsof different age and clinical groups (normal, mentally deficient, alco-holic, and somatically troubled adults and normal and delinquentadolescents) are discussed.

Keywords: worldview; personal meaning; structure; content analy-sis; assessment

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICALBACKGROUND: WORLDVIEW AS THE FOCUSOF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT

The focus of the present study is the conception of a worldviewapproached from the standpoint of personal meaning systems. The

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 2, April 2007 243-266DOI: 10.1177/0022167806293009© 2007 Sage Publications

notion of a worldview does not belong to traditional categories ofpsychological investigation. Although numerous authors have paidattention to it, only recently a coherent theory of worldview hasappeared (Koltko-Rivera, 2004, 2006), based on the assumptionthat “we don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are” (AnaïsNin, cited in Koltko-Rivera, 2004, p. 3). Indeed, an integrated theoryof worldview is hardly compatible with strict dichotomies of cogni-tive versus affective, internal versus external, mind versus behav-ior, and so on that have been prevailing in mainstream psychologyfor decades; it seems to be possible only “as a phenomenological-cognitive-social hybrid that makes allowances for psychodynamicand dispositional influences on worldviews as they affect behav-ior” (p. 36).

For instance, the cognition versus emotion dichotomy that stemsfrom the ancient subdivision of the human psyche into reason, will,and sensation was one of the core “self-evident” cognitive maps forpsychological science through the 20th century. However, a numberof important psychological phenomena do not fit into this dichotomyand cannot be classified as either cognitive or affective or as a com-bination of both. An important example of this problem is thephenomenon of personal meaning. Numerous attempts to reducepersonal meaning to cognitive or affective phenomena failed tocatch its special nature. Another example is the notion of a personalconstruct (Kelly, 1955). This conception has been considered to becognitive in nature, and Kelly’s (1955) theory of personal constructshas likewise been labeled cognitive because of the lack of moreappropriate labels. This labeling, however, was never supported byKelly himself, who later changed the emphasis from personal con-structs to personal meanings; some authors characterize his theoryas existential (Holland, 1970). What the concepts such as meaning,personal construct, experience, significance, worldview, and othershave in common is that they refer neither to the reality of the sur-rounding world nor to the reality of individual emotional dynamics,but rather to the reality of links between the individual and theworld. Human being in the world has an underlying meaning-basedlogic of its own. This logic, “the heart’s reasons” (Pascal), cannot beexplained by the rational logic of information processing and instru-mentality, nor can it be reduced to the hedonistic logic of emotions(see D. A. Leontiev, 2005, in press). The focus of the proposedapproach is the unveiling of the subjective logic of an individual’sworld construction and activity regulation.

The original theoretical basis of the proposed approach is activ-ity theory—the approach to human consciousness and outlook on

244 Ultimate Meanings Technique

the world, elaborated in the 1970s by Alexey N. Leontiev (1979,2005), that differs from more conventional approaches (and,therefore, the explication of this approach deserves special atten-tion). Departing from this approach, I have elaborated a theory ofworldview as the core of the person’s picture of the world.Worldview is a more or less coherent system of general under-standings about how human beings, society, and the world at largeexist and function. A worldview also includes ideals of the desir-able or “perfect” human being, society, and world. Though acquiredknowledge, cultural stereotypes and schemes, and group ideolo-gies are responsible for much of the content of an individual’sworldview, the latter is nevertheless a highly individuated struc-ture. Knowledge is alloyed in it with firm beliefs, fuzzy ideas, andunconscious schemes and prejudices (D. A. Leontiev, 2000, 2004).

At least four aspects may be distinguished in the worldviewstructure: (a) a content aspect, which deals with the content of anindividual’s explicit or implicit beliefs about the world, for example,“All politicians are liars,” “All adolescents are rebels,” or “Alldevoted Muslims will enter heaven after glorious death”; (b) avalue aspect, which refers to the system of ideals of what the worldshould be or become in the course of natural evolution or controlleddevelopment and in which ideals serve as criteria to evaluate theactual state of affairs, for example, “What is good for GM, is goodfor America” or “Using sexist language is strongly disapproved”;(c) a structural aspect, which pertains to the peculiarities of theintegration of worldview elements into a coherent whole (an indi-vidual’s worldview may be either coherent, well structured, andnoncontradictory or fragmented, poorly structured, and contradic-tory; distinguishing worldview subsystems and defining their con-nections and interrelations are part of the structural aspect of itsanalysis); and finally (d) a functional aspect, which deals with theinfluence of a worldview on the perception and comprehension ofreality and the influence on an individual’s actions. This influencemay be direct or mediated, conscious or unconscious, strong ormild. Some people do not hesitate to defend or to promote theirbeliefs, whereas some do not express them or easily give up undereven moderate pressure.

In this theory, the core of an individual’s worldview is con-strued as a system of generalizations. These elements of a world-view are beliefs that pertain to generalities rather than singleobjects or single subjects. For example, a belief such as “This min-ister is a liar” does not belong to a worldview concept, but “Most

Dmitry A. Leontiev 245

ministers are liars” does belong. The belief that “Music is what Ilove most of all” does not belong, but “Every educated personloves music” does. Individual worldviews always claim to reflectand/or express general truth. Being of individual character andbelonging to the core of a person’s identity, the content of a world-view subjectively appears as knowledge of “how things are.” Infact, shared knowledge is intertwined in it with subjective inter-pretations and prejudices.

This makes worldview generalizations, in a sense, highly projec-tive in that they pertain more to what “we are” rather than what“things are.” Worldview generalizations look like purely cognitivestatements; however, when we ask a person about people at largeand the world at large, we can expect that in these generalizationsthere will be a lot of subjective meanings emerging from the deeplayers of personality dynamics. Transforming one’s personal mean-ings into worldview generalizations, a person thus presents them asobjective cognitions, or general truths. However, if a person tries topersuade us that everyone would steal in certain situations, we canbe fairly sure that he or she personally has no internal barriersagainst stealing. Explicating something in the form of a generaliza-tion may be considered a defense mechanism, having some commonfeatures with rationalization but not identical with it. If asked abouthimself or herself, a person uses various psychological defenses to fil-ter the information disclosed to the interviewer. If being asked abouthuman beings in general, he or she needs no defenses other thangeneralization itself.This makes worldviews not only a special objectof study but also an attractive means of indirect psychologicalassessment of personality structures. Having introduced the cate-gory of generalizations to the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)interpretation scheme (D. A. Leontiev, 1998), I have found that gen-eral statements about people and the world at large in TAT storiesbelong to the most valuable pieces of data.

Based on the above considerations, I have elaborated what Icall the ultimate meanings technique (UMT) for the structural,qualitative, and quantitative analysis of the meaning connectionsin individual worldviews. The object of the present study is thusthe worldview approached from the standpoint of personal mean-ing systems.

UMT does not belong in the category of psychometric tests ortraditional projective techniques. It represents the qualitativeresearch tradition, but the exact labeling of the UMT seems nei-ther simple nor necessary. The closest taxonomic category in which


it would fit is probably assessment techniques based on personalconstruct theory and methodology (Kelly, 1955) aimed at recon-structing and valuing a person’s subjectivity embodied in quasiobjec-tive generalizations. On the contrary, techniques elaborated withinthe cognitive therapy perspective (e.g., “the vertical arrow technique”;Burns, 1989, pp. 122-136), despite surface similarity, have a quite dif-ferent aim of straightening up a person’s subjectivity, teaching him orher maximal objectivity and rationality, but paradoxically directinghis or her attention toward himself or herself rather than toward theworld. Unlike some assessment techniques, for example,Ways to Liveby C. Morris, Value Orientations by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (seeBraithwaite & Scott, 1991), the Worldview Assessment Instrument(Koltko-Rivera, 2000), and some others that aim at revealing specialbeliefs regarding the way the things are, UMT focuses on struc-tural aspects of worldview. The way worldview beliefs develop andare organized seems to be more important than the content of eventhe most general special beliefs. The measures of meaning of life(Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1981; Reker, 2004) also neglect the struc-tural dimension. I based UMT on the qualitative research strategy,though supplemented it with a number of easily measurable quan-titative indices.

THE UMT PROCEDURE

The UMT procedure requires no materials or equipment besidespaper and a pencil; however, it requires up to an hour of face-to-face dialogue between the psychologist and the participant, plus upto an hour for data processing and interpreting.

The procedure is a structured dialogue between the psychologistand the participant. The preliminary instruction is semistructured,as follows: “I will ask you questions, please answer them. You maygive more than one answer to every question.” Additional instruc-tions are introduced in the course of the interview, if necessary.

The main question in this dialogue is “Why do people do some-thing?” The initial question usually refers to daily activities such as“Why do people watch TV?” but might be different. Valid answersmust be given in terms of goals, reasons, meanings, and anticipatedconsequences but not in terms of causes. There may be severalanswers, for example: “To have a rest,” “To get to know what’s goingon,” “In order not to think.” Having written down all the answers,the psychologist continues asking a sequence of questions: “Why do


people need to have a rest?” “To restore strength”; “Why restorestrength?” “To work effectively”; “Why work effectively?”; and so on.The chain ends when the participant comes to the ultimate unex-plainable meaning, which is detected by the psychologist either bytautological repetitions (“To live in order to live”) or by referencesto the general order or human nature. That which often emerges isa quasiultimate meaning, an impasse where the participant simplyrefuses to give further explanations. Experience shows that persis-tent questioning can overcome this inhibition and produce newlevels of comprehension.

After reaching a final point, the psychologist comes back to theanswers he or she had to leave untraced and proceeds further withthem: “Why should people know what’s going on?” and so on. Withrare exceptions, participants tend to give several answers to asingle “why” question during the first 2 to 3 steps, but then start togive a single answer. This seems to be additional evidence of theprojective character of UMT answers. It is thus not difficult to traceUMT answers to the ultimate points, the chains starting at everyanswer given by the participant at any step. Quite often, thesechains flow into previously traced ones. If the participant gives ananswer to a “why” question that already has been given to another“why” question, it is recommended to ask again about the matter.For example: “Why do people eat?” “To restore strength”; “Whyrestore strength?” If the participant again answers “To work effec-tively,” there is no need to continue asking. The chain just joinedanother one. He or she may, however, give another answer and thedialogue continues. If the participant builds a circle such as, “Whytry to stand out?” “So that people remember you”; “Why be remem-bered?” “In order not to be forgotten”; “Why not be forgotten?” “Inorder to be remembered,” it is helpful to ask, “Why be rememberedand not forgotten?”

Usually 40 to 50 answers are enough. Sometimes the singleinitial question suffices to produce them. However, sometimes thefirst question does not provide enough material, and after tracingall the answers to the end, the procedure starts again withanother initial question: “Why do people play football, eat, drink,kill, lie, make love, paint, travel, compose music, etc.?” The con-tent of the initial question is usually of small importance becausealready in 1 to 2 steps the participant moves to general matters.

Having recorded a desirable amount of information, the psychol-ogist draws a meaning tree of the dialogue with all the answers givenby the participant. To analyze the meaning tree, it is important to


define several terms: Meaning category refers to any participant’svalid answer to a “why” question; chain refers to a straight succes-sion of categories explaining one another; ultimate category or ulti-mate meaning is the end category of any chain that cannot be furtherexplained in terms of “why” questions; nodular category or nodularmeaning is a category explaining more than one subordinate cate-gory, a point where two or more chains merge; initial category is ananswer to an initial question, the starting point of any chain. Ameaning tree may look like a real tree—an integrated system withone or more common ultimate meanings—or like a number of dis-connected chains with independent ultimate meanings.

DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

There are three ways of analyzing the meaning tree: structuralanalysis, content analysis, and phenomenological analysis.

Structural analysis deals with the structure of the meaning tree.The quantitative indices of the meaning tree structure are:

1. Absolute number of ultimate categories N(U).2. Absolute number of nodular categories N(N).3. Coherence index (Co) = N(N)/N(U). Its maximal value corre-

sponds to a tree structure with many branches and a single ulti-mate meaning and minimal value in case of several disconnectedstraight chains.

4. Absolute number of all the meaning categories N(M).5. Productivity index (Pr) = N(M) divided into the number of ini-

tial questions N(I).6. Average chain length (Ln) = arithmetic mean of the number of

steps in all the possible ways from each initial category to theultimate one.

All the values of structural indices appear as a result of simplycounting the numbers of these or those categories in the individ-ual’s scheme of the meaning tree. No subjective expert evaluationis needed, only the application of an unambiguous algorithm andelementary arithmetic operations.

Structural indices are interpreted in terms of worldview matu-rity. Characteristic of more developed, mature, and differentiatedworldviews would be more nodular categories, higher coherence,higher productivity, and higher than average chain length. Thisdevelopmental finding follows, in particular, from some theoreti-cal presuppositions: Allport (1937), for example, listed having an


elaborate philosophy of life as one of the central criteria of maturepersonality, and Jahoda (1958) included a coherent worldview inher definition of mental health.

Content analysis is the comparative analysis of frequency ofspecial types of categories in different groups and individuals. Weuse three content indices; it is possible to introduce other ones fordifferent research purposes.

1. Decentration index (Dc) is defined as the frequency of categorieswhere the agent in the explanation is not the participant himselfor herself but other people, social groups, or people in general: “Sothat others appreciate them,” “So that their children live betteroff than themselves,” “So that humanity should not cease itsdevelopment.” Decentration is interpreted as feeling one’s con-nectedness with other people and society at large as opposed tofeeling isolated and self-sufficient.

2. Introspection index (In) is defined as the frequency of categorieswhere the meaning is described in terms of subjective reality(perceiving, knowing, feeling, believing, remembering, etc.) ratherthan objective events: “To feel secure,” “So that others appreciatethem,” “To know that life would not cease after their death.” Onlythe categories where the content of these mental processes isdefined fit into this index, not the meanings such as “to knowmore than others.” Introspection was initially interpreted interms of the development of one’s inner world, one’s awareness ofone’s mental functioning. Experimental data made us revise thisinterpretation. This index now seems to reflect the preoccupationwith one’s inner world at the expense of goal-directed activity.

3. Negativity index (Ng) is defined as the frequency of categoriesincluding direct negation: “In order not to be afraid of the future,”“To know that life would not cease after one’s death,” “In order notto be alone.” We do not include categories where the negativemeaning is expressed without grammatical negation, “To avoidtroubles,” “To minimize activity,” because in this case a subjectiveexpert evaluation of whether they should be categorized as nega-tive, rather than simple content analysis, would be necessary.Negativity is interpreted as revealing self-restriction, a defensiveor homeostatic attitude.

All three content indices, like the structural ones, do not require anapplication of an expert evaluation procedure. They register theobjective content of UMT answers that can simply be counted—thechanges of the grammatical subject, the words depicting mentalprocesses and contents, and the negations. There were no initialtheoretical assumptions underlying these indices; they have beenintroduced in search of any objective content indices. However,many years after having elaborated and widely used these indices,


I found a publication of Elisabeth Lukas, Viktor Frankl’s first doc-toral student and the current leader of the logotherapy school,where she describes “three phenomena that very often are mettogether in mental distortions: egocentrism, negativism, and hyper-reflection. They make together a devil’s triad” (Lukas, 1983, p. 39).Lukas (1983) understands egocentrism as seeing only oneself, over-concern with oneself as a figure on the background of the rest of theworld; negativism as overconcern with the negative aspects of life atthe expense of the positive; and hyperreflection as overemphasis onthe details.All three “notably limit, each in its way, the person’s spir-itual perception, focusing one either upon oneself, . . . or upon allthe negative, . . . or upon separate details of his/her life” (p. 40). Thecorrespondence of this “devil’s triad” to the three UMT empiricalcontent indices is remarkable and contributes much to their theo-retical interpretation.

Phenomenological analysis needs no special instructions. Themeaning tree presents an important fragment of what the persontakes for granted, natural or lawful. It is well known and thoroughlyinvestigated that what a person says about his or her experiencesand intentions has a highly ambiguous connection to the way theperson does or will in fact behave. There are no reasons to state forsure that what a person says about the world is a better predictor,but this alterative assumption seems worth studying. I have nottried to elaborate any unifying procedure of revealing the person’score values and attitudes through the phenomenological analysis ofUMT trees; nevertheless, it probably can be done someday.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

The issues of UMT validity and reliability cannot be solved interms of simple correlations. However, various nonparametricalstatistical criteria we used make it possible to speak of the signifi-cant differences and connections with respect to the quantitativeindices described above even in small samples. In fact, we can rea-sonably speak of reliability and validity of separate indices ratherthan of the technique as a whole. No total standardization of theprocedure is required, in line with the postmodern dialogical qual-itative methodology aimed at revealing the phenomenological con-tent of the person’s lifeworld (e.g., Kvale, 1996). A truly importantquestion is the question of cross-cultural validity of the technique;however, this dimension, to date, has not been investigated.


Retest Reliability

A special study was conducted to check the reliability of UMTover short (2-3 weeks) and long (1 year) retesting intervals, usingtwo nonparametrical methods: Wilcoxon criterion and the signtest (D. A. Leontiev & Filatova, 1999).

In the short-retest study with 25 participants of different ages,gender, and education levels, average chain length, productivity,introspection, and negativity proved stable by both criteria; numberof nodular categories, coherence, and decentration revealed no sig-nificant changes as indicated by the sign test, but the Wilcoxon cri-terion did register changes. The number of ultimate categoriessignificantly changed during the course of both tests.

In the long-retest study with 30 other participants of differentages, gender, and education levels, productivity and negativityproved stable by both criteria, introspection proved unstable byboth criteria, and the other indices yielded inconsistent data.

The data show that, in general, we may speak of the stability ofan individual’s worldview structure assessed by UMT. However,this is a dynamic stability of a living organism rather than a staticstability of a stone. It is the awareness of meanings and their linksthat may change in a year rather than the meanings and theirlinks themselves. Qualitative comparison of meaning trees in along-retest study allows us to see that there is both a rather stablenucleus and interchangeable periphery in individual meaningtrees. However, I cannot propose a clear operational criterion todistinguish between these two parts.

Validity

UMT data collected on different samples (see below) allow us tospeak of the construct validity of the indices mentioned above. Inparticular, the construct validation of UMT indices was part of thestudy by D. A. Leontiev and Filatova (1999). The study included 27participants of different ages and gender. Besides UMT, two otherassessment techniques were used. First, the Life Meaning Orienta-tions Test (LMOT) by D. A. Leontiev (1992), a 20-item modificationof the Purpose-in-Life test by J. Crumbaugh and L. Maholick (1981),was administered. This test provides not only the general ratio oflife meaningfulness but also (unlike the original Crumbaugh andMaholick version) 5 differential indices—goal-directedness of life,emotional richness of the present, satisfaction with self-realization,


mastering one’s life, and controllability of life in general. This inven-tory was used in numerous studies with Russian samples and hasvery good psychometric properties. Second, the Motivational Induc-tion Method (MIM) by J. Nuttin (1985) was administered. This testis a special version of the sentence-completion technique aimed atrevealing a person’s goals and fears. The answers are content ana-lyzed along with two sets of categories: content of motivation andfuture time perspective. Spearman rank correlation was used toprove the association of UMT indices with life meaningfulness,motivation, and time perspective.

Structural UMT indices revealed few significant correlations. Thenumber of nodular categories and the coherence are both positivelylinked to the preoccupation with the future (future-centeredness)index of MIM (p < .05); productivity also positively correlates withepistemological (exploratory) motivation by MIM. Much more sig-nificant correlations link the content indices of UMT to MIM andLMOT variables. Decentration is positively linked to motivation ofsocial contacts by MIM (p < .01), especially to the subcategory ofmotives articulated for the other person (p < .001). Decentration pos-itively correlates also to mastering one’s life and controllability oflife scales of LMOT (p < .05). The negativity index is negatively cor-related with general activity (achievement) motivation, present-cen-teredness, and future-centeredness by MIM (p < .05) and positivelycorrelated with the indefinite (lifewide) temporal localization ofgoals by MIM (p < .05). The introspection index reveals only signif-icant negative correlations—to the present-centeredness category inthe MIM (p < .05) and to goal-directedness and mastering one’s lifein the LMOT (p < .05).

Generally, the construct validation data supported our intuitiveinterpretation of UMT indices (for a more detailed discussion, seeD. A. Leontiev & Filatova, 1999), except for the introspectionindex. It follows from these data that this index, quite in line withE. Lukas’s (1983) theory quoted above, corresponds to preoccupa-tion with one’s inner world at the expense of goal-directed activityrather than to the development of mental regulation of activity, aspreviously considered.

INDIVIDUAL CASE EXAMPLES

To illustrate the individual work with UMT, especially in itsqualitative aspects, four cases were selected.


Figure 1 exemplifies a rather typical case of a weakly coherentnormal meaning tree. Moderate productivity and chain length,three ultimate meanings, one of them also nodular, and three dis-connected chains indicate a rather simple, though definite world-view. No reflexive categories, a single negative one, and threedecentered categories refer to the world and life at large and coin-cide with the ultimate meaning dimensions. Phenomenologically,Emma’s value system can be said to be centered around the mean-ing of harmony—both inner and outer—with others and with theworld at large. Altruism is mostly declarative—much is supposedto be done “for” the others, but others are not present in the mean-ing system as independent agents. All ultimate meanings reflectthe belief in an objective world order. Highly abstract righteous for-mulations are based on external criteria of the right and combinedwith blindness to individual others, despite the professed supportof their well-being.

Alexander, PhD, is a highly creative intellectual, as evident in hismeaning tree (incompletely depicted; see Figure 2)—both very com-plicated and coherent by structure and nontrivial by content. Worthnoting here is a very high share of reflexive categories, close to 50%(versus the typical 10%), albeit the share of negative and decenteredcategories does not decline from the average. The phenomenologicalanalysis reveals that essentially all of Alexander’s meanings arearticulated in terms of sensual experiences, even those referring toultimate relations to the universe at large. Despite his intellectualsophistication, his philosophy is strongly rooted in bodily sensations,unlike Emma’s. Others also play important roles in Alexander’sworldview, and, unlike the previous case, they enter his meaning treeas independent agents. Alexander evidently enjoys his inner life andcommunication with others much more than acting.

Anatoly’s tree resembles Emma’s (see Figure 3); the differencesare in somewhat shorter chains and very primitive categories,including ultimate meanings. Others are present in this worldviewas a condition, or background. Low introspection and low negativ-ity are typical of mental retardation (see below).

Yury’s tree is as poor as Anatoly’s (see Figure 4). However, ifAnatoly’s meanings are rooted in the basic givens of his life,Yury’s meanings are somewhat more special. In his meaning tree,we find a high negativity, typical of alcoholics; the three negationsreveal what seems to be his basic problem: alienation and rumi-nation on self-generated ideas.


This analysis provides an illustration of how different aspectsof UMT analysis may be combined together and how the meaningtrees reflect both group and individual peculiarities of worldview.

REVIEW OF UMT RESEARCH

Study 1: Comparison of Worldview in Adults and Adolescents

Participants in a 1985 study by D. A. Leontiev and Kononov(1985) comprised adult males and females whose ages rangedfrom 20 to 40 years (n = 15), and adolescents whose ages rangedfrom 14 to 16 (n = 19). The samples were compared by Wilcoxoncriterion (rank sums).

Results. The meaning trees of adolescent participants seem not todiffer from the trees of adults. There were no significant differencesin structural indices, except for the smaller number of ultimatemeanings N(U) (p < .05) and number of nodes N(N) (p < .01). As faras content analysis is concerned, adolescents revealed lower intro-spection indices (p < .05); other differences were nonsignificant.

Discussion. As we expected, there were many more commonaltiesthan differences in both samples. Indeed, by the age range of 14 to


Life were meaningful Harmonious world existed

To fulfill the tasks preset by God

To fulfill a purpose in life

To exist

To recharge energy

To world existed

To do good

For the other’s good

To save a person

To live in harmony with life,environment, and conscience

To live good lifeand to do good

There were inner harmony

No to do wrong deeds

To have better orientation in life

To get information

Figure 1 Meaning Tree by Emma, 60, Control Sample

256

To m

erge

with

the

univ

erse

To li

ve

To d

o so

met

hing

To fe

el s

tron

ger

Not

to d

ie p

rem

atur

ely

To fe

el n

eede

d by

som

eone

Gra

ndch

ildre

n pu

lled

the

bear

d

The

hea

rt w

ould

n’t b

leed

To h

ave

the

pote

ntia

l for

insp

iratio

n

To r

elax

To g

et p

leas

ure

To fe

el m

erge

d

Not

to g

et lo

st a

t the

Uni

vers

e

The

oth

ers

mer

gew

ith th

e U

nive

rse

To b

e us

eful

for

othe

rs

To o

ther

sbe

com

e be

tter To

let o

ther

s to

expe

rienc

e pl

easu

re

The

re w

ere

som

ethi

ngto

rec

olle

ct

The

re w

ere

som

ethi

ngto

tell

gran

dchi

ldre

n

The

will

to li

vew

ould

n’t d

isap

pear

To e

xper

ienc

eth

e lif

eon

ce m

ore

To m

ake

the

wor

ldpr

edic

tabl

e an

d sa

fe

To m

ake

the

pict

ueof

the

wor

ld c

lear

er

To e

xper

ienc

e pl

easu

refr

om w

hat w

as li

ved

thro

ugh

Not

to g

etde

pres

sed

To fe

el th

at th

e lif

eis

not

vai

n

Fig

ure

2M

ean

ing

Tre

e b

y A

lexa

nd

er,3

2,C

ontr

ol S

amp

le

16, a worldview is typically developed and integrated. Later changesare not so apparent. Nevertheless, the preoccupation with the con-scious inner world in adolescents was still less than in adults.

Study 2: Peculiarities of Worldviews inAlcoholic and Mentally Deficient Patients

A study performed in 1986 by D. A. Leontiev and Buzin (1992)compared males aged 20 to 35 with high or partially high educa-tion (n = 9), male patients with chronic alcoholism of the 2nd and


To communicate

There were friends

To get acquainted with others

The life were merrierOthers subjugateTo know more

To know what’sgoing on in the world

To live

To eat

To earn money

To work better

To have power

To be rich

To get power

Figure 3 Meaning Tree by Anatoly, 18, Light Debility

To communicateTo live

To get pleasure

To get spiritualfood

Not to bewithdrawn

Not to suggest somethingto oneself

Not to sit withone’s thoughts

To live easier

To develop

Figure 4 Meaning Tree by Yury, 48, Third Stage of Alcoholism

3rd degree (n = 14), and male patients with a low degree of mentaldeficiency (n = 11). The samples were compared by Wilcoxon crite-rion (rank sums).

Results. The meaning trees in both clinical groups looked alike anddrastically differed from the trees of control participants. In theclinical groups, the chains were very short and poor; an ultimatemeaning was reached in 2 to 3 steps. The chains were isolated,nodes were rare. All the structural indices, except for the numberof ultimate meanings N(U), were significantly lower in both clini-cal groups as compared to the normal control sample. Differencesboth between alcoholic patients and mentally deficient partici-pants on the one hand, and the control sample, on the other hand,in the number of nodes N(N), coherence Co, productivity Pr, andaverage length Ln were significant (p < .01). Alcoholic patients, inturn, revealed a higher N(N) and Co than mentally deficient par-ticipants (p < .05); other structural indices revealed no significantdifferences between the clinical groups. Content indices, however,provided quite a differentiated picture. Alcoholic patients revealedlower decentration as compared with both healthy (p < .01) andmentally deficient (p < .01) participants and higher negativity (p <.01 in both cases). Healthy and mentally deficient participants didnot differ in decentration, and negativity was significantly higherin the healthy participants (p < .01). Finally, the introspectionindex was significantly higher in the control sample than in bothclinical groups (p < .01); and the latter, alcoholic and mentally defi-cient groups, revealed no differences.

Discussion. In alcoholic patients, we meet a simplified andreduced worldview structure. Their meanings are always linkedto themselves, to the satisfaction of urgent needs. Actual needsdetermine overt actions in a direct way; life episodes of such aperson are weakly linked with each other. The underlying dynamicattitude is a defensive one of avoiding discomfort by conformingto social stereotypes. Typical meanings in their trees were: “Notto be stupid,” “Not to do harm,” “Not to break the law,” and so on.Mentally deficient participants also expressed simplified andreduced worldview structures. However, if in alcoholic patients itis the tyranny of the present-moment egocentric needs that isreflected in the primitive structure of the inner world, in men-tally deficient participants it is the original poverty of the innerworld that makes it impossible to construe complicated and


branched meaning systems. From the viewpoint of their content,the meanings produced by mentally deficient participants hadmuch more in common with meanings produced by healthy par-ticipants than with meanings produced by alcoholic patients.

Study 3: Comparison of UMT With OtherPersonality Assessment Techniques

A study was conducted in 1990 by M. Kalashnikov (1990) of malesand females with high or partially high education in human sci-ences, ages 21 to 32 (n = 24). Besides UMT, some other assessmentmethods were used: (a) Level of Subjective Control inventory (LSC;Bazhin, Golynkina, & Etkind, 1993), a 44-item version of Locus ofControl scale, providing 6 differential locus of control (LC) indicesbesides the general one (i.e., LC for successes, LC for failures, LC inprofessional activity, LC in family life, LC in interpersonal relations,and LC with respect to health/illness issue); (b) LMOT (see above);and (c) a Russian 128-item version of Personal OrientationInventory (POI) by E. Shostrom (Gozman & Kroz, 1987), including 2basic scales (i.e., self-support versus external support and time com-petence) and 12 additional scales dealing with different aspects ofself-actualization.

There were almost no correlations of UMT indices with person-ality inventories. This may be because of the fact that the psycho-logical reality assessed by UMT is located at another level ofpersonality organization than personality traits. M. Kalashnikov,however, tried to classify his participants’ ultimate meaningsaccording to the taxonomy of personal meanings proposed by BorisBratus (1985), who distinguished situational meanings, egocentricmeanings (personal profit), group-related meanings (reflecting theinterests of the small referent group), and prosocial meanings(reflecting all-human values). Of the participants, 87% fell into oneof two following groups according to the character of their ultimatemeanings: (a) egocentric ultimate meanings or (b) egocentric andprosocial ultimate meanings. These two groups were compared withrespect to scores on the above-mentioned personality inventories.General scores and most of the special indices of both LMOT andLSC, as well as age, turned out to be significantly higher in GroupA than in Group B; POI scales provided no significant intergroupdifferences. It seems that referring to prosocial (highly abstractsocial) meanings in UMT is a sign of a lower self-sufficiency andself-responsibility. These seemingly paradoxical data are in line


with what has been discovered in another study (Study 7); theexplanation is proposed in the discussion of Study 7.

Study 4: Worldviews in Somatic PatientsWith Near-Death Experiences

A study by A. Popogrebski (1998) compared patients (males andfemales) aged 40 to 50 in a cardiological hospital during rehabili-tation after infarction (n = 12) with patients of the same age andgender distribution in a general therapy hospital during a regularcheck-up (n = 12). Some other assessment techniques were alsoused without trying to establish their correlations with UMT.

Structural indices, and general outlook of meaning trees, revealedno significant differences between the two groups. There were, how-ever, highly significant differences in decentration (p < .001) andintrospection (p < .02); both indices were higher in infarction patients.It seems that, first, near-death experiences stimulate the activity ofthe inner world, the processes of thinking, bringing into awareness,and reflecting on meanings and, second, that characteristic of thesepatients is a broader context of life comprehension, that is, they aremore inclined to consider others as important elements and contextsof their own lives.

Study 5: Worldviews in Delinquent and Normal Adolescents

A study by J. Vassilyeva (1997) compared adolescents of 16 to17 years, males and females, under legal prosecution (not impris-oned) because of conflicts with the law (n = 30) with adolescentsof the same age and gender distribution, academically orientedand having no conflicts with the law (n = 30).

Delinquent participants showed lower productivity (p < .01) andintrospection (p < .01); other differences were nonsignificant. Thesedifferences suggest that there is less focus on the inner world indelinquent adolescents. Other assessment techniques used in thestudy also revealed poor worldviews and lack of meaning and valuein life in delinquent participants as compared to the control sample.

Study 6: Gender and Age Differences in Worldview

In the study by D. A. Leontiev and Filatova (1999), gender andage differences by UMT was also the object of investigation. Theparticipants were 10 males aged 21 to 26, 10 females aged 22 to


27, 10 males aged 50 to 62, and 10 females aged 50 to 60. We com-pared the data of males versus females and younger versus olderparticipants.

Both by sign test and Wilcoxon criterion, females significantlyoutscored males in numbers of ultimate and nodular categories, pro-ductivity, and decentration. No significant gender differences werefound in chain length, introspection, and negativity. By a coherenceindex, the Wilcoxon criterion revealed the advantage of females, andthe sign test found no differences. Hence, these females’ worldviewstended to be more coherent than those of the males, and the femalesseemed to be relatively more successful in finding ultimate reasonsfor their actions. They were also more apt than the males to perceivetheir lives in a broad, rather than egocentric, context.

Significant age differences were found in the number of ultimatemeanings and decentration index (higher in older participants),number of nodular categories, and average chain length (higher inyounger participants). No differences were found in introspection ornegativity. Coherence and productivity seemed to be significantlyhigher in younger participants according to the Wilcoxon criterionbut not according to the sign test. Generally, older participants findmore ultimate reasons, whereas younger ones find more intermedi-ate links that make the whole structure more coherent.

Study 7: Worldview and the Meaning of Life

In the same study (D. A. Leontiev & Filatova, 1999), we tried toestablish the links between UMT indices and categories of self-rated life meanings received according to the procedure based onthe direct question: “What is the central meaning of your life at pre-sent?” (Ebersole & DeVogler, 1981). P. Ebersole, the author of thisapproach and of numerous empirical studies, has elaborated a listof classification categories that we had to modify for the Russianpopulation. Our list contained 9 categories, and only 3 of them(growth and self-realization, contribution, and family) were found inour sample of 40 participants often enough to make statistical com-parison possible. Hence, we compared pairwise all the UMT indicesin the three groups that defined their meaning of life in differentways: that is, as growth (G), contribution (C), and family (F).

Group G outscored Group C in decentration, chain length, numberof nodes, and coherence. No significant differences between thesegroups were found in introspection, negativity, number of ultimatecategories and productivity. Groups G and F differed in coherence,


chain length, number of nodes and ultimate meanings, productivity(all higher in Group G), and negativity (higher in Group F). Group Cas compared to Group F revealed higher number of nodular and ulti-mate meanings and lower introspection.

If we compare all three groups, we see that all the structuralindices, and decentration, are definitely higher in Group G than inboth other groups. It looks as if orientation at growth and self-development were most favorable, not only from the individualisticbut also from a more broad, decentered perspective. Participantsclassified in this group had the most coherent worldview, the mostactive and prosocial position. Characteristic of those who declaredfamily as the central meaning of life is a homeostatic strategy ofbehavior, fear of changes, preoccupation with the inner world, lim-ited list of ultimate and nodular meanings, and a poorly coherentworldview. Those who declared useful contribution to others as themeaning of their lives were most practically disposed; however,in contrast to their prosocial declarations, UMT discovered theiregocentric position. This finding is reminiscent of the results ofStudy 3, where declared prosociality also seemed to be an unfavor-able predictor. Though these data may seem paradoxical, they con-firm the belief that in mature, growing persons, the dichotomyof altruism versus egoism is transcended; the emphasis on self-development presupposes, rather than contradicts, accepting theinterests of others and acting from the perspective of the commongood (see Maslow, 1970). Persons who do really contribute much toothers’ lives pursue the goals that are significant for them person-ally and take personal responsibility for them; those who explicitlydeclare social interests, on the contrary, try to find an extrinsic jus-tification for their actions. A declared concern of others’ well-beingat the expense of one’s own interests can hardly be authentic andreflects an immature split of the individual and the social.

Study 8: Worldview in the Retired: The Role of Activity

The study of E. Vlasenkova (2005) compared three groups ofretired participants (n = 180) aged 45 to 60 by a number of person-ality assessment techniques, including UMT. Group A consisted ofindividuals who deliberately continued working after retirement agewithout vital necessity (i.e., they were intrinsically motivated),Group B comprised individuals who continued working because ofeconomic necessity (they were extrinsically motivated), and Group Cconsisted of individuals who ceased working after retirement age.


Based on the Wilcoxon criterion, both Group A and Group Bhad a significantly higher number of nodes and coherence thandid Group C (p < .05); they also had higher decentration (p < .05),lower negativity (p < .01), and higher introspection (p < .05).Differences between Groups A and B were mostly nonsignificant.The results by other methods showed a similar picture of highlyunfavorable outcomes of unemployment in early postretirementage. One should consider that the economic situation in Russiadoes not provide opportunities to afford much after retirement.

GROWTH-FACILITATING EFFECTS OF UMT

Researchers working with UMT both for research purposes andfor counseling often reported that the process of working with UMTinduced some positive changes in the participants. PsychotherapistV. Losseva (personal communication, 1985) reported that workingon UMT with a severe neurotic patient prompted a sudden insight:“You see, I’ve never in my life asked myself, why am I doing this orthat, just why events happen to me!” M. Kalashnikov (1990)reported on the phenomenon he called “meaning catharsis.”After animpasse in answering “why” questions, at some level the partici-pants revealed a “breakthrough,” preceded by 15 to 20 minutes ofdeep thinking, and found a new meaning of a quasiultimate cate-gory. In doing this, they felt a kind of enlightenment in world com-prehension, accompanied by positive emotions. J. Vassilyeva (1997)reported similar breakthroughs of meaning barriers after some per-sistent engagement of participants by a psychologist; she reportedalso that although normal adolescents are able to overcome thesebarriers, delinquent ones often get stuck in their old ones and can-not proceed further. UMT thus can be used not only as an assess-ment technique but also as a form of positive intervention, as atechnique to improve awareness of one’s own core worldview orien-tations. Discussing with the participant the meaning connectionsrevealed by UMT makes it possible to lay bare the profound mech-anisms of his or her explanation of reality.

CONCLUSION

It is just recently that the importance of personal meaningshas been rediscovered by mainstream academic psychologists


(e.g., Emmons, 1999; Seligman, 2002), in addition to psychother-apists and a few scholars. Though the level of meaningfulness oflife as a measurable variable turned out to be very important inmany contexts, it seems that the study of meanings requires aqualitative approach, over and above one that is quantitative (seeD. A. Leontiev, 2006). The proposed approach is a contribution tothe elaboration of this new type of psychological variable.

The UMT described here seems to reveal some substantialaspects of the individual’s worldview not covered by other assess-ment techniques. It combines phenomenological analysis with thepossibility of using some easily calculable quantitative indices,based on unambiguous algorithms, rather than using expert judg-ments and implying nonparametric statistical evaluation. Thereviewed research data seem to prove the validity of the quantita-tive indices; however, what UMT provides far exceeds the quanti-tative data. Though not so practical for mass studies, it seems to bequite a helpful instrument for clinical assessment of a person’s pic-ture of the world, especially taking into consideration its projectiveaspect and growth effects. It is also good for establishing contactwith a client in counseling, psychotherapy, and coaching.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York:Holt.

Bazhin, Y. F., Golynkina, Y. A., & Etkind, A. M. (1993). Oprosnik urovnyasubyektivnogo kontrolya [Level of subjective control inventory]. Moscow:Smysl.

Braithwaite, V. A., & Scott, W. A. (1991). Values. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and socialpsychology attitudes (pp. 661-753). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bratus, B. S. (1985). Nravstvennoye soznaniye lichnosti [Moral con-sciousness of personality]. Moscow: Znaniye.

Burns, D. D. (1989). The feeling good handbook: Using the new mood ther-apy in everyday life. New York: William Morrow.

Crumbaugh, J. S., & Maholick, L. T. (1981). Manual of instructions for thePurpose in Life Test. Munster, IN: Psychometric Affiliates.

Ebersole, P., & DeVogler, K. L. (1981). Meaning in life: Category self-ratings. The Journal of Psychology, 107, 289-293.

Emmons, R. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns. New York:Guilford.

Gozman, L. Y., & Kroz, M. Y. (1987). Izmerenie urovnya samoaktualizat-sii lichnosti [Assessment of self-actualization level]. In Y. E. Aleshina,


L. Y. Gozman, & Y. M. Dubovskaya (Eds.), Sotsialno-psikhologicheskiemetody issledovaniya supruzheskikh otnoshenii (pp. 91-114). Moscow:Moscow University Press.

Holland, R. (1970). George Kelly: Constructive innocent and reluctantexistentialist. In D. Bannister (Ed.), Perspectives in personal constructtheory (pp. 111-133). London: Academic Press.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York:Basic Books.

Kalashnikov, M. (1990). Mirovozzrenie i smysl zhizni lichnosti [Personalworld view and meaning of life]. Unpublished master’s thesis, MoscowState University, Moscow.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York:Norton.

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2000). The Worldview Assessment Instrument(WAI): The development and preliminary validation of an instrument toassess world view components relevant to counseling and psychother-apy (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 2000). DissertationAbstracts International, 61, 2266B.

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 8, 3-58

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Worldviews, families and grand theories:Strategies for unification in psychology. The General Psychologist, 41,11-14.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative researchinterviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leontiev, A. N. (1979). Psikhologiya obraza [The psychology of an image].Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya, 2, 3-13.

Leontiev, A. N. (2005). Lecture 14. The structure of consciousness.Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(5), 14-24.

Leontiev, D. A. (1992). Test smyslozhiznennykh orientatsii [Life meaningorientations test]. Moscow: Smysl.

Leontiev, D. A. (1998). Tematicheskii appertseptivnyi test [Thematicapperception test]. Moscow: Smysl.

Leontiev, D. A. (2000). Mirovozzrenie [Worldview]. In I. T. Frolov (Ed.),Chelovek: Filosofsko-entsiklopedicheskii slovar (pp. 193-194). Moscow:Nauka.

Leontiev, D. A. (2004). Mirovozzrenie kak mif I mirovozzrenie kak dey-atelnost [Worldview as a myth and worldview as an activity]. In V. I.Kabrin & O. I. Muravieva (Eds.), Mentalitet I kommunikativnayasreda v tranzitivnom obschestve (pp. 11-29). Tomsk, Russia: TomskState University Press.

Leontiev, D. A. (2005). Three facets of meaning. Journal of Russian andEast European Psychology, 43(6), 45-72.

Leontiev, D. A. (2006). Meaningful living and the worlds of art. In A. DelleFave (Ed.), Dimensions of well-being. Research and intervention(pp. 529-537). Milan: Franco Angeli.

Leontiev, D. A. (in press). The phenomenon of meaning: How psychologycan make sense of it? In P. T. P. Wong, M. J. McDonald, & D. K. Klaassen(Eds.), Advances in positive psychology of meaning and spirituality.Vancouver, Canada: INPM Press, Trafford.


Leontiev, D. A., & Buzin, V. N. (1992). Osobennosti smyslovoi strukturymirovozzreniya pri khronicheskom alkogolizme [Peculiarities of mean-ing structure of worldview in chronic alcoholism]. Vestnik MoskovskogoUniversiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya, 3, 22-29.

Leontiev, D. A., & Filatova, M. A. (1999). Psikhodiagnosticheskie voz-mozhnosti metodiki predelnykh smyslov [Assessment capacities ofultimate meanings technique]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser.14. Psikhologiya, 2, 53-68.

Leontiev, D., & Kononov, A. (1985). Smysly u podrostkov [Meanings in ado-lescents]. Unpublished manuscript, Moscow State University, Moscow.

Lukas, E. (1983). Hoehenpsychologie [Height psychology]. Freiburg,Germany: Herder.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.Nuttin, J. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation. Leuven,

Belgium: Leuven University Press.Popogrebski, A. P. (1998). Vliyanie infarkta miorarda na smyslovuyu sferu

cheloveka [The influence of infarction at the sphere of meanings].Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 19(5), 113-118.

Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measure-ment of existential meaning. In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.),Exploring existential meaning (pp. 39-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seligman, M. P. H. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.Vassilyeva, J. V. (1997). Osobennosti smyslovoi sfery lichnosti pri

narusheniyakh sotcialnoi regulatsii povedeniya [Peculiarities of thesphere of meanings in the disturbances of social behavior regulation].Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 18(2), 58-78.

Vlasenkova, E. G. (2005). Osobennosti smyslovoi sfery zreloi lichnosti sraznym urovnem samorealizatsii [Peculiarities of the sphere of meaningsof mature persons with different levels of self-realization]. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Khabarovsk, Russia.


ultimate worldview technique

Documents