University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Graduate School Professional Papers 2019 Toward a Comprehensive Worldview Measure Shailee R. Woodard University of Montana, Missoula Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/etd Part of the Social Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Woodard, Shailee R., "Toward a Comprehensive Worldview Measure" (2019). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers.edu/etd/11321 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso. TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE WORLDVIEW MEASURE By SHAILEE ROSE WOODARD B., Psychology, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA, 2017 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Experimental Psychology The University of Montana Missoula, MT May 2019 Approved by: Scott Whittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Rachel L. Severson, Chair Department of Psychology Lucian G.
Conway III Department of Psychology Pablo Requena Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures Kristi M. Lemm Department of Psychology, Western Washington University Woodard, Shailee R., Spring 2019 Psychology Toward a Comprehensive Worldview Measure Chairperson: Rachel L. Severson Worldview is an individual difference construct that has been linked to various behavioral and health outcomes. However, very little is known about how worldviews develop and how worldview beliefs, values, and attitudes coalesce into different worldview factors.
One obstacle that has impeded research on worldviews is the lack of a robust worldview measure. The creation of a new, more valid worldview measure will aid in answering these important questions. This research project is the first step in the creation of a more comprehensive worldview measure. The primary aims of Study 1 were to compile existing published worldview measures and reduce the combined items to a parsimonious number necessitated by the large-scale factor analyses used in Study 2.
Five published worldview measures were identified, and the combined 160-items were administered in random order to 171 participants from a mid-size, public university. The 160 items were reduced through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) by analyzing (1) communality values, (2) rotated factor loadings, (3) significant cross-loadings, and (4) inter-item correlations, leaving 77 items which formed 8 preliminary factors. Study 2 sought to re-identify and confirm the factors (with an adequate sample size) to ensure that the new measure maintained a meaningful breadth while eliminating any further redundant or extraneous items. An EFA was run on half of these participants using the same criteria from Study 1 to reduce items.
This process resulted in 41 items which formed five factors: Factor 1, benevolence and optimism; Factor 2, secularism; Factor 3, Eastern- based spirituality; Factor 4, hard work; and Factor 5, illusion of free will. The five factors were then analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to see how the model fit the remaining half of participants. The CFI indicated a good fit of the model to the data. However, the RMSEA fell above the suggested maximum value.
Taken together, these indices suggest that the model has room for improvement, but is an overall decent fit. This new, 41-item measure, the Comprehensive Worldview Measure (CWM), has significant potential to further worldview research. ii Toward a Comprehensive Worldview Measure “…worldview is the most important construct that the typical psychologist has never heard of. 4 A worldview is a set of core beliefs, values, and attitudes about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, one’s place in the universe and in their social contexts, and how one should live their life.
Worldview beliefs, values, and attitudes are either existential (e., how the universe came to be), evaluative (e., what constitutes good and just behavior), or proscriptive (e., how one should focus their energy; Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Once developed, worldviews are thought to be stable over time and across contexts and inform lower-level, more specific beliefs as well as behaviors (Hedlund-de Witt, de Boer, & Boersema, 2014; Nilsson, 2014a; Koltko-Rivera, 2004; Kearney, 1984). According to worldview theory, all humans are predisposed to have a worldview, as it is a result of human nature and vital for human functioning, especially interacting with one another and providing meaning and purpose in one’s life (Kearney, 1984; Nilsson, 2014a). As Kolko-Rivera (2000) states, “World views are not optional.” He then quotes Sarason (1984) who explains that “…we are possessed by our world view as much as we possess it” (p.
The “we” that Sarason refers to represents all of humanity. That is, worldview is not an exclusively Western construct but is instead said to be universally possessed by all humans in order to maintain a meaningful view of life and the world (Shweder, 1995, as cited by Koltko-Rivera, 2000). Nonetheless, the specific beliefs, values, and attitudes of one’s worldview will certainly vary among individuals, especially individuals of differing cultures. In other words, worldviews are “inescapable, 1 overarching systems of meaning and meaning-making that substantially inform how humans interpret, enact, and co-create reality” (Hedlund-de Witt, 2012, p.
Worldviews are inescapable in the sense that all humans, by virtue of being human, possess worldviews and also in the sense that worldviews surreptitiously shape and are shaped by all of our experiences. In the sections that follow, I explore the construct of worldviews along with leading worldview theories, differentiate worldviews from related constructs, and review notable research on worldviews. Then, I identify gaps and shortcomings in the literature and in current measures of worldviews and propose the creation of a comprehensive worldview measure. The Worldview Construct and Leading Theories The idea that worldviews are omnipresent and treated as truths is a core tenet of worldview theory (Ibrahim & Heuer, 2016; Kearney, 1984).
Instead of thinking of a worldview as a self-ascribed belief system like religious or political ideologies, it is useful to think of a worldview as a set of “cognitive assumptions” (Kearney, 1984, p. 1) through which all of our experiences are filtered. While worldview beliefs, values, and attitudes can be transmitted explicitly or implicitly, they inform all of our perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors whether or not we realize it (Ibrahim & Heuer, 2016; Kearney, 1984). Thus, it makes sense to refer to worldview beliefs, values, and attitudes as “worldview assumptions.” Much literature has been published that attests to the insidious nature of belief formation and function (see Barrett, 2000; Anderson, 2009; Edling, Rydgren, Sandell, 2016; Dweck, 2000; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007).
Though much of philosophical thought is born following deep speculation on the fundamental questions of humanity, life, and the universe, few (if any) individuals have 2 the luxury of deeply contemplating each and every belief, value, and attitude that together comprise a worldview. Instead, worldviews are largely transmitted in similar ways as implicit beliefs, values, and attitudes. The specific mechanisms and processes of worldview development will be discussed in later sections. Furthermore, even when we do contemplate worldview assumptions, we do so through the lens of our already-present worldview.
And, because worldviews largely form and function far from our “sensory periphery” (Quine, 1953), they “cannot be questioned or changed without putting the entire system at stake…” (Nilsson, 2014a, p. Still, worldviews can change through contemplation, exposure to different perspectives or evidence that contradicts one’s existing worldview, or through “powerful life experiences” (Nilsson, 2014a, p. 23), such as experiencing a traumatic loss or moving away from home for the first time (Gutierrez & Park, 2015). More about worldview defense and change will be discussed further in subsequent sections of this paper.
Because worldview assumptions function in one’s everyday life without needing to be explicitly recognized, they are hard to put into words and are thus often not present in day-to-day language, which also makes them harder to observe and assess (Nilsson, 2014a). Due to the difficult nature of identifying the basic assumptions we hold, the dimensions of beliefs, values, and attitudes that worldviews encompass have been theorized based on long-running debates between schools of philosophy, differing cultural and religious beliefs, opposing political beliefs, and so on (Devlin, 2010; Koltko- Rivera, 2004). The most comprehensive (though not absolute) list of worldview dimensions is likely that of Koltko-Rivera (2004), reproduced in Table 1, which is compiled from dozens of contributors to worldview theory, including Nietzsche, Dilthey, 3 Freud, Jung, Pepper, Kluckhohn, Kelly, Stace, Royce, Wrightsman, Lerner, Maslow, de Ropp, Coan, Sue, Greenberg and colleagues, and more. It certainly could be the case, as future research may show, that some of these proposed dimensions are more fundamental or stable than others.
The 42 dimensions listed are separated into seven groups. Note that the options for each dimension are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Table 1 Worldview Dimensions Proposed by Koltko-Rivera (2004) Moral Orientation: Are humans inherently good or evil? Mutability: Do humans fundamentally stay the same or can Human Nature Group they change? Complexity: Are humans complex or simple? Agency: Do humans have free will or is all behavior determined by outside forces? Determining Factors: Are humans more influenced by their Will Group innate nature with which they are born or by their environment, circumstances, and unique experiences? Intrapsychic: Is behavior chosen rationally or are we ruled by irrational or unconscious forces? Knowledge: Does truth come from authority, tradition, senses, rationality, science, intuition, divination, revelation, or none of these? Cognition Group Consciousness: Is the ego the highest state of human consciousness or is there the possibility of transcending the ego? Time Orientation: Is the past, present, or future more important? Behavior Group Activity Direction: Should one be focused on inward qualities or outward qualities of the self? 4 Activity Satisfaction: Should one be continuously striving forward or making the most of the current state? Moral Source: Do moral guidelines come from humans or from a transcendent force such as a deity? Moral Standard: Are moral guidelines absolute or relative to the situation? Moral Relevance: Are society’s moral guidelines personally Behavior Group, relevant to oneself or not? cont. Control Location: Are the outcomes of one’s life determined by one’s own actions, personality, luck, randomness, fate, society, and/or divinity? Control Disposition: Do societal forces/institutions work in one’s favor, to one’s disadvantage, or neither? Action Efficacy: Is change made most effectively by direct action, supernatural action, or is there no effective way to take action? Otherness: Are others intolerable or tolerable? Relation to Authority: Is a linear (hierarchical) or lateral relationship among groups better? Relation to Group: Is the individual’s needs and desires a priority over the group’s (individualism), or is the group’s needs and desires a priority over those of the individual (collectivism)? Interpersonal Group Relation to Humanity: Is one’s in-group superior and deserving of rights and priorities, is it equal to one’s out-group, or is it inferior to one’s out-group? Relation to Biosphere: Are human beings superior to other life on Earth, are they equivalent to other nonhuman animals, or are they equivalent to all other forms of life? Sexuality: Is the purpose of sexual activity procreation or pleasure? And is the relationship between sexual partners important to sexual activity or not? 5 Connection: Should individuals be dependent on their social groups, independent from their social groups, or interdependent? Interpersonal Justice: Are interactions between individuals generally just, unjust, or random? Interpersonal Group, Sociopolitical Justice: Are the actions of the greater social and cont.
political bodies just, unjust, or random? Interaction: Are social interactions for competition, cooperation, or disengagement? Correction: Should those who transgress social standards be rehabilitated or face retribution? Scope: Is truth universal or relative? Possession: Do people possess all the truth there is or is there Truth Group much more to be learned? Availability: Is the most truth held by my in-group or is the same amount held by other groups as well? Ontology: Is there a spiritual reality to our universe or is everything quotidian matter an energy?
