Child’s Psychological View: Describe Life Positions (Coursework Sample)

Life Positions
A life position refers to a child’s psychological view or attitude about self and the resT of the word. This leads to the development of convictions about OKness and not-OKness. Convictions are conclusions about oneself and others. Berne, 1972, initially four convictions are I'm OKAY, I'm not-OKAY, You're OKAY, or You're not OKAY. Using the symbols (+) for OK and (-) for not-OK, 1 for self and U for others, the convictions can be represented as 1+or 1- and U+ or U-. Therefore a person’s life positions can be any of the following:
1.The healthy position- this is represented as I+U+ indicating "I'm OKAY, You're OKAY". People taking this position have a positive view of life and are rational in problem-solving. This position is the foundation of transactional analysis in a therapeutic relationship.
2.The projective position- represented by I+ U-. "I'm OKAY, You're not-OKAY". People in this position view themselves better/holier than others and convince them to change. They can also be murderers that justify elimination of the minority. Paranoid people and narcissists take this position.
3.The depression position- I- U+ for "I'm not-OKAY, You're OKAY". People in this position look down on themselves. Individuals in this position live regretting, wishing life was different or feeling ashamed. They suffer from melancholia and worst clinical cases may result in suicide.
4.The futility position- represented by I- U-. "I'm not-OKAY, You're not-OKAY". This position is taken by those who lose interest in life. They have no reason at all to live. For instance, child abusers and people whose traumatic experiences made them conclude that life is not worth living at all, belong to this group.
Factor Analysis of Life Position Scale
Factor analysis is a quantitative method used to reduce a large set of data into fewer dimensions based on intercorrelations. Every set of data is named and assumed to represent an underlying and hypothetical group of factors.
In this light, the factors are the factor I and factor U with various items, loadings, and communalities. The I+ items could be like: I’m proud of who I am, I like myself, I feel confident about myself, I know my positive traits and I’m generally good. I- items are: I feel helpless, I feel I will not achieve my dreams and I wish was not born. Examples of U+ items are: other people are generally OK, most people are trustworthy, I do not find it hard appreciating others, and I look forward to meeting other people. U- items are: other people irritate me, I do not trust people, I wish death on some people, and I cant tolerate other people’s mistakes.
The above items are administered to a participant and entries made on the loadings and communalities. The median for each participant is computed. The median score for I is 38 while the median score for U is 36. A person who scores I 37 U 37 is considered I- U+, that is I’m not OK, you’re OK. However, in a clinical situation opinion and personal reflection on OKness also have to be considered in extraction of life position.
A Canonical Correlation Analysis
According to (Fredrick, 2005), canonical correlation analysis refers to a method using many variates to measure the correlation between a group of predictor variables and a group of criterion variables. At the same time while it holds an error at a constant level. The groups are latent and are also called variates or linear combinations. In this context, the variates are attachment and life positions.
Attachment theory suggests that children’s early interaction with parents and other caregivers affect their later relationships in life. The Early attachment also influences their self-value and trust on others. Self-value and trust of others depends on previous interactions. For example, if caregivers treat children with respect and they feel confident about themselves, then they will treat others with respect too. Attachment of infants can be categorized as avoidant, attached and anxious-ambivalent. These attachment styles are also associated with adolescents and adults in romantic relationships. They are also observable in married people.
Bartholomew and Horowitz(1991) four different styles of attachment for adults:
1.The secure attachment style: this corresponds with I+ U+ of I’m OK you’re OK. Secure individuals love themselves and expect acceptance from others.
2.The preoccupied attachment style corresponds with the I- U- where individuals view themselves negatively and others positively.
3.Dismissing attachment style which corresponds with the I+ U- where an individual loves him/herself but does not trust others.
4.The fearful attachment style: I- U-. A person views both him/herself and others negatively.
The canonical correlation coefficient is R. The canonical correlation analysis of the variates (attachment and life positions) results in R=.59. This indicates that there is a correlation between life positions and attachment styles. The squared canonical results in R = 348. This indicates that the variates; attachment and life positions share almost 35% of the variation. From computation of canonical correlation analysis, secure attachment is related with the I’m OKAY, you’re OKAY life position. Fearful attachment is related with the I’m not OKAY, you’re not OKAY life position. Dismissing attachment is related with the I’m OKAY, you’re not OKAY life position. However, I’m not OKAY, you’re OKAY life position has no relation with preoccupied attachment style.
In conclusion, life positions are related to various styles of earlier attachment to caregivers except for the I- U+ life position and preoccupied attachment.
Transactional Analysis
Eric Berne (1910-1970), developed the transactional analysis. It is based on six various elements: transactions, contacts, life script, time, and ego states. Ego states, used in comprehending personality, is the major concept of transaction analysis. Transactional analysis states that need for interaction is important for everyone. An individual interacts with things happening around him/her and forms an opinion. With this opinion, he/she comes up with a life script which compiles their life opinions. These life opinions facilitate a person’s formation of the four life positions discussed above.
The transactional analysis uses a scale based on items and points. The total of the points includes four four categories. These categories show the life positions of a person.
To ensure item differentiation for the life position’s scale, item assessment correlations and extreme group comparisons are done. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is used to compute item assessment. Concurrent and construct validity of the scale are examined.
Construct Validity
Construct validity is the extent to which conclusions can be made from the operationalizations in a study to the theoretical constructs on which those operationalizations are founded. It is a measurement of how well theories/ideas are translated into real programs or concepts. Construct validity involves measuring conversion of the idea the study measures into real programs. There are two types of construct. The first is translation validity. Translation validity assesses the extent to which a theory/idea is converted to an operationalization. Face validity, as an example of translationvalidity involves observation of an operationalization checking whether it is related to the construct. Content validity is another example of translation validity. It measures the real functioning concept against the applicable content of the construct. Therefore, that there is an available description of the construct content.
Criterion-based validity measures the operationalization against particular criteria. There are four categories of criterion-based validity. The first type is predictive validity which measure whether of an operationalization is able to predict something it should predict as outlined in theory. Concurrent validity assesses an operationalization’s ability to differentiate between groups as outlined in theory. For instance, if a study comes up with a measure for assessing two different types of mental disorders, it should be able to differentiate between people suffering from each of the two conditions.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent and discriminant validity are sub-types of construct validity. If a study exhibits either of them, then it also indicates construct validity. However, neither convergent nor discriminant validity is self-sufficient without the other. Convergent validity is used in similar constructs to show correlation. Discriminant validity is used in different constructs to demonstrate their difference.
Challenges of Validity Construc...