Tel Aviv University 25.09.

2011

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Psychology

Meaning Allocation among Astrologers and Scientists

‫הקצאת מובן בקרב אסטרולוגים ומדענים‬
Professor Shulamith Kreitler

: Author

Dima Gur 304147481

 2

Abstract

The study used Kreitler & Kreitler’s meaning system to create a meaning profile of astrology and

science adherents and compare between the two. Social Dominance Theory (SDT) was employed to

provide support for astrology as a 'subordinate group' in the academic world. Cognitive Dissonance

Theory was used to provide support for astrology adherent’s longer meaning elaboration. The

hypothesis was that we’ll find qualitative differences among the two groups meaning profiles based on

the later two assertions. 30 participants took part in the study, 15 in each of the groups, most of them

Israeli undergraduate students. Group affiliation was determined via a self professed interest in either

astrology or science or field of study. Each of the participants filled a Meaning Questionnaire which

was later coded into a meaning profile. The meaning profiles of each group as a unit were compared.

Findings confirmed the majority of meaning values which were speculated upon resulting in a different

meaning profile for each group. Discussion focused on developing research further afield on both the

meaning system and inter-group differences. Subsequent research on both SDT and dissonance is

needed.
 3

Introduction

The meaning system by Kreitler and Kreitler1 is a recognized research method

which studies cognitive determinants of behavior and personality in different

populations. Previous research using the meaning system mainly includes studies

which are concerned with personality traits and attributes. Examples abound: Studies

on ego strength, need for power, the extroversion-introversion axis2, order and

cleanliness, intolerance of ambiguity, leadership styles, personality scales (five factor

model) and different psychopathologies3. In all of the above studies a Meaning

Questionnaire4 is used in different study arrays to create a meaning profile of a certain

group which is later compared to profiles of additional groups. Whether one of the

groups is a control group or qualitatively different depends on the particular

experiment. Unlike this kind of correlative study an experimental study array may

include administrating the meaning questionnaire after a manipulation of sort to one

of two groups, or on a before and after basis.

The meaning questionnaire is used to create the meaning profile of the studied

group. It works as follows: the participants are given 11 or more words on which they

elaborate the "generally accepted meaning" and the "personal meaning" invoked by

the word. By parsing their sentences into grammatically meaningful units (referents)

and analyzing the results using four main variables5 one can extract the meaning

profile of a particular subject. The four main variables from which we extract the core

meaning are the "Meaning Dimensions", "Types of Relation", "Forms of Relation"

1
Kreitler 1986
2
According to Rotter 1954, “locus of Control”
3
Kreitler 1990, 125-135
4
See appendix I for the full Meaning Questionnaire
5
Kreitler 1990, 19-31
 4

and "Shifts in Referents”. The meaning dimensions is a general category which shows

the aspect of the input to which the communication refers. Types of relation

characterize the manner in which a meaning value of any meaning dimension is

related to the referent. Forms of relation is an evaluative category which marks the

formal and logical connection between meaning value and referent. While the shifts

of referents category follows the changes in responses to the referent, which often

differs from the original referent given.

The Merriam-Webster web-dictionary defines astrology as: “The divination of the

supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by

their positions and aspects”6. Astrology can be said to be the big bogeyman of

science. Astrology was taught medieval universities across Europe, was practiced at

princely courts and popularized using printed almanacs7. It was considered a valid

discipline till the advent of the enlightenment8, while today adherents of the art still

claim its rightful place among the sciences. Scientists on the other hand adamantly

disprove any such claims and stick to their notion of astrology as unverifiable through

empirical experiment. Moreover big names from the academic world such as Stephen

Hawking and Richard Dawkins have repeatedly claimed astrology to be a

pseudoscience9. The criterion of "falsifiability" as it was laid down by the philosopher

Karl Popper may be the most famous criticism of astrology. It simply means that if a

theory can't be disapproved than its pseudoscience10.

Science of course is a large umbrella term for different methodologies. In this

study the term refers mainly to the natural, applied and “hard” sciences, e.g.

6
Retrieved august 28, 2011 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/astrology
7
Holden 2006, 135-144 and 180-181
8
Bobrick 2005, Ch. 11
9
Dawkins 1995
10
Popper 1959
 5

chemistry, physics, engineering and such. Unlike the natural sciences point of view

the social sciences examine the social ramification of various phenomenons. As such

astrology can be examined in a neutral light leaving aside any dilemmas over physical

mechanisms and theory. My aim in this paper was to do just that, to examine the

differences and similarities between adherents of astrology to adherents of modern

science, often at odds with one another. For that purpose I used Kreitler’s meaning

system and questionnaire.

As a tool used by cognitive psychologists the meaning questionnaire provides a

unique opportunity to bypass the subject of astrology’s authenticity and to concentrate

on the societal aspects of it. More specifically by administrating the questionnaire to

the latter two groups I examined whether the produced meaning profile accounts for

the qualitative, trait based differences among them. If the two groups are indeed at

odds with each other, both in cognitive style and personality traits they will generate a

different meaning profile. On the other hand if the differences aren’t statistically

significant there’s a valid chance of proving no actual difference in their thinking

patterns. A more radical suggestion may imply that such results point to something

entirely different. That the astrology group shares some of the cognitive and trait

based characteristics of the science group. One explanation for such puzzling result

may be that astrology is a full fledged science in the eyes of its practicing members.

Regardless, my personal hypothesis was that we'll find qualitative, trait based,

differences between the science and the astrology groups.

Former research have provided backup for the hypothesis. Prime among them is

the collection of studies found in a book by Kreitler & Kreitler on meaning system

and traits11. Some of the most revealing studies for our purposes are studies:

Kreitler 1990 11
 6

8,11,13,18 on ego strength and anality, external-internal control, dogmatic and

authoritarian behavior, and intolerance of ambiguity respectively.

The traits investigated in those studies suppose to correlate with character traits of

either the science or the astrology group. In such a way external control correlates

with astrologer’s supposed belief in fate, internal control with scientist's reliance on

material cause and effect causality. High ego strength and dogmatic views should

characterize the science group as the "dominant group" according to the social

dominance theory (SDT)12. From the opposite end, low scores on both this measures

should characterize the astrology group. Lastly the science group would probably

score high on intolerance of ambiguity as befitting their position as the intellectually

dominant group.

If the mentioned traits indeed go hand in hand with each of the appropriate groups

in the study, one can easily reach a simple conclusion. The astrology group is

characterized by low scores on most ego or status related criteria, while the science

group enjoys the opposite position. Moreover astrology isn’t taught in the academic

world at all. This leads me to the idea that the science group enjoys the socially

dominant role in the intellectual world. Thus and according to the social dominance

theory science adherents must posses a higher SDO13 score than astrology adherents.

An SDO stands for: individual preference for hierarchy and measures group member

expectation for honor and social position.

Unlike most hierarchies in human society, which are based on gender or age, in the

case of our two groups a culturally based arbitrary set criterion14 is put in place. This

12
Sidanius & Prato 1999, It deals with dominant and subservient groups through the perspective of
sociology and psychology; elaborated below
13
"Social dominance orientation"
Sidanius & Pratto 1999, 33-37 14
 7

criterion is the academic or intellectual status of the field of knowledge, defined by

astrology's inability to verify its theory by means of the scientific method. In addition,

according to SDT the dominant group often uses legitimizing myths to justify its

position and to castigate the "subordinate group" to a set position under its

paternalistic care15. In a similar manner science’s contemporary position towards

astrology refuses to engage it as a worthy subject of study. The usual position can be

summed in the words of Richard Dawkins: “Scientific truth is too beautiful to be

sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic

affront. It cheapens astronomy”16.

Another important body of theory which provides support for my claims can be

found in the Coginitve Dissonance Theory17. People who are interested in astrology,

tarot, graphology or the others so called “pseudosciences” are a liable target for

cognitive dissonance thoughts. By knowingly following a branch of knowledge

labeled as false by the majority of society astrology group members are placed in a

dissonance state. A likely compensation process would involve giving longer than

needed answers, employing complex reasoning and explanations and using metaphors

and parables.

Research literature provides distinct support for such an occurrence in the

phenomenon of Effort Justification18. Effort justification occurs when an individual

needs to exert extra effort justifying a negative experience or state. It often occurs

following an event which causes a dissonance in the first place. One can say that

openly supporting a pseudoscience such as astrology is liable to place somebody in a

15
Sidanius & Pratto 1999, 47-48
16
Retrieved august 19, 2011 from http://richarddawkins.net/quotes?page=3
17
Festinger 1957
18
Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett 2006, 312-315
 8

dissonance state, thus causing effort justification. Former studies such as the one by

Aronson & Mills19 provide empirical evidence for this occurrence.

As far as the meaning system is concerned the primary hypothesis can be dissected

on the level of the meaning values under the four main variables. If indeed the

astrology and science group differ significantly on those meaning values we can say

that there are qualitative, trait based, differences between the groups.

Science is largely concerned with the physical and material world and with using

exact observations. This allows us to presume that on the "meaning dimension scale"

science adherents will assign meaning in the form of dimensions: 1-5, 8-10, 12-16

(see appendix II for a full code of the meaning variables). Those are concerned with

practical - down to earth observation, with range of inclusion, function, material and

physical properties. For the astrology group, on the same variable, there's a high

probability that meaning dimensions: 6-7, 11, 17-22 will be used more often. Those

dimensions emphasize conditions and outcomes, complex processes, and personally

conscious thoughts and feelings. We may assume such a stance presuming that the

astrology group is more interested in personal development, predictions and meaning

of things.

On the "types of relation scale" the same rational is used to speculate that the

science group will lean towards 'types 1-2', which either explains the referent directly

or by modes of comparison. The astrology group on the other hand should lean

towards 'type 4' which employs metaphoric-symbolic language to describe the

referent. First of all Astrology is widely known as a symbolic language20. Secondly

19
Aronson & Mills 1959
20
Howell 1989
 9

the cognitive dissonance theory may be used to explain astrologers predicted use of

metaphors, symbols and personal interpretation types of relation.

On the "forms of relation scale" I assumed that the science group will tend to use

'forms 3 and 6' more than its counterpart. Both have to do with setting normative rules

and talking in absolutes. It also should characterize their status as intellectually the

dominant group according to the social dominance theory. The astrology group on the

other hand should lean towards using 'forms 5,7 and 8' in describing the questionnaire

items. The first two expressing insecurity and doubt which should fit with their

apparent attempts to escape dissonance, while 'form 8' is another item reflecting their

interest in personal development.

On the final meaning scale, the "shifts of referent scale" I hypothesized that the

science group would use 'shifts 1, 4 and 9', staying within the bounds of the referent

or adding to it small additions. The astrology group would probably use 'shifts 6, 11,

12 and 13 relying more on high language structures such as associations, hypothetical

structures and synonyms.

On the last two meaning variables some meaning values were skipped, for example

FR 2 and SR 2 have no hypothesis attached to them, among others. Those meaning

values were deemed as not having an affinity with any one of the study groups in

particular.

Method

Subjects
 10

The subjects were 22 men and 8 women, mostly Israeli undergraduate students.

Their mean age was 34.4 years old, their median age was 25 though. They choose to

participate on a voluntary basis after being contacted by the writer. There were

practically no differences between the two groups on measures of average years of

education and mean age21, hence small inter-group variance.

Instruments and measures

The standard meaning questionnaire (street, bicycle, life, create, feeling, take,

murder, friendship, art, sea, telephone) was augmented with four additional words

relevant for the purposes of the study. The words were: science, mysticism, universe

and intuition. The first two with the intention of gaining direct access to the meaning

value attached to the two central concepts in the study, ‘science’ and ‘astrology’. The

later pair of words was used to gain an idea of two relevant concepts to both groups in

the study. ‘Universe’ being an important intermediary term for conceptions in science

and astrology, ‘Intuition’ on the other hand is used to get a sense of the subject's

perspective on the working principles behind astrology.

On the meaning Questionnaire itself the subjects were requested to communicate

the general (dictionary) meaning and the personal meaning (association) of each word

to a hypothetical person. The responses were coded in terms of the 4 variables of the

meaning system22, assigning a meaning value to each referent. In terms of how many

times each meaning value was used, summing the response total for each subject

provided the meaning profile of the participant. Summing the response total for the

21
36 in contrast to 34 years of age, and 16.2 in contrast to 15.6 years of education both in favor of the
science group
22
See introduction for details
 11

science or astrology group provided the meaning profile of the group ideally

representing a sampled population.

A couple of notes about coding follow; during coding meaning value 19 (sensory

qualities) wasn’t used for means of simplification. Meaning values 20-22 were

deemed appropriate to include the range of meanings 19 encompassed within its

limits. The sub category, "meta-meaning" (MM), which modulates the meaning of the

meaning value, and the variable "referent level" weren't used. This was done in order

to keep the meaning variables as straightforward as possible, taking into account the

great number of hypothesis already in use.

Furthermore, meaning variable "forms of relation" which is usually coded on a

positive – negative spectrum was coded on a one sided positive basis. This was done

in order to simplify coding and as part of an initial mistake by the coder who

understood the variable as a flat, one dimensional concept. No attempt has been made

to retrace the coding procedure after no meaning value proved statistically significant

under the FR category.

Procedure

The original design included a long e-mail list of astrologers and astronomers but

after very low compliance rates it was dropped. A new design divided subjects

according to their field of study and self professed interest either with astrology or

science, mostly students. Complying astronomers and astrologers from the original

design were added to the second group of participants. Nevertheless they comprised

only about a quarter of the entire subject population. The subjects received the

meaning questionnaire via e-mail after consenting to participate or as part of a

 12

concentrated e-mail list. Because the questionnaires were mostly administered by e-

mail the preferred "form of expression" (FE) was textual, i.e. typing. The modified

meaning questionnaire was commented upon by some participants as being too long,

containing a total of fifteen words. Those remarks prompted a future instruction

(verbally given or written) to optionally shorten the assigned meaning to each word,

but nevertheless to include both a personal and general meaning. Any information

about whether the subjects belonged to the science or astrology group was

intentionally withheld from them.

Results

Overall 30 individuals filled the questionnaires. Some individuals skipped certain

words. Either because they looked trivial (bicycle, to take) or because they didn’t feel

comfortable describing them (murder). Another repeated occurrence was a

 13

diminishing length of meaning values ascribed to referents from word to word, with

the first words being the longest. However, some words received an especially long

description both in meaning value and in word count terms. Those words consisted

mainly of the four additional words (science, universe, mysticism and intuition) and in

many cases of the words: life, art and feeling.

Although the four additional words were dispersed throughout the meaning

questionnaire participants have seemed to respond to them instinctively by providing

lengthy meaning descriptions. Another general observation was that the astrology

group took care to elaborate more in meaning description on each word on average.

The sum total of meaning variables describing referents was larger by almost 100

items in favor of the astrology group, the science group summing a total of 419 items

in contrast to astrology’s 517. This gap was later controlled for using a statistical

manipulation. Furthermore the science group was characterized by a laconic, almost

technical style of answering describing mainly functions, manner of occurrence (Dim

3 and Dim 5) and other lower tiered meaning dimensions.

Finally we can safely categorize subject’s answering styles into two large

categories, the first category consisting of the subjects who used long sentences and

complex ideas in ascribing meaning value. They were trying to explain the referent

adequately and giving a personal, sometimes, philosophical meaning of simple words.

The second group consisted of subjects who relied on a rule of thumb heuristic

towards ascribing meaning. Some of them used an association or a brief description to

describe each questionnaire item; others were satisfied with writing a short

description to both personal and general meaning of each word. The two answering

styles weren’t mutually exclusive yet the first style occurred slightly more frequently

in the astrology group as it’s evident in the sum total of the meaning variables.
 14

The questionnaire data was separated into the two subject groups and compared

among each other on each meaning value used under each of the four variables.

Please refer to Appendix II for the full code of the meaning variables. A T-test for

independent samples23 was performed preceded by Levene's Test24 for equality of

variances (df=28). On the statistical level some of the meaning values were found to

correlate significantly (p<0.05) with the hypothesis as it can be seen in table 1 below.

On par with the hypothesis it was found that Dim 7 ((F=3.024) T=2.16, p=0.039)

and Dim 22a ((F=10.02) T=2.36, p=0.025) both were significantly larger in favor of

the astrology group. On the types of relation scale four meaning values were found to

be statistically significant. TR 1a ((F=8.237) T=2.671, p=0.012) ,TR 4a ((F=4.395)

T=2.412, p=0.023) and TR 2b ((F=5.424) T=2.641, p=0.013) were significant in the

direction of the hypothesis. TR 2a ((F=1.649) T=3.045, p=0.005) on the other hand

proved significant in the opposite direction. Interestingly the sum total of meaning

values under TR 4 ((F=1.525) T=2.308, p=0.029), which combines TR 4a + TR 4b +

TR 4c + TR 4d, proved significant as well. On the final statistically significant

meaning variables, shifts of referents, both results corroborated the hypothesis. SR 4

((F=1.446) T=3.385, p=0.002) went the direction of the science group while SR 6

((F=2.762) T=2.445, p=0.021) went the direction of the astrology group.

Table 1 – p. values
(2-tailed) The astrology group in the negative pole of the scale
DIM 7, -0.039 DIM 22a, -0.025    
TR 1a, 0.012 TR 2a, -0.005 TR2b, 0.013 TR4a, -0.022 TR4, 0.029
SR 4, 0.002 SR 6, -0.021    

23
T-test for equality of means
24
Also known as a F-test
 15

The second group of results, shown in table 2, were nearly significant (p<0.1).

Statistically not passing the bar, those results do provide us with valuable information

which is later used in the discussion section. This is partly because the nearly

significant results were divided, almost by half, to those which were in the direction

of the hypothesis and those which weren’t.

Those which were in the direction of the hypothesis included the following

meaning values. Dim 3 ((F=0.34) T=2.004, p=0.055) and Dim 17b ((F=3.979)

T=1.798, p=0.083) the first in favor of science and the second in favor of the

astrology group. Also in the direction of astrology were meaning values TR 4c

((F=4.965) T=1.903, p=0.067) and SR 12 ((F=3.556) T=1.9, p=0.068).

Meaning values which went in the direction contrary to the hypothesis included the

following entries: Dim 8b ((F=10.327) T=1.82, p=0.08) and Dim 10 ((F=0.416)

T=1.851, p=0.075) in favor of astrology and Dim 21a ((F=13.302) T=1.753, p=0.091)

in favor of science. The last two variables were TR 2c ((F= 1.392) T=1.758, p=0.09)

and SR 9 ((F=14.038) T=1.797, p=0.083) both in favor of the astrology group.

Table 2 – p. values (2-tailed) The astrology group in the negative pole of the scale
Dim 3, 0.054 Dim 8b, -0.079 Dim 10, -0.074 Dim 17b, -0.082 Dim 21a, 0.090
TR 2c, -0.089 TR 4c, -0.067      
SR 9, -0.083 SR 12, -0.067      

Although none of the hypothesis concerning forms of relations was confirmed, two

meaning values were of interest. Both came fairly close to the nearly significant sector

correlating around the p-value of 0.15. FR 3 ((F=0.028) T=1.477, p=0.15) leaned in

the direction of the astrology group, contrary to the hypothesis. FR 6 ((F=1.905)

 16

T=1.448, p=0.159) on the other hand correlated with the hypothesis establishing the

meaning value in favor of science.

Beyond the primary statistical analysis to the main body of the meaning variables,

a separate statistical test was performed on the four additional words given in the

meaning questionnaire25. As mentioned earlier the four custom words are supposed to

provide insight into the very core of the meaning profile, tackling the subject of

astrology vs. science in a direct manner. The test performed was also a T-test for

independent samples preceded by an F-test for equality of variances. Because of the

small sample number on this singled out statistical test26 this section will focus on the

most relevant, statistically significant results.

Dim 10 ((F=21.182) T=2.540, p=0.017), Dim 22a ((F= 22.268) T=2.222, p=0.035),

TR 2c ((F=0.006) T=2.133, p=0.042) and SR 6 ((F=11.307) T=2.322, p=0.028) were

all repeated in both direction and significance level, mirroring the primary statistical

test. TR 3b ((F= 9.406) T=2.093, p=0.046) added to the mixed bag of results found on

the types of relation variable. It correlated with a meaning value not hypothesized

upon. Another result worth mentioning is FR 7 ((F=20.19) T=1.815, p=0.08) which

statistically was only nearly significant. FR 7 actually went in the direction opposite

the hypothesis, a fact which probably has to do with the nature of the custom words,

and will be touched upon in the discussion section.

Overall, out of the 49 meaning values that were speculated upon, more than half27

proved to be in the direction of the hypothesis. Furthermore 17 variables either

correlated significantly or nearly significantly. The full list of meaning variables with

25
See the 'Instruments and measures' section
26
4 words x 15 subjects per group, resulting in less 'power' in the test
27
27 in the direction, 22 in the opposite direction
 17

means, standard deviations and results of both T and Levene's test can be seen in table

3 below.

Table 3 group 1 = science, group 2 = astrology

* = nearly significant, ** = significant The astrology group in negative t values

 
group Mean Std. Deviation F t
sr4** 1.00 .09457 .054411
1.446 3.385
2.00 .03751 .036075
 18

sr6** 1.00 .02524 .060754

2.762 -2.445
2.00 .08992 .082496
sr9* 1.00 .00238 .009221
14.038 -1.797
2.00 .01274 .020322
sr12* 1.00 .04147 .053119
3.556 -1.900
2.00 .08856 .079930
dim3* 1.00 .13523 .063755
.340 2.004
2.00 .09255 .052350
dim7** 1.00 .02113 .026190
3.024 -2.160
2.00 .04691 .038089
dim8b* 1.00 .01955 .019937
10.327 -1.820
2.00 .04146 .042143
dim10* 1.00 .04055 .033354
.416 -1.851
2.00 .06292 .032852
dim17b* 1.00 .00831 .019817
3.979 -1.798
2.00 .02609 .032779
dim21a* 1.00 .02129 .029751 13.302 1.753
2.00 .00645 .013773
dim22a** 1.00 .00485 .012802
10.019 -2.362
2.00 .02629 .032754
tr1a** 1.00 .18012 .103668
8.237 2.671
2.00 .10125 .048328
tr2a** 1.00 .00906 .019571
1.649 -3.045
2.00 .03558 .027476
tr2b** 1.00 .06988 .057161
5.424 2.641
2.00 .02629 .028601
tr2c* 1.00 .03558 .050584
1.392 -1.758
2.00 .06486 .040021
tr4a** 1.00 .05277 .051957
4.395 -2.412
2.00 .09149 .034131
tr4c* 1.00 .00815 .018063
4.965 -1.903
2.00 .02819 .036563

Discussion

The multi variable structure of the meaning system makes it difficult for the

researcher to reach a clear cut, definitive conclusion. More difficult yet is to quantify

a conclusion out of as many as almost 50 meaning values. Nevertheless by looking at

 19

groups of meaning values or various combinations and patterns in the results one can

infer about the general hypothesis of the study.

First of all most of the meaning values which had a speculation attached to them

were found to be in the direction of the hypothesis. Secondly, out of the 17 meaning

values which correlated significantly only 6 were found in a direction contrary to the

hypothesis. Since the majority of the speculated upon meaning values were aimed at

proving the main hypothesis we can say there are qualitative, trait based differences

between the science and the astrology groups. This, of course, automatically

disapproves the alternative suggestion that the two groups actually share trait

characteristics and cognitive patterns.

On the level of the specific meaning values which gave weight to the hypothesis,

I’ll start from the ones which turned out to be statistically significant. Past studies

relevant to the results will be mentioned as a way of elucidating the connection to the

primary hypothesis.

The astrology adherents group was significantly higher on Dim 7 and Dim 22a.

The first meaning value is an indicator of their interest in prediction and the future. It

befits astrology’s status as an empirical field where practitioners seek to verify

prediction using future events. The second meaning value nicely lends itself to the

cognitive dissonance theory. If supporting astrology does indeed create a dissonance it

would easily manifest as an increased proclivity to overthink and cognitively analyze

words, partly due to the effort justification phenomenon.

Significant types of relation results included TR 1a, TR 2a, TR 2b, TR 4 and TR

4a. The first meaning value is the simplest of the pack, it shows science adherents

lack of dissonance in ascribing meaning and uncomplicated thinking patterns. TR 2a

 20

who went contrary to the hypothesis is nicely contrasted with TR 2b. The first deals

with comparing referent to its meaning while the second with contrasting them.

Astrology’s position as the socially subordinate group according to SDT28 may

account for their ascribing meaning in terms of comparison. The phenomenon of

‘outgroup favoritism’29 may explain the results in which there’s an attempt to compare

oneself with the bettered status of the science group. Also according to SDT, as an

outgroup astrologers probably craved for social acceptance. This feeling was probably

triggered by the custom word ‘mysticism’ and by the disclosed title of the study. It

wouldn’t come as a surprise if such a trigger caused astrology participants to relate

meaning in comparison types of relation. The science group on the other hand tended

to contrast referents with other referents. This may support the prevalent scientific

methodology of critical thinking and proof by refutation30, in other words critical

thought is encouraged. The final correlated type of relation is the meaning variable

TR 4 and meaning value TR 4a. Both of them tie to the fact that astrology is

considered a symbolic language employing metaphors and symbols. It also

corroborates the notion that astrologers have a low score on the intolerance of

ambiguity trait spectrum.

On the shifts of referent front, SR 4 and SR 6 correlated significantly with science

and astrology respectively. SR 4 deals with an addition to the referent while SR 6 with

a replacement of the referent. In other words SR 4 stays close to the referent by

keeping things simple, while SR 6 is reflective of complex thought involving symbols

and metaphors. On the other hand according to Kreitler’s code of the meaning

28
Social dominance theory, see introduction for details
29
Sidanius & Pratto 1999, 43-45
30
Wettersten 1992, 7-14
 21

variables31, SR 4 and SR 6 are coded on an equal level of shift from the original

referent.

Further support for the main hypothesis can be found in the nearly significant

meaning values. This group of results mostly lends more evidence to the general trend

shown in the significant result discussion above. However some results did need

clarification. Although not nearly significant, meaning variable FR is also discussed

in here. This is done in order to get a glimpse of the most prevalent referent –

meaning connection between the study groups, i.e. the purpose of FR.

The nearly significant meaning dimensions were Dim 3, Dim 8b, Dim 10, Dim 17b

and Dim 21a. Dim 3 reflects science adherents concern with functions and goals of

objects. Dim 10, surprisingly, went in opposition to the hypothesis direction, in favor

of astrologers. A possible solution may lie in the nature of the meaning value itself. In

the hypothesis it was assumed that it refers to material, physical properties32 but

participants may have interpreted it as describing processes and structures on a more

abstract level. Dim 8b, also opposite the expected direction can indicate two things.

Like Dim 22a it too may attest to the dissonance formed among the astrologers

resulting in over explaining. A different, more practical, approach may ascribe this to

the longer sentences the astrology group employed in elaborating meaning. Longer

sentences inevitably lead to using the ‘object’ grammatical structure. The last of the

meaning dimension values in favor of astrologers was Dim 17b. Interest in whom the

referent belongs to may show astrologers position as ‘externals’ on the locus of

control scale. By relegating objects and concepts to their ‘proper place’ a

deterministic worldview may be inferred, a sense that every thing has its proper place.

31
See SR section of appendix II
32
In a similar vein to Dim 9: ‘material’
 22

Lastly Dim 21a went in a direction contrary to the hypothesis in favor of scientists. A

possible explanation may lie in the connection between 'judgments' and science

position as the dominant intellectual ideology according to SDT. It seems there is a

connection between science and dogmatism. This connection is further elaborated in

Dim 21a correlation with this trait in former studies on dogmatism33.

Aside from DIM types of meaning values other nearly significant variables

included TR 4c, TR 2c, SR 9 and SR 12. All of them turned out to be in the direction

of the astrology group. TR 4c adds to our list of evidence as for the role of symbolic

and metaphoric meaning allocation among astrologers. TR 2c contrary the hypothesis

adds support to meaning values Dim 22a and Dim 8b. Once again astrologers either

elaborate due to dissonance or simply have written more than the scientists. SR 12

confirmed astrologer's use of high language structure, possibly as means to resolve

dissonance. SR 9 who also leaned opposite the expected direction was initially

considered as an indicator for staying within the bound of the referent. Indeed it's

classified as a close shift according to Kreitler's meaning system. A different point of

view may consider grammatical variation as a form of synonym. Such an outlook

equates it with the likes of SR 12 which is predicted to correlate with the astrology

group.

A quick mention of the lowest p-value FR meaning values is in order34. FR 6

confirmed the hypothesis while FR 3 didn't, both speculated to favor the science

group. FR 6 lends further proof for scientist's position as the intellectually dominant

group, preferring to ascribe meaning in terms of rules and regulations. According to

SDT the dominant group often engages in policing the status quo, sometimes using

33
Kreitler 1990, 235
34
Both around the value of p=0.15, see results section
 23

violence35. Correlation with science on this form of relation also corroborates

Kreitler's result in her study on authoritarian behavior36. The unexpected result in FR3

meaning value may be explained by manner of contrast. If scientists are used to

express themselves cautiously through the rubric of the critical scientific method

astrologers don't shy from doing the opposite. Along with metaphoric and symbolic

language they talk in absolutes.

The t-test for the four custom words generally replicated the results found in the

rest of the study. However two distinct results will be discussed in here. Significant

TR 3b in favor of science adherents is hard to explain considering the fact type of

relation 3 had no hypothesis attached to it. Nearly significant FR 7 on the other hand

in favor of scientists expresses insecurity and doubt, it probably has to do with the

nature of the custom words. Words like mysticism and intuition may have off footed

science adherents to express meaning in those terms, a thing which is also inferred

from their descriptions of those referents. Both of the latter meaning variables went

contrary to the hypothesis.

Restating the aforementioned view that meaning system studies are complex,

several factors may have influenced the validity of the results. Possible confounds

may be found in the subjects, procedure, underlying theory or conclusions reached by

the researcher.

In small, low funded studies such as this one there’s a danger of not obtaining

distinct enough samples of the desired populations. As it was stated only eight out of

the thirty participants are practicing professionals in their respected field. Moreover,

although the meaning questionnaire was longer than usual the overall population of

35
Sidanius & Pratto 1999, 41-43
36
Kreitler 1990, 235
 24

the study is modest in scale. Another confound having to do with subjects is the

possible artifact37 of experimentally comparing different than intended properties of

the two groups. In such a way a possible counter explanation may stress the fact that

astrology adherents are usually independent, free-thinkers and mostly women.

Science adherents on the other hand are usually male, conservatives and enjoy a

privileged economic position. Any one of these defining characteristics may have

given more weight to ascribing meaning, than their interest in science or astrology.

Although most of the speculated upon meaning values correlated with the

hypothesis only 35% proved significant or nearly significant38. From a purely

statistical standpoint this undermines the confirmation of the main hypothesis. A final

point of contention may lie in discrepancies found between the results of this study

and the ones found in Kreitler & Kreitler’s research on meaning and traits. Some

examples include: On intolerance of ambiguity TR 4 produced inconclusive results in

Kreitler’s study39 while correlating significantly in the present one. Neither did Dim

17b appear on the external control end in Kreitler’s study40.

Future research could easily pick up the loose ends left after this study. Following

the results of the study from a technical angle, the meaning system could be improved

upon. It seems that meaning variables which had fewer meaning value categories

attached to them were easier to prove statistically. For example, meaning variable TR

which had only 4 categories was significant in far more cases than meaning variable

37
Alternative explanation in statistics
38
17 out of 49 meaning values
39
Kreitler 1990, 235
40
Kreitler 1990, 225
 25

DIM which had 22 categories. It may thus be useful to simplify the meaning system

by reducing the meaning values which comprise it into fewer overarching categories.

On the subject of the study proper one research direction can be an attempt to

connect between cognitive dissonance to over explaining. As we’ve noticed in the

results the dissonance prone astrologers employed richer and more plentiful forms of

speech on most of the questionnaire words. Further studies are needed to cement this

conclusion. Lastly we can say that the present study helped clarify the importance of

social dominance theory in fields such as the academic world. This means that SDT

isn’t limited to the public, social and political fields but translates well into various

subcultures and groups of interest. A final conclusion is a fairly straightforward one.

People who are interested in astrology and people who are interested in science seem

to be qualitatively different from one another. From expressing and allocating

meaning to cognitive and trait-wise patterns they seem to make for two different

personality types.

Bibiliography

Aronson, E. & Mills, J. (1959). The Effect of Severity of Initiation on the Liking of a

Group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.

 26

Bobrick, B. (2005). The Fated Sky: Astrology in History. New York: Simon and

Schuster.

Dawkins, R. (31 December 1995). The Real Romance in the Stars. The Independent,

the year ahead: real life, 6.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford: Standford

University Press.

Gilovich, T., Keltner, D. & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Social Psychology. New York: W.

W. Norton.

Holden, J. H. (1996). A History of Horoscopic Astrology. Tempe, AZ: American

Federation of Astrologers.

Howell, A. O. (1989). Jungian Symbolism in Astrology. Tempe, AZ: American

Federation of Astrologers.

Kreitler, S. & Kreitler, H. (1990). The Cognitive Foundations of Personality Traits.

New York: Plenum Press.

Kreitler, S. & Kreitler, H. (1986). Individuality in Planning: Meaning Patterns of

Planning Styles. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 565-587.

McRitchie, K. (2008). The Students' Critical Thinking Guide to Science and

Astrology. ISAR International Astrologer, 36(1),36-42.

McRitchie, K. (2006). Astrology and the Social Sciences: Looking Inside the Black

Box of Astrology Theory. Correlation: Journal of Research in Astrology, 24(1), 5-20.

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.

 27

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. NY: Prentice-Hall.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An intergroup Theory of Social

Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wettersten, J. R. (1992). The roots of critical rationalism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Tags: astrology, science, meaning system

Appendix I

Gender____ Year of birth____________

Country of birth___________________ Education__________

 28

Field of Study_________________Occupation/Profession____________________

TEST OF MEANINGS

In this questionnaire there is a list of 15 words. You are requested to communicate the meaning of
each word. Imagine there is someone (you may choose any person you want) who does not know the
meaning of the particular word, but understands language and other forms of expression, such as
drawings or movements.

Please communicate to that person the meaning of each word – both the generally accepted
meaning, what it means in general (so that anyone who knows the meaning of the word could agree
to what you write) and the personal meaning (what it means to you and for you personally).

The meaning of the word may be expressed through different means of communication – by words,
drawings (the quality of the drawings is irrelevant), descriptions of drawings or movements, etc. You
may use any direct or indirect form of expression that seems to you adequate and express the
meaning in different forms. The main thing is that the other person would know what each words
means in general and for you. Please do not use translations into other languages and elaborate at
least mildly.

STREET

BICYCLE

SCIENCE

LIFE
 29

TO CREATE

FEELING

TO TAKE

UNIVERSE

TO MURDER

FRIENDSHIP

MYSTICISM
 30

ART

THE SEA

INTUITION

TELEPHONE

Appendix II
 31

The Meaning System of Kreitler & Kreitler

The Sets of Meaning Variables

Meaning Dimensions (Dim)

Meaning dimensions characterize the contents that serve for expressing the meaning of the referent. No
assumption is made about how veridical or characteristic the contents is of the referent.

1. Contextual allocation: Relating the referent to a superordinate, more inclusive concept; embedding
the referent in a category, structure or some system of relations; attributing the referent or placing it
within some more general context. (No assumption about hierarchical structures is made).

For example, God – belongs to religion; to go – it is a verb; Chair – a piece of furniture.

2. Range of inclusion: Specifying what the referent includes.

2a. Subgroups: specifies different types or kinds or groups of the referent. For example, Art – painting,
sculpture; Feeling – love, anger; Child – John, Peter.

2b. Parts: specifies components, parts or elements of the referent, that comprise it wholly or partly. For
example, Friendship – includes love, trust and mutual help; Body – hands and feet.

3. Function, purpose or role: specifies what the referent serves for, or for what it can be used, things
that it does which are commonly considered as functions. For example, Telephone – serves for
transmitting messages; Person X – is a pilot; Table – is used for writing; Clock – shows the time.

4. Actions and potentialities for action: describes actions that the referent does or can do; the
described actions are such that the referent does usually or can do even if not usually, but are not
considered as functions of the referent.

4a. Actions that the referent does or can do. For example, Animal – walks and sleeps;

4b. Actions that are done to the referent or can be done with or to the referent. For example, Sea –
people swim in it.

5. Manner of occurrence or operation: describes fully or partly how the referent acts, functions or
occurs, including the specification of stages, phases, means, tools, organs etc. involved in the action or
occurrence of the referent or enabling them. For example, Waking – you lift one leg etc; Democracy –
the names of candidates are publicized and so on.

6. Antecedents and causes: describes antecedent circumstances or conditions, causes - direct or

indirect, necessary or sufficient, for the existence or occurrence or activity of the referent. For example,
Anger – when you think about the success of your enemy.

7. Consequences and results: describes the outcomes that result directly or indirectly, intentionally or
unintentionally from the referent’s existence or occurrence or activity, or take place after the referent
but do not reflect its function, including outcomes or what takes place after the referent without being
actually results; includes also implications.

For example, Rain – everything gets wet; Love – parting and sadness.

8. Domain of application: to what or to whom the referent refers, for what or whom it is relevant.

8a. Subjects to which the referent refers or for whom it is relevant. Specifies items or domains that
are affected by the referent, are in interaction with it, or use it in some form. For example, Beautiful –
refers to the weather or to a woman; Car – driven by people.
 32

8b. Direct or indirect object of the referent: specifies items or domains in regard to which or with
which the referent acts or occurs or on which it acts. For example – Revolution – in society, in the arts;
To eat – fruit, fish; To create – a piece of art, a friendship.

9. Material: the material or materials, the stuff of which the referent is made or of which it consists.
For example, Sea – is made of water; Love – is made of desire and worries.

10. Structure: The referent’s structure, the interrelations among the components that make up the
referent; specifies not merely the parts but where the parts are located or placed in relation to each
other; describes the organization or complexity of the referent on some level. For example, Cupboard –
there is some cover on the top, doors in front, etc; School – a headmaster on the top who is in charge
and under him or her teachers responsible for teaching different subject matters etc.

11. State and possible changes in it: specifies the actual, potential or possible state of the referent,
including state of the material (solid, liquid, gaseous etc.), health (sick, healthy etc.), clarity (fuzzy,
sharp), strength, weakness, existence, freedom or slavery, dependence, sanity, drunkenness, limitations,
etc. For example, glass – can be broken; water – may evaporate; a person – tired or alert.

12. Weight and mass: specifies the weight of the referent or its mass in specific units or in terms of an
estimate. For example, Car – its weight is XX; Laptop – is not too heavy.

13. Size and dimensionality: specifies the referent’s size (in terms of actual units or estimate), its
number of dimensions (for example, 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional) and their size; includes also
bidimensional and tridimensional surfaces in different shapes. For example, Hole – deep; Dwarf –
smaller in height than most people.

14. Quantity and number: specifies the number of the referent, its quantity, its quantifiable frequency
(“how many times”…), , how much of it exists. For example, Human being – a billion only in China.

15. Locational qualities: specifies locational and spatial qualities of the referent, where it is to found
under usual or special conditions, its location, its address, in relative or absolute terms. For example,
Sun – in the tail of the Milky Way; Tel-Aviv – on the sea shore, south of… in the center of… ;
Abraham – lives close to… far from… on the way to…. Quite close by… in New York etc.

16. Temporal qualities: specifies the time when the referent existed or exists in relative or absolute
terms, date, duration of occurrence or existence, age, period in which referent functioned or functions
or will function or occur, whether the referent is young or old, new or old, short-lived or eternal. For
example, Love – for ever.

17. Possessions and belongingness: specifies to whom or to what the referent belongs, what belongs to
the referent in material or other terms, excluding parts or components of the referent.

17a. What belongs to the referent, what the referent owns or possesses. For example,

Mr. X – he is rich, he owns the estate.

17b.To whom the referent belongs or could belong. For example, The ring – it belonged to my
mother.

18. Development: specifies the ontogenetic or phylogenetic development of the referent or any part of
it, the personal history of the referent, its evolution, anamnesis, biography, how it turned into what it
did, what will become of it in the future, or how it will be in the future. For example, Mail – in the past
it was done by means of pigeons, in the future only by computers.

19. Sensory qualities: specifies sensations and sensory experiences or data that characterize the
referent or describe it or are evoked by it, as well as those the referent experiences and perceives.
 33

19a. Sensory qualities characterizing the referent. For example, Pineapple – prickly, yellow,
elongated round shape.

19b. Sensory qualities that the referent experiences or can experience. For example, Cat – is able to
perceive colors.

Sensory qualities of either 19a or 19b variables may be further specified in terms of the following
categories, noted in a separate column:

1. General visual: For example, looks like… appears as

2. Color: For example, red, greenish, light blue
3. Form and shape: For example, round, oblong, in the form of a square, in the shape of an
octahedron
4. Gustatory, taste qualities: For example, bitter, salty, sweet, sour, bland, tasteless
5. Auditory, sound qualities: For example, refers to tones, tempo, volume, timber, pitch, rhythm,
harmony etc. of musical, vocal or other types of sounds.
6. Olfactory, smell qualities: For example, odors such as perfume, fragrance, scent of mint, smell of
rotten stuff.
7. Tactual-kinesthetic: For example, qualities of the external surfaces, such as elasticity, smoothness,
roughness, stickiness, furry, hard, soft, resilient, crunchy, powdery.
8. Temperature, thermal qualities: For example, hot, cold, freezing, cool, warm, burning.
9. Internal sensations (not including pain): For example, vibration, spasms, muscular sensations,
tension, hunger, thirst, internal pressure, sexuality.
10. General sensations (no specification): For example, has sensory qualities
11. Pain: For example, it hurts, it is numb
12. Humidity and dryness: For example, moist, wet, dry, humid.
13. Skin sensations: For example, cutaneous sensations, such as prickly, tingling, tickling, itching,
trembling, vibratory, greasy, silky.
14. Light or brightness sensations: For example, brightness, contrasts, shading, illuminated, darkened,
pale, dark, transparent, hazy, lucid, turbid, cloudy, diaphanous, sparkling, brilliant, limpid,
vitreous, translucent, dull, clear

External sensations: 1-8,12,13

Internal sensations: 9,11

20. Feelings and emotions: specifies feelings and emotions felt, experienced, evoked or perceived in
oneself or others.

20a. Feelings and emotions evoked by referent: Feelings and emotions that may be felt in regard to
the referent, with the referent or evoked by it. For example, Monster – scares people; Brightness – I
like brightness; Sea – makes people happy.

20b. Feelings and emotions experienced by referent: Feelings and emotions that the referent
experiences or can experience. For example, Monster – loves little children.

Emotions of either 20a or 20b variables may be further specified in terms of the following categories, ,
noted in a separate column:

Positive emotions: Mostly express orientation toward getting closer, unity, cooperation, having more
and longer contact with some object or state etc. For example, love, happiness, joy, satisfaction,
interest, enthusiasm, affection.

Negative emotions: Mostly express exclusion, distancing oneself from something perceived as
threatening, disgusting etc. For example, anger, fear, anxiety, pride, contempt, apathy, grief, hatred,
shame, blame, regret, resentment, hostility.
 34

21. Judgments and evaluations: specifies judgments, evaluations, attitudes and beliefs in regard to the
referent and those held by the referent.

21a. Judgments and evaluations about the referent: specifies judgments, evaluations, attitudes,
opinions and beliefs in regard to the referent, or held by others about the referent. For example, The
law – important; Sins – despicable.

21b. Judgments and evaluations by the referent: specifies judgments, evaluations, attitudes, opinions
and beliefs held or expressed by the referent in regard to any object or state or event. For example, Jo –
believes in God, assumes he/she is inferior to others.

22. Cognitive acts and qualities: specifies cognitive actions or qualities evoked by the referent or
characterizing the referent or done by the referent.

22a. Cognitive acts and qualities evoked by the referent: specifies cognitive acts and qualities
evoked by the referent or in regard to it. For example, Sea – provides inspiration, Bicycle – reminds me
of my childhood, Bible – it is difficult to understand it.

22b. Cognitive acts and qualities by the referent: specifies cognitive acts and qualities characterizing
the referent or done by the referent. For example, Jo – has poor memory, Tina – her reasoning is
stronger than her intuition.

Types of Relation (TR)

Characterize the directness of the relationship between the referent and the meaning value in the
meaning unit. Directness indicates the degree to which elements other than the original referent are
involved in the expression of meaning, for example, other referents.

1. Attributive: the assigned contents (meaning value) relates to the referent directly, as a quality or
action. There is no implication about how characteristic of the referent the contents is.

1a. Qualities to substance: the meaning value relates to the referent as a property or quality. For
example, House – tall, Bicycle – inexpensive.

1b. Actions to agent: the meaning value relates to the referent as an action, or as something that the
referent does or is done with it/toward I, so that the referent fulfills the role of “agent”, “performer of
action”, the “subject of an action” or the “object of an action”. For example, Telephone – rings, Bicycle
– you ride on them.

2. Comparative: the assigned contents (meaning value) relates to the referent indirectly, by means of
the intervention or intermediation of another meaning value or referent. It does not matter whether
words, such as “like” or “different from” are used or not. Further, it does not matter whether the
characteristic which serves as the basis of the comparison is stated explicitly or not. Notably, the
compared referents or meaning values are on the same level of abstractness or concreteness, i.e. both
are abstract or both are concrete.

2a. Similarity: the comparative intermediation is based on similarity, including relations of identity,
equality, synonymy, likeness or sameness of different degrees. For example, Sea – like ocean, Bad –
like evil, Wisdom – resembles justice because both are rare. .
 35

2b. Difference: the comparative intermediation is based on difference, including relations of polarity,
contrast, lack of similarity, dissimilarity, opposition, bipolarity, unlikeness, or antonymity of different
degrees. For example, Sea – unlike a puddle, Friendship – the opposite of hostility.

2c. Complementariness: the comparative intermediation is based on a complementary relation, made

possible by interaction, some kind of a transaction or matching in structure of different degrees. The
referents or meaning values that are presented as complementary complement each other and have the
potential of forming together some kind of a unit. For example, Friends – help each other, Father – is
the parent of a son and the son is the son of a father.

2d. Relationality: the comparative intermediation is based on relationality to other referents or

meaning values that are more or less than the referent in some characteristic. Relationality may include
reference to some scale, or placement of the referent in a scale or continuum, explicit or implicit. For
example, Genius – cleverer than others, To create – to produce something that is most original, Beauty
Queen – the prettiest.

3. Exemplifying-illustrative: the contents (or meaning value) relates to the referent as an example or
illustration. It may be concrete or abstract, regardless of the abstractness level of the referent. It may or
may not be presented with prepositions or other phrases emphasizing the exemplifying relation. The
exemplifying component may or may not be presented explicitly.

3a. Exemplifying instance: the meaning value names a specific item, such as a person, an object, an
event or situation that exemplify the referent or some aspect of it. The presented examples are mostly
not further elaborated. For example, Wisdom – Einstein, Evil – war, Emotions – anger, Art – sculpture.

3b. Exemplifying situation: the meaning value presents a specific static situation or image that
exemplify or illustrate the referent or some aspect of it. The presented examples mostly include some
elaboration, but do not include any dynamic or actional elements. For example, Motherhood – a child
sitting on his mother’s lap with his head turned up towards her.

3c. Exemplifying scene: the meaning value presents a specific scene with actional, dynamic or
dramatic elements that serve to exemplify the referent or some aspect of it. The presented examples are
sometimes small narratives or stories. For example, Longing – a man runs and runs and runs to the
home of his beloved.

4. Metaphoric-symbolic: the assigned contents (meaning value) relates to the referent indirectly, by
means of the intervention or intermediation of another meaning value or referent, derived from a
contents domain that is not related to the referent conventionally. It does not matter whether words,
such as “like” or “symbolizes” or even “illustrates” are used or not. Further, it does not matter whether
the characteristics which serve as the basis of the metaphor or symbol are stated explicitly or not. In
contrast to a comparative relation, in a metaphoric-symbolic relation the referent and the meaning
values are on different levels of abstractness or concreteness (e.g., if the referent is abstract, the
meaning value is concrete and vice versa). Metaphors and symbols vary in complexity, namely, in the
number of aspects of the referent that they refer to or illustrate.

4a. Interpretation: the meaning value relates to the referent as an interpretation, addresses non-
conventional aspects of the referent and mostly uncovers a deeper unexpected significance of the
referent. For example, Sea – symbolizes freedom, Happiness – that which does not exist in what we
have.

4b. Conventional metaphor: the meaning value relates to the referent in terms of a metaphor that is a
conventional phrase in language, reflecting mostly some conventional phrase, figure of speech, idiom
or image, including colloquialisms and slang expressions. For example, Love – to be really in deep
with each other, Take – take it easy, To scream – blow off some steam.
 36

4c. Original metaphor: the meaning value relates to the referent in terms of an original metaphor,
namely, the meaning value derives from a content domain that is not related conventionally to the
referent and is on a different level of abstraction than the referent. For example, Loneliness – a single
shell on the enormous beach.

4d. Symbol: the meaning value relates to the referent in terms of a complex metaphor which includes
contrasting features and their resolution or combination on the level of the image. For example, Love –
fire that produces and destroys, Death – a point because it is both the beginning and end of everything
and is solely a fiction, in itself it has no existence at all.

Modes of Meaning:

Interpersonally–shared, lexical: the attributive and comparative types of relation. It is used mainly for
expressing lexical and conventional meanings that are learned and commonly accepted and known. It
has high validity and enables reliable reading-back of the referent from the meaning values. It fulfills a
major role in daily interpersonal communication.

Personal-subjective: the exemplifying-illustrative and metaphoric-symbolic types of relation. It is

used mainly for expressing personal-subjective meanings, emotions and experiences, and is
individually shaped. Its validity tends to be low and it does not enable reliable reading-back of the
referent from the meaning values. It fulfills a major role in subjective expressions of one’s inner world,
in close interpersonal relations, and in art.

Forms of Relation (FR)

Forms of relation characterize the relation of the meaning value and the referent from the point of view
of formal and logical characteristics. Some of the Forms of Relation are positive and some negative. In
all cases of negation, the coding of the negative relation should not depend exclusively on the use of
the correct syntactic form of negation, but could rely also on other forms of expressing negation, such
as refusal, denial, invalidating the truth of some statement. It should however be emphasized that
concepts with negative connotations, such as cruelty, injustice, exploitation should not be coded as
negative.

1. Propositional relation: specifies explicitly or implicitly that the meaning value is related to the
referent. The relation may be expressed directly or by means of prepositions and other connectives,
such as “is a”

1a. Propositional positive: the relation of the meaning value to the referent is positive. For example,
Book – interesting, Painting by X- shameful, disgusting.

1b. Propositional negative: the relation of the meaning value to the referent is negative. It is the
relation that is negative and not the significance. For example, Book – Not in the library, Painting by X
– has not been bought.

2. Partial relation: The relation of the meaning value to the referent is characterized by limited
generality, it is subject to restrictions or reservations to some extent.

2a. Partial positive: The relation of the meaning value to the referent is partial and positive. For
example, Apple – it is sometimes red, Street – often includes two sidewalks.

2b: Partial negative: The relation of the meaning value to the referent is partial and negative. For
example, Sea – not quite clean, Emotion – to some extent uncontrollable.
 37

3. Universal relation: The relation of the meaning value to the referent is general, comprehensive,
absolute, unqualified in any way, unconditional, total, with sweeping validity. Universal relation is
coded when the text includes explicit reference to the totality of the relation, otherwise it is coded as
propositional.

3a. Universal positive: The relation of the meaning value to the referent is universal and positive. For
example, Life – always wonderful, To create – should be done under all circumstances.

3b. Universal negative: The relation of the meaning value to the referent is universal and negative. For
example, To take – never without giving, Suicide – absolutely forbidden.

4. Conjunctive relation: Two or more meaning values are related to the referent and both are
presented as essential for expressing the meaning of the referent. The conjunctive relation needs to be
coded only for one of the involved meaning values.

4a. Conjunctive positive: Two or more meaning values are related to the referent conjunctively and
positively. For example, Life – both wonderful and difficult, Telephone – on the one hand useful and
on the other hand disturbing.

4b. Conjunctive negative: Two or more meaning values are related to the referent conjunctively and
negatively. This is a situation of double negation, with neither of the two meaning values being
presented as expressing the referent’s meaning. For example, Life – neither enjoyable nor worthwhile,
Yoga – it is not a religion and equally it is not a philosophy.

5. Disjunctive relation: Two or more meaning values are presented in regard to the referent but only
one of them is presented as adequate or essential for expressing the meaning of the referent. A
disjunction may represent a pure either-or relation (where the disjunction means “either but not both”)
(in logic it is called “exclusive disjunction”) or a combination of disjunction and conjunction (where
the disjunction means and/or, that is “either-or or both”) (in logic it is called “inclusive disjunction”).
In the latter case one of the meaning values in the disjunction is coded as a disjunction, and the other as
a conjunction.

5a. Disjunctive positive: Two or more meaning values are presented in regard to the referent
positively, but only one of them is presented as adequate or essential for expressing the meaning of the
referent. For example, Life- either it is full of fun or it is boring, Sea – it is either stormy or calm.

5b. Disjunctive negative: Two or more meaning values are presented in regard to the referent, one
positively and the other negatively, but only one is the correct or adequate or essential expression of the
referent’s meaning, and this is the meaning value related to the referent positively. For example,
Compromising – not from weakness but from strength, Yoga – it is not a religion but a philosophy.

Note. In coding negative disjunctions, one of the meaning values should be coded as a negative
conjunction and the other as positive with the contrast being expressed as TR Difference.

6. Normative relation: The meaning value is related to the referent in terms of the required, the
necessary, the prescribed, referring to the way things should or ought to be, as contrasted with the
factual, descriptive or the way things actually are. Includes also instructions, prescriptions, orders,
commands. The normative is not necessarily moral or ethical, and can refer to any domain in which
prescriptions or guidelines or instructions can be applied.

6a. Normative positive: The meaning value is related to the referent in a normative relation that is
positive. For example, Life – you have to take care of it; Crime – needs to be punished, Washing
machine – it is to be operated by etc.
 38

6b. Normative negative: The meaning value is related to the referent in a normative relation that is
negative. For example, Sea – when it is stormy one should not swim in it, Murder – One should avoid
it, To take – One ought not take something if one cannot return it or give something in return, Washing
machine – One ought not operate it if one does not know how.

7. Questioning relation: The meaning value is related to the referent in terms of a question, addressed
to others, or to oneself or in general, as a kind of wondering.

7a. Questioning positive: The meaning value is related to the referent in a questioning relation, that is
phrased in a positive manner. For example, Friendship – is it more like love or affection? To murder –
will it go on for ever? Will it never stop?

7b. Questioning negative: The meaning value is related to the referent in a questioning relation, that is
phrased in a negative manner. For example, Friendship – isn’t it actually a minimized love affair? To
create – isn’t it playing God?

8. Desired relation: The meaning value is related to the referent in terms of a desired, wished for
relation rather than in terms of a descriptive or factual relation.

8a. Desired positive: The meaning value is related to the referent in terms of a desired relation that is
expressed in a positive manner. For example, Money – desired object by many people.

8b. Desired negative: The meaning value is related to the referent in terms of a desired relation that is
expressed in a negative manner. For example, Disease – hopefully I will have no contact with it.

Shifts in Referent (SR)

Reference shifts represent changes in the referent that may occur in the course of the meaning
assignment process, in the beginning as well when more than one meaning unit is produced. The
changes are evaluated in reference to the original stimulus (or input) and/or the preceding referents in
the chain of responses. The coding is oriented in the direction of keeping the referent as stable as
possible. Thus, if relevant the shift is evaluated in regard to the input, or the closest preceding referent.

Coding of referent shifts is independent of the coding of meaning values in the meaning units to which
the referents belong. This evident fact is emphasized here because some referent shifts resemble
contents coded in terms of other kinds of meaning variables (For example, the referent shift “partial”
may resemble a meaning value of the meaning dimension “Range of inclusion”; the referent shift
“superordinate” may resemble a meaning value of the meaning dimension “Contextual allocation”; and
the referent shift “opposite” may resemble a meaning value of the type of relation “Comparative:
difference”). These and other resemblances have nothing to do with the coding of referent shifts and of
meaning values in meaning units, which are coded independently of each other).

1. Identical: The referent is identical to the preceding input. This shift is coded regardless of whether
the input preceded the referent immediately or several steps earlier, and regardless of whether the
response to the referent identical to the input is given for the first time or not, and regardless of whether
other referent shifts have taken place earlier. For example, the input was “Car” and the referent is
“Car”.

2. Opposite: The referent is the opposite or reversal of the input. For example, the input was “Life”
and the referent is “Death”.
 39

3. Partial: The referent is a part or a sub-category of the input. For example, the input was “Car” and
the referent is “Toyota” or “a tire”.

4. Modified by addition: The referent is the input modified by addition of some meaning value to it.
For example, the input was “Friendship” and the referent is “True friendship”. (Note: in this case the
addition of “true” to “friendship” would not be coded as a separate meaning value of “friendship”
regardless of preceding responses).

5. Previous meaning value: The referent is a previous meaning value. For example, the input was
“School” and the response to the input was “School is a place for learning”. These responses include
one meaning unit which is “School is a place” and another meaning unit which is “place for learning”.
Thus, the referent in the second meaning unit is “Place”, which has occurred as the meaning value in
the previous meaning unit.

6. Association: The referent is a different referent from the previous one or from the input but is
related to them in an obvious manner by association and is on the same level. For example, The input
was “Telephone” and the referent is “Fax”, or the input was “Table” and the referent is “Chair.

7. Unrelated: The present referent is not related in any obvious way to the input or to the previous
referent. For example, the input was “Telephone” and the referent is “Cow”. In this context it is
appropriate to mention that allowance should be made for perseverations from one part of the
questionnaire or the text to another. In some cases a respondent may respond in a later part of the
questionnaire to an input that has been presented much earlier.

8. Verbal label: The referent is the previous referent or the input considered as a label, namely,
relating to linguistic or vocal aspects of the input in terms of phonetic, morphological or syntactic
features (when the previous referent or input were verbal) or in terms of graphic features (when the
previous referent or input were graphic stimuli or images) etc. For example, the input was “Pencil” and
the referent is “The word Pencil” or “The noun Pencil”; or the input was “Apple” and the referent is
“Rattle” (which resembles the input phonetically and rhymes with it).

9. Grammatical variation: The referent is the input or the previous referent with some grammatical
modification, such as a change in the verb conjugation, in the syntactic class (e.g., from verb to
adverb), tense, modality, aspect, number, gender etc. For example, when the input was “To take” the
referent is “Taking” or “Took”.

Similar variations may take place in regard to types of inputs other than verbal. In the case of images,
the correlative to “grammatical variation” would be for example changes in color or size; in the case of
auditory inputs, the correlative to “grammatical variation” would be for example changes in pitch,
timber, or musical instrument.

10. Previous meaning values combined: The referent is a combination of two or more meaning
values that have occurred earlier in the chain of responses or in the course of meaning assignment to
the input. It is not important whether the previous meaning values occurred in a sequence or adjoining
to one another. For example, the input was “Art” and meaning values that were produced earlier to that
input were “Spanish art”, “Italian art” and “Greek art”. These different meaning values could be
integrated at some point into a new referent, such as “Art of the Mediterranean countries” or “Art of
Spain, Greece and Italy”.

11. Superordinate: The referent is a superordinate concept or a superordinate more inclusive system
that includes the input. For example, the input was “Piano” and the referent is “Musical instruments”.

12. Synonym: The referent is a synonym or another word or phrase with similar or identical meaning
to the input. The similarity in meaning is restricted to interpersonally shared or lexical meanings.
 40

12a. In the original language: The referent is a synonym of the input in the original language. For
example, the input was “Closed” and the referent is “Shut”; the input was “Lawyer” and the referent is
“Attorney”.

12b. Translated into another language: The referent is a word in another language that could be
considered as a translation of the input with a highly similar or even identical meaning. For example,
the input was “Woman” and the referent is “Frau” (=woman, in German).

12c. Label in another medium: The referent is a label in a medium other than that of the original
input. For example, the input was a picture or image, and the referent is some label assigned to the
image descriptive of it (e.g., the input was an image or photograph of the ocean, and the referent is the
label “Sea”); the input was a musical tone and the referent is the notehead placed on a five-line staff
that represents the pitch of the tone.

12d. A different formulation of the same referent on the same level: The referent is a rephrasing of
the original input in the form of a phrase or words that are not synonyms but are on the same level as
the input. For example, the input was “Botany” and the referent is “Plant science”

13. Replacement by implicit meaning value: The referent is a replacement of the original input (or of
the previous referent) through its meaning value that has however not been explicitly produced earlier.
This referent shift resembles the referent shift to the previous meaning value (SR 5, above) but differs
from it in that the meaning value has not been actually stated previously. For example, the input was
“Piano” and the response was “”Music produces calm”. Thus, the referent “Music” replaced “Piano”,
probably as a meaning value assigned implicitly to “piano”.

Relative distances of referent shifts from original input:

I. Close shifts: 1, 3, 9, 12
II. Medium shifts: 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11
III. Distant shifts: 7, 8, 13