Quality & Quantity (2005) 39: 199–215
DOI 10.1007/s11135-004-2968-7
Ó Springer 2005
Reversible Relationship between Quantitative
and Qualitative Data in Self-Consciousness
Research: A Normative Semiotic Model for the
Phenomenological Dialogue between Data and
Capta
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA1, WILLIAM B. GOMES1 and
SHERRI MCCARTHY
1
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; 2Northern Arizona University.
Abstract. The aim of this study was to explore modes of integration of quantitative and
qualitative data to verify existence of psychological constructs. Data obtained with a Likerttype rating scale and with narrative accounts of significant life-events were compared and
integrated via logical analysis to examine the psychological construct of self-consciousness.
Undergraduates between 17 and 32 years of age (78 females and 23 males) participated.
Psychometric analysis of the scale classified the subjects’ focus of self-consciousness (public
and private) into three levels: high, average or low. Independent judges evaluated self-consciousness profiles from the narrative accounts. Analysis verified the compatibility between
self-consciousness scale measurements and self-consciousness profiles on narrative accounts.
The results illustrate possibilities for and limitations of such comparisons, and also suggest
criteria for comparing the same phenomenon in different contexts. Guidelines for choice of
instrumentation in gathering data for research and practice are also presented.
Key words: phenomenology, quantity, quality, self-consciousness, measurement issues.
1. Background
The ongoing controversy in psychology over qualitative vs. quantitative
research focuses on three main points. First, researchers with a historical
tradition of quantitative analysis tend to rely on statistical formulas to
analyze data. Second, researchers with a historical tradition of qualitative
analysis focus on the differences between quantitative and qualitative analysis, arguing for the greater potential of qualitative methods (Burman, 1997).
Third, a growing number of researchers avoid competition between quantitative and qualitative methods by developing strategies for a productive
sharing of research experiences (Niaz, 1997). This new trend advances
200
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
analytical procedures for integrating the two types of data in a rich stream of
combinations where the basic aspects and contributions of each method are
stressed (Nelson et al.,1995; Kuhn and Lao, 1998; Tolman and Szalacha,
1999).
We used the psychological construct of self-consciousness to explore the
combined use of qualitative and quantitative data. The basic methodological
assumption is that the combination is not only desirable but also necessary to
improve research interpretation and discussion (Newman and Benz, 1998).
The focus is the problematic relation between context and choice in research
design (Lanigan, 1992; 1994). Context and choice serve as references to define
the main differences between data gathered on qualitative and quantitative
instruments. From the perspective of Communication Theory (Lanigan,
1992) a quantitative instrument such as a scale or a questionnaire establishes
a choice in context. The respondent must make a forced choice from among a
specified number of items or respond to specific questions about a particular
state or event. A qualitative instrument such as an open interview offers a
broader choice of context for responses. Constrained choice allows for more
efficient analysis; broader context may offer a truer picture of the state or
event, although interpretation and analysis of such data may be more
problematic and time-consuming. Discussion of appropriate ways to combine both types of data in psychological research continues in the literature.
1.1.
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AS A MEASURABLE CONSTRUCT
To advance this discussion, we took theoretical constructs in psychology,
public and private self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al., 1975), and asked the
basic ontological question: What are public and private self-consciousness?
Are they constructs derived from a Likert-type instrument or independent
constructs derived from each individual’s perspective of self? Our hypotheses
were that: (a) public and private self-consciousness are valid psychological
constructs; (b) the constructs would be evident both on scales designed for
quantitative analysis and through qualitative analysis based on self-report of
significant life events, and (c) analysis of data from the two types of selfreport measures would provide consistent and compatible descriptions of
individuals’ perceptions of their levels of public and private self-consciousness.
1.1.1. Quantitative Analysis of Self-consciousness
In the mid-1970s, researchers (Fenigstein, 1987) began to test a group of
items to examine Duval and Wicklund’s (l972) theory about objective selfawareness. The items were administered to several large samples of individuals and factorial analysis of the data showed three factors, which were
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
201
named Private Self-Consciousness (PRSC), Public Self-Consciousness
(PUSC) and Social Anxiety (SAN). The Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al. l975) resulted from this research, and the private and public
aspects measured by the scale were defined as personality traits. Private
self-consciousness refers to the tendency one has to focus on personal inner
experiences such as thoughts, memories and feelings. Public self-consciousness concerns characteristics that can be observed by others, such as
appearance. The person demonstrating public self-consciousness is aware of
the self as a social object. Social Anxiety, the third factor measured by the
scale, is the discomfort someone feels in the presence of others. While the
private and public aspects refer to types of self-consciousness, social anxiety
refers to an individual’s reactions to self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al.,
1975).
The constructs measured by the scale, whether real in a phenomenological
sense or not, were readily accepted for both psychological research and psychological practice. Recent studies have related self-consciousness to physical
and mental health in the fields of clinical and health psychology (Hoyer and
Klein, 2000) and psychopathology (Scandell, 2001). The construct has been
refined and there is currently discussion in these fields about the distinction
between self-reflectiveness, which relates to negative outcomes, and internal
state awareness, which relates to positive outcomes as two facets of private
self-consciousness (Creed and Funder, 1998; Silvia, 1999).
The Self-Consciousness Scale has been translated into several languages
and utilized for research in many countries including Mexico, Italy, Sweden,
Germany, Switzerland, Holland, China and Brazil (see Heinemann, 1979;
Vleeming and Engles, 1981; Nystedt and Smari, 1989; Banos et al. 1990;
Comunian, 1994; Shek, 1994; Grob, 1995; Texiera and Gomes, 1995, 1996).
Our study utilizes the Brazilian version of this scale (Texiera and Gomes,
1995) to examine the relationship between qualitative and quantitative data
gathered on the psychological construct of self-consciousness.
1.1.2. Qualitative Analysis of Self-consciousness
The qualitative analysis we utilized for comparison to quantitative data
derived from the Brazilian Self-Consciousness Scale was based on a written
narrative of an important life event. The research about life-events has been
concerned with the impact of life changes in the development of life
experience (Sarason et al., 1978), and the relation of desirability of life events
to stress and mental disease (Vinokur and Selzer, 1975). Most recently, life
events have been studied to assess subjective well-being (Suh et al., 1996) and
to examine the relation between diseases (e.g., cancer and depression) to a
patients’ life history and significant life events (Suedfeld and Bluck, 1993;
202
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
Grob, 1995). Accounts of life events have a narrative structure that varies
according to the narrator’s level of involvement with the event. The narrative
may be analyzed according to thematic choice, and through the correspondence between discourse style and speaker’s characteristics and environment
(Bardin, 1977/1994).
In summary, the two instruments we selected for this study were a scale
designed to measure self-consciousness quantitatively and narrative accounts
of life-events to measure self-consciousness qualitatively. Let us now further
examine the literature regarding the relationship between qualitative and
quantitative data analysis.
1.2.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS
Newman and Benz (1998) remind us the philosophical roots of qualitative
and quantitative research are in the naturalistic and the positivistic
approaches to science, respectively. As a consequence, they note, the debate
among researchers is based upon philosophical differences about what constitutes reality and whether or not it is measurable. Despite this discussion,
they conclude, students continue to be prepared for conducting research in an
either–or dichotomous world. Students leave their universities either as welltrained statisticians, or as competent cultural anthropologists, methodologically weak in quantitative research. The authors argue that the two
approaches coexist in the research world and are part of an interactive
continuum. Contemporary scientific methodology should be inductive as well
as deductive and objective as well as subjective. The use of this interactive
continuum requires a definition of science that utilizes methods of traditional
logicians, of empiricists and of naturalists. The fundamental assumption is
that each research question dictates the scientific methodology to be utilized,
what data to collect and what to do with that data once it is collected. The
interactive continuum model defines qualitative methods and quantitative
methods separately according to the form of logic inherent within each –
inductive and deductive, respectively. Each approach (inductive-qualitative
or deductive-quantitative) adds something to knowledge by building on the
information derived from the other approach. Qualitative research, with an
inductive perspective, is theory building and, therefore, the end is with theory. Quantitative research, with a deductive perspective, is theory testing and,
therefore, begins with theory. Thus, in the interactive continuum model, the
theory is neither the end nor the beginning of a scientific investigation, but
rather part of a dynamic cycle that combines both quantitative and qualitative research procedures to gather information.
A similar discussion appears in Lanigan (1994). Research is defined as a
symbolic activity in which evidence is mediated by a shaping experience
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
203
(observation) into consciousness and measured via humanistic or naturalistic
means. Lanigan (1994) asserts that the use of the term naturalistic to define
qualitative research is unfortunate, since the positivistic view of science that is
also based on ‘‘nature’’. The terms cultural studies and interpretative studies
are becoming standard synonyms for qualitative research. In fact, Guba and
Lincoln (1994, p. 105) changed the term naturalistic to constructivist, as they
said: ‘‘We acknowledge at once our own commitment to constructivism
which we earlier called ‘naturalistic inquiry... ’’
Lanigan (1994) specifies the relation between quantitative and qualitative
criteria in the opposition between method and evidence, data (quod erat
demonstradum; which was to be demonstrated), and capta (quod erat inveniendum; which was to be found out), and information (probability differentiation) and communication (possibility differentiation). In the humanistic,
comprehensive or interpretative condition, capta is taken as evidence and
characterizes the methodology of discovery. The benefit of this research is
that the qualitative judgment makes possible exact and abstract descriptions
(representations). On the other hand, in the empirical or positivist scientific
models, Lanigan notes on p. 111 (1994): ‘‘the symbology of research can be
‘evidence’ that is mediated by converting consciousness (measurement) into
experience (observation)’’. The result is data, that which is given as evidence
and characterizes the methodology of invention. The benefit of research with
this methodology is the fact that a quantitative judgment allows precision
and generalization in attribution (prediction). The positivistic research
method, a quantitative approach, requires an information theory formulated
as a context of given choice (data). A humanistic approach to research
requires a communication theory formulated as a choice of context (capta).
This proposition moves away from reductionism, because the differences
between these two approaches are considered.
1.3.
THE IMPORTANCE OF REASONING IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
Regardless of the approach, logical reasoning must still govern scientific
inquiry. The present study advances the continuing discussion on qualitative
and quantitative criteria through a conjunction of four principles of inferential reasoning based on Peirce’s (1931–1958) normative semiotic models.
These principles are: (1) abduction (Rule + Result = Case [particular, a
posteriori], (2) induction (Case + Result = Rule), (3) deduction (Rule +
Case = Result) and (4) adduction (Result + Rule = Case [universal, a
priori]). Induction and deduction are two well-known logical concepts. The
first refers to a logic that affirms the consequent and indicates probability.
The second refers to a logic that affirms the antecedent and guarantees the
conclusion. Abduction is a concept that appears first in Aristotle and was
used by Pierce to name a process of forming an original explanatory
204
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
hypothesis or, simply, to introduce a new idea. It is akin to creative thought.
Adduction is a reasoning that moves by addition rather than deduction.
Several results are combined, or added together and considered evidence for
a universal ‘‘case’’. Studies in psychology employing many methods and
relying on replication to confirm results are an example of scientific reasoning
that relies primarily on adductive logic.
1.4.
RESEARCH, REASONING AND REALITY
Just as we assume both quantitative and qualitative data are necessary to
confirm a particular psychological construct, we also assume that all four
types of logical reasoning noted above should converge at the same conclusion if, indeed, that conclusion is a valid representation of ‘‘reality’’. This
should be the true goal of all research touted as ‘‘multi-trait/multi-method’’.
In the present study, our first step was to take self-consciousness as a
context (rule) where an internal comparison (result) identified two phenomena (case): the expression of public and private self-consciousness. We
accomplished this by asking participants to complete a scale designed to
measure self-consciousness and to describe, in writing, a significant life event.
Notice that in this first step, the context is an imagined experiential possibility. The second step used a self-report scale (inductive logic) to verify the
expected occurrence of two phenomena – the expression of private and public
consciousness (case), through an internal and independent comparison – i.e.,
statistical treatment and qualitative analysis (result), each one with its own
criteria (rule). The third step was to utilize both quantitative and qualitative
analysis (deductive logic), as a respective context (rule) to verify the selfconsciousness style in a given population (case), by internal comparison
(result). Most research finishes at this point or suggests new studies and is
based on only one type of analysis, qualitative or quantitative. In contrast,
our final step utilized reasoning rules worked out in an external context to
each other. So, in two different contexts – scale and narrative (rule) – an
external comparison (quantitative and qualitative criteria) was performed
(result) to establish the identity between two phenomena: findings from a
standardized instrument and descriptions from self-reports about private and
public consciousness. The convergence of several forms of reasoning and two
types of data to establish the same psychological construct – hat of selfconsciousness – is presented as an illustration of the use of scientific
methodology and reasoning as a ‘‘philosopher’s stone’’ to establish phenomenological reality. It is also presented, since the two types of analysis
agreed, as support for using ‘‘Occum’s Razor’’ in selecting appropriate research methodology once a particular construct is established as valid, considering cost, benefit and context as guiding criteria for determining the type
of data to be collected.
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
205
2. Method
2.1.
PARTICIPANTS, INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURE
One hundred one undergraduates completed the Brazilian version of the SelfConsciousness Scale (Teixeira and Gomes, 1995) and wrote a significant lifeevent during two of their regular classes at a federal university in southern
Brazil. The sample was comprised of students from three courses of study
(majors): Psychology (34.6%); Education (25.8%) and Health Sciences
(39.6%). Participants included 78 women and 23 men between 17 and 32
years of age (mean age: 22.3 years; SD = 5.6).
The Self-consciousness Scale comprises three subscales: Private Self-consciousness, Public Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety. Only the first two
subscales were used. The Private Self-consciousness subscale has nine items
focusing on personal inner experiences, as exemplified by the items ‘‘I am
generally attentive to my inner feelings’’, and ‘‘I am constantly examining my
motives’’. In contrast, the Public Self-consciousness subscale has seven items
focusing on characteristics which can be observed by other people, as
exemplified by the items ‘‘I usually worry about making a good impression’’,
and ‘‘I am usually aware of my appearance’’. The rating scale ranges from 0
(‘‘I totally disagree’’) to 4 (‘‘I totally agree’’). The Brazilian version has an
acceptable reliability: 0.73 (coefficient alpha) and 0.89 (test–retest).
Data was collected during two separate class periods. During the first
class, 41 students answered the scale and 61 students wrote a significant lifeevent account. During the second class, one week later, the 61 students who
had previously written a life-event narrative completed the scale while the
other 41 students wrote significant life-event accounts.
2.2.
DATA ANALYSIS
Mean, standard deviation, frequency and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s
alpha) were computed for scores from the Self-Consciousness Scale. In order
to assess differences in response based on gender, male and female scores
were also compared via t-tests. Narratives were assessed via content analysis,
evaluation by independent judges and correspondence analysis.
Content analysis. Qualitative content analysis, based on criteria suggested
by Patton (1980), was used to identify both thematic amplitude and possible
meanings of a significant life event. Frequency and intensity of words related
to particular, self-identified themes within each narrative account were noted.
Evaluation by independent judges. The narrative accounts were then submitted to four independent judges for evaluation of self-consciousness profiles
based on a protocol formulated from the scale items. The protocol for evaluation of self-consciousness profiles defined private self-consciousness
descriptors as descriptions of: (1) affective states; (2) cognitive states; (3)
206
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
daydreams, and (4) bodily states (e.g., pain, hunger, stomachache, etc.). Public
self-consciousness descriptors were defined as descriptions of: (1) personal
appearance (body attributes, clothes); (2) personal style (posture, coordination
of movement, voice tone, manners), and (3) ‘‘what people think about me’’.
Statistical correspondence analysis. Statistical correspondence analysis, a
method for representing data in a Euclidian space so that the results can be
visually examined for structure (examples can be found in Weller and
Romney, 1990), was used to verify the compatibility between data and capta.
3. Results
3.1.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE
The reliability coefficient for the Self-Consciousness Scale (Cronbach’s Alpha)
was 0.71. Table I presents mean and standard deviation of scores for private
and public subscales. t-tests were performed to examine possible significant sex
differences on the scores for each subscale. No significant differences were
found between women and men for either private self-consciousness (t ¼ 0.48;
p ¼ 0.62) or public self-consciousness (t ¼ 1.22; p ¼ 0.22).
3.2.
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANT LIFE-EVENT NARRATIVES
Few constraints were given to subjects regarding the significant event they
described, in order to allow for as broad a context as possible. The significant
event could be an episode either recently occurring (last week, month or year)
or remotely occurring (early years of narrator’s life). The significant event
could be positive (accomplishment, joy or transcendence) or negative (frustration, lost or sadness). The importance of the event was related to the
emotional intensity experienced by the narrator. Many resulting narratives
related to ordinary events such as problems and accomplishments in career,
Table I. Means and standard deviations for each subscale of the translated self-consciousness
scale for men, women and total sample
Mena
Subscale
Private Self-Consciousness
Public Self-Consciousnesse
a
d
n = 23.
n = 78.
c
N = 101.
d
The range was from 15 to 36.
e
The range was from 8 to 28.
b
Womenb
Totalc
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
24.6
19.7
3.9
4.2
25.5
20.8
4.1
3.6
25.0
20.5
4.0
3.7
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
207
education or family life. Other narratives related to affective or cognitive
events such as changes in spiritual orientation or religious life. The changes
cited by participants included changing professions, economic status, spouses
and schedules. Psychological changes such as growing up, changing selfimage, or adopting new perspectives about specific issues or people were also
described. In fact, the narratives obtained in this study were close in content
to the original findings of Sarason et al. (1978) in their research on significant
life-event narratives. Narratives were read and rated for intensity and for
indications of public and private self-consciousness.
Comparing self-consciousness with life-event accounts. The comparison
between quantitative and qualitative data required some adjustments. It was
necessary to establish cut-off points on scale scores to create three groups –
low, average and high – for both private and public self-consciousness. For
private self-consciousness, low scores ranged from 15 to 22; average, scores
from 23 to 29; high, scores from 30 to 36. For public self-consciousness,
low was from 8 to 16; average, from 17 to 22; high, from 23 to 28. Next,
participants were classified into nine groups to match the combined results
of private and public self-consciousness, ranging from low to high on both
subscales. The nine possible groups into which subjects could be placed
according to their scores included: (1) Low Private Self-Consciousness
(PRS) and low Public Self-Consciousness (PUS); (2) Low PRS and average
PUS; (3) Low PRS and high PUS; (4) Average PRS and low PUS; 5)
Average PRS and average PUS; 6) Average PRS and high PUS; (7) High
PRS and low PUS; (8) High PRS and average PUS; and (9) High PRS and
high PUS. No subjects fell in group number 7 (High PRS and Low PUS).
See Figure 1.
Four independent judges, trained graduate psychology students, read and
rated self-consciousness profiles from the narrative accounts, placing them
subjectively into the possible categories depicted above. All four judges’
evaluations agreed on 87% of the narrative accounts from the total sample.
Narrative accounts with unequal judges’ evaluations point out the difficulty
of subjective evaluation inherent in qualitative interpretation of data. For
purposes of our subsequent analysis, we resolved the problem by withdrawing these cases but, by doing so, a bias was introduced and potentially
valuable data was lost. Similar types of loss occur in quantitative analysis
when problems of dealing with outlying scores or cases are dealt with.
Similarly, in order to compare data from the scale and capta from the
accounts, the participants who scored Average+Average, Low+Average
and Average+Low in both private and public self-consciousness were
excluded. These self-consciousness profiles were not ‘‘pure cases’’, from a
theoretical point of view. In order to establish constructs of public and private self-consciousness, it seemed more useful to compare the extreme cases
and exclude the average, or middle scores. Therefore, 40 cases remained for
208
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
Figure 1. Classification of combined profiles of private and public self-consciousness.
this final comparison: (1) Low PRS with Low PUS (n ¼ 5); (2) Low PRS with
High PUS (n ¼ 1); (3) AveragePRS with High PUS (n ¼ 22) (4) High PRS
with Average PUS (n ¼ 5) and (4) High PRS with High PUS (n ¼ 7).
Table II compares the self-consciousness profile indicated on Self-Consciousness Scale and self-consciousness profile identified by independent
judges in the significant life-event account for these cases.
Correspondence analysis (see Figure 2) confirms a tendency of association
between data (from scale) and capta (from life-event account). There is a
moderate association tendency between the profile High PRS + High PUS
(from scale) and SPR descriptor identified on the life event account, as well as
an association between the profile Low PRS + Low PUS with the PRS
descriptor. There is also a strong association between the profile Low PRS
with High PUS (from scale) and the PRS and PUS descriptors (from life
event account). However, this must be interpreted cautiously since there is
just one Low PRS + High PUS (from scale) in the sample.
4. Discussion
The correspondence between scale scores and qualitative ratings can be
interpreted to mean that public and private self-consciousness are valid
constructs rather than an artifact of a scale designed to display these
states by the manner in which choices are constrained within context. The
consistency may also be interpreted to show that both qualitative and
quantitative methods result in similar conclusions about the constructs
within individuals. Thus, in future studies of the construct, employing
209
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
Table II. Self-consciousness profiles from scale and self-consciousness descriptors from lifeevents accounts in the reduced sample (27 cases)
Case
Profile (scale) PRS + PUS
Account descriptors
010
013
016
018
022
026
027
034
046
048
052
062
067
069
072
074
075
079
080
081
082
084
088
089
091
099
100
A+H
A+H
A+H
L+L
A+H
H+H
A+H
L+L
H+H
A+H
A+H
H+A
A+H
H+A
L+L
H+H
H+H
A+H
H+A
L+H
A+H
A+H
L+L
A+H
H+H
A+H
A+H
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
PRS
Total
H+H = 05 L+H = 01
L+L = 04 A+H = 14
H+A = 03
PRS and PUS = 09
PRS = 18
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
and PUS
both methods simultaneously would be redundant and the decision as to
which type of data to collect should be based on criteria such as
availability, efficiency and purpose. In counseling practice, narrative accounts may be sufficient for therapists to use in forming judgments about
the levels of these constructs within clients. In studies with large samples,
which employ self-consciousness as a variable, scale scores, which can be
more readily obtained and more efficiently analyzed, are sufficient.
210
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
3,0
Low+High
2,5
Scale
Event
2,0
1,5
1,0
PRS&PUS
,5
Aver+High
High+Aver
Low+Low
0,0
Dimension 1
-,5
PRS
High+High
-1,0
PRS+PUS
Figure 2. Correspondence analysis between data (self-consciousness scale) and capta
(life-events accounts).
The results also suggest additional questions: (1) How is the predominant
occurrence of private self-consciousness descriptors and the non-isolated
occurrence of public self-consciousness descriptors in the accounts best
explained? Does this indicate a tendency of those who select careers in psychology, education and health sciences to demonstrate particular levels of
these constructs? (2) Why, if both qualitative and quantitative means are
equally effect means of measuring the constructs, was the correlation between
data sets as depicted in Figure 2 not perfectly linear? and (3) How can the
relation between these two indicators best be captured as an evidence of
reversibility of quantitative and qualitative data in capturing an established
psychological phenomenon?
According to Buss (1980, p. 17) ‘‘Private self-awareness can be induced
in several different ways’’. Small mirrors, which reflect just our own faces,
direct attention related to private self-awareness to aspects such as bodily
processes, emotions, fantasies and self-evaluation. In the same way, writing
a diary can direct the attention to private aspects of oneself. In this case,
however, if the individual writes a recital of the events of the day – the
meals eaten, the people met, the classes attended – the attention is obviously directed toward his or her public self. Writing a significant life-event
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
211
in one’s life history as well as writing a diary can be private self-awareness
inducers. Predominance of private self-consciousness descriptors and the
absence of exclusively public self-consciousness descriptors in the accounts
may be an artifact of this direction of attention inward. Buss (1980) suggests, however, that individuals with high private self-consciousness are so
self-reflective that inducers would not elevate their private self-awareness.
On the other hand, individuals with high or low scores in public selfconsciousness show differences just in the presence of public self-awareness
inducers.
That different susceptibility to inducers may explain both the presence of
private self-consciousness descriptors and the exclusive presence of public
self-consciousness descriptors even in accounts of individuals who scored
high in public self-consciousness. Also, this explains the presence of public
self-consciousness descriptors even in accounts of those low in public selfconsciousness. These differential responses to a task which focuses attention
on public and private arenas, rather than traits peculiar to those who select
particular occupations, could explain the findings referred to in the first
question above and also explain why the correlation referred to in the second
question is not perfect. A study comparing individuals from several different
majors or careers on levels of public and private self-consciousness, utilizing
scale scores, would help to answer the first question. Addressing the second is
somewhat more problematic.
As far as the third question is concerned, the connection among dynamic
style, and the private and public self-consciousness descriptors utilized by the
only individual in the study with a Low + High score on the scale confirms,
in a qualitative, case study format, the relation between self-consciousness
profiles from narrative accounts and self-consciousness profiles from scale
score. The other narratives also tended, generally, to match scores, even in
cases of lows in both private and public self-consciousness. The connection
among descriptive style, private self-consciousness descriptor, High + High
profiles and Low + Low profiles confirmed the tendency of the inducers
noted by Buss (1980). Thus, the moderate association tendency between High
private self-consciousness + High public and private self-consciousness
profile descriptors identified in the account, as well as the association between
Low private + Low public and private descriptors in accounts indicated in
the correspondence analysis supports the reversibility of quantitative and
qualitative data.
5. Conclusion
In this study, the first step of the comparison met an apparent limitation of
instrumental order: while the scale we used evaluated level of self-consciousness, the significant life-event account provided a self-awareness
212
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
profile. This difficulty was overcome by using the scale score as a fixed
parameter and the account of self-awareness as an induced profile. The
private and public self-consciousness profiles on the Self-Consciousness Scale
are defined as personality traits instead of personality states. In that sense,
the scale ascribes a context to a participant that may not be the same context
in which the participant chooses to answer the questions. However, we argue
that such contrast is not only desirable, but also necessary. The theoretical
assumption behind any scale is rooted in information theory, which reduces
uncertainty by exclusion – that is, probability differentiation. Simply formulated, a scale is a context of constrained choice; strictly formulated, a scale
is ‘‘the context of a choice by correlation which entails a context by relation’’
(Lanigan, 1992, p. 211). The life-event account, on the other hand, ascribes to
the participant the possibility to choose the context in which he or she describes an experience. The theoretical assumption behind the life-event account is rooted in communication theory, which asserts certainty by
combination – that is, possibility differentiation. Simply formulated, the
account functions as a choice of context; strictly formulated, the account is
‘‘the choice of a context by relation which entails a choice by correlation’’.
(Lanigan, 1992, p. 210). Note that the terms relation, correlation and function are used in Hjelmslev’s (1943/1961) conception of the underlying logic of
language. Thus, relation means ‘‘Both/And function’’; correlation means
‘‘Either/Or function’’; and ‘‘function is the dependence that fulfills the conditions for an analysis’’ (Lanigan, 1992, p. 229). In turn, analysis ‘‘is
description of an object by uniform dependencies of other objects on it and
on each other’’ (Lanigan, 1992, p. 229).
Quantitative or qualitative data alone are incomplete to verify a concept
or to establish reversible relations between each other. The need to establish a
complementary relationship and to verify a construct is a necessary first step
in psychological research. Establishing this relationship is a function of the
adductive analysis of semiotics, which in different contexts (scale and
accounts; Rule), through an external comparison (quantitative or qualitative;
Result) establishes the identity of two phenomena (self-consciousness classifying and profile; Case).
Even so, difficulties in design and interpretation remain. For example,
the manner in which comparison between quantitative and qualitative data
occurred in our study illustrates an interesting point. The quantitative
instrument was taken as a context for the qualitative instrument. The
qualitative interpretations utilized were constrained by the definitions
operationalized by the quantitative instrument. Thus, the scale provided the
parameters for the analysis of the accounts. The research procedure’s
central focus was qualifying the profiles through the quantitative operationalization. That procedure mirrored a common situation in present-day
psychological research: A mixed research design combines quantitative and
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
213
qualitative methods in order to either use data to ensure the validity of
capta or use capta to ensure the validity of data. In either case, the latter is
defined and constrained by the former, potentially damaging one of the
instruments. The quantitative instrument in such a combination may lose
its predictive validity and, consequently, its major contribution to psychological research is lost. The qualitative instrument, if used as a pilot procedure in a quantitative research design, does not ensure an accurate
understanding and description in a quantitative sense of the object under
investigation.
In our present study, we assumed (abductive logic) that quantitative and
qualitative methods could serve as contexts for each other, and there is no
infallible way to assess the validity of this assumption. Such logic, by its very
nature, is circular. It may not be possible to overcome this basic flaw of logic,
save through Neitzschian metaphysics. Regardless, the starting point of
sound psychological research should be to clarify the epistemological
assumptions inherent in the design. In utilizing the Self-Consciousness Scale,
our major assumption was the observable similarity between a number obtained through a scale measuring level of a particular trait and the actual
existence of a specific amount of that trait in ‘‘reality’’. In utilizing written
narratives, our major assumption was the comprehensive similarity between
the narrative description and the actual ‘‘reality’’ of each subject. We sought
to maintain the integrity of each research method by emphasizing essential
differences and logically deriving a suitable means of comparing the two
different types of data.
We assert the presence of self-consciousness descriptors in the narrative
accounts compatible with scale scores, considering the caveats noted above,
is evidence of the reversibility between qualitative and quantitative data
measuring the constructs of private and public self-consciousness, and also
that these constructs are indeed ‘‘real’’. Comparing instruments of different
orders (qualitative and quantitative) may be interpreted as a weakness of
research design if a correspondence between results from the two has already been empirically demonstrated. On the other hand, if a hypothetical
psychological construct has not yet been confirmed and a correspondence
between qualitative and quantitative measures has not been demonstrated,
comparing instruments of a different order is warranted. When making
such comparisons, however, well-reasoned procedures, derived from an
ongoing phenomenological dialogue between data and capta should be
defined. We may, in the final critique of pure reason, always be required as
mortals to simply take ‘‘our best guess’’ but we hope the semiotic model
we described here will assist students of research methods – and even
researcher-practitioners in psychology – to avoid thoughtless use of
methodologies and to refine their guesses and make them better in the
future.
214
MARIANE L. DE SOUZA ET AL.
References
Baños, R. M., Belloch, A. & Perpina, C. (1990). Self-consciousness Scale: A study of Spanish
housewives. Psychyological Reports 66: 771–774.
Bardin, L. (1977). L’analyse of contenu [Content Analysis]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Burman, E. (1997). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative
methods. Journal of Social Issues 53: 785–801.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and Social Anxiety. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Comunian, A. L. (1994). Self-consciousness scale dimensions: An Italian adaptation. Psychological Reports 74: 483–489.
Creed, A. T. & Funder, D. C. (1999). Shining the light on private self-consciousness: A
response to Silvia (1999). European Journal of Personality 13: 539–542.
Duval, S. & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A Theory of Objective Self-awareness. New York:
Academic Press.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43: 522–527.
Fenigstein, A. (1987). On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of
Personality 55: 543–554.
Grob, A. (1995). Subjective well-being and significant life-events across the life span. Swiss
Journal of Psychology 54: 3–18.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, California: Sage, pp.
105–117.
Heinemann, W. (1979). The assessment of private and public self-consciousness: A German
replication. European Journal of Social Psychology 9: 331–337.
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of language (F. J. Whitfield, Trans.). Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press (original work published in Danish 1943).
Hoyer, J. & Klein, A. (2000) Self reflection and well-being: Is there a healthy amount of
introspection? Psychological Reports, 86: 135–141.
Kuhn, D. & Lao, J. (1998). Contemplation and conceptual change: Integrating perspectives
from social and cognitive psychology. Developmental Review 18: 125–154.
Lanigan, R. (1992). The Human Science of Communicology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University
Press.
Lanigan, R. (1994). Capta versus data: Method and evidence in communicology. Human
Studies 17: 109–130.
Lincoln, V. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nelson, G., Wiltshire, C., Hall, G. B., Peirson, L. & Walsh-Bowers, R. (1995). Psychiatric
consumer/survivors’ quality of life: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Journal of
Community Psychology 23: 216–233.
Newman, I. & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative–Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring
the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Niaz, M. (1997). Can we integrate qualitative and quantitative research in science education?
Science and Education 6: 291–300.
Nystedt, L. & Smari, J. (1989). Assessment of the Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss Self-consciousness Scale: A Swedish translation. Journal of Personality Assessment 53: 342–352.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce, 8 vols. In C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds.), Vols. 1–6, and A. W. Burks (ed.), Vols. 7–8 (See Vol. 5
paragraphs 127; 145; 171; 188). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
A NORMATIVE SEMIOTIC MODEL
215
Rimé, B. & Le Bon, C. (1984). Le concept de conscience de soi et ses opérationnalisations.
L’anne´e Psychologique 84: 535–553.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H. & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes:
Development of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
46: 932–946.
Scandell, D. J. (2001). Is self-reflectiveness an unhealthy aspect of private self-consciousness?
Journal of Psychology, 135: 451–461.
Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self-consciousness scale: A revised version for use
with general populations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15: 687–699.
Shek, D. T. L. (1994). Assessment of private and public self-consciousness: A Chinese replication. Journal of Clinical Psychology 50: 341–348.
Silvia, P. J. (1999). Explaining personality or explaining variance? A comment on Creed and
Funder (1998). European Journal of Personality 13: 533–538.
Suedfeld, P. & Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity accompanying significant life events: Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:
124–130.
Suh, E., Diener, E. & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events
matter. Journal of personality and social psychology 70: 1091–1102.
Teixeira, M. A. P. & Gomes, W. B. (1995). Self-consciousness Scale: A Brazilian version.
Psychological Reports 77: 423–427.
Teixeira, M. A. P. & Gomes, W. B. (1996). Escala de autoconsciência revisada (EAC-R):
Caracterı́sticas psicométricas numa amostra de adolescentes brasileiros. [Revised selfconsciousness to Brazilian adolescents]. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia 48: 78–92.
Tolman, D. L. & Szalacha, L. A. (1999). Dimensions of desire: Bridging qualitative and
quantitative methods in a study of female adolescent sexuality. Psychology of Women
Quarterly 23: 7–39.
Vinokur, A. & Selzer, M. L. (1975). Desirable versus undesirable life events: Their relationship
to stress and mental distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 329–337.
Vleeming, R. G. & Engelse, J. A. (1981). Assessment of private and public self-consciousness:
A Dutch replication. Journal of Personality Assessment 45: 385–389.
Weller, S.C. & Romney, A.K. (1990) Metric Scaling: Correspondence Analysis, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-075. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Mariane Lima de Souza is a doctoral student in Developmental Psychology at Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul. William Barbosa Gomes is a professor of history of psychology in the graduate psychology
program at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Sherri McCarthy is an associate professor of
educational psychology in the graduate counseling and human relations program at Northern Arizona
University-Yuma. Their research interests include, theory, practice and history of psychology.