Synonym selections for de-contextualized abstract words were analyzed for differences in meaning related to personal ideology. Best and worst synonym choices of fifty-six subjects who tested as either constructionists or positivists on the Attitudes about Reality scale (AAR) were expected to reflect meanings most congruent with each group's views about reality. Constructionists were expected to emphasize meanings consistent with a relational view of reality while positivists were expected to emphasize meanings consistent with an “objectivist” view. Results indicated group differences in synonym choices on a third of the target words presented. In the absence of substantive models for analyzing de-contextualized abstract words, interpretations of synonym selections, though speculative, suggested support for the hypothesis that differences in meaning construction consistent with personal ideologies occur at the level of a single word with an interpretive domain.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FlaxJ., Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory, Signs, 12, pp. 621–643, 1987.
2.
ScarrS., Constructing Psychology: Making Facts and Fables for Our Time, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 499–512, 1985.
3.
GergenK. J., The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 266–275, 1985.
4.
UngerR. K., Explorations in Feminist Ideology: Surprising Consistencies and Unexamined Conflicts, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 4, pp. 397–405, 1984–85.
5.
BussA. R., The Emerging Field of the Sociology of Psychological Knowledge, American Psychologist, 30, pp. 988–1002, 1975.
6.
BussA. R., The Structure of Psychological Revolutions, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14, pp. 57–64, 1978.
7.
SamelsonF., From “Race Psychology‘’ to “Studies in Prejudice”: Some Observations on Thematic Reversals in Social Psychology, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14, pp. 265–278, 1978.
8.
UngerR. K., Through the Looking Glass: No Wonderland Yet! (The Reciprocal Relationship Between Methodology and Models of Reality), Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, pp. 9–32, 1983.
9.
CoanR. W., Psychologists: Personal and Theoretical Pathways, Irvington, New York, 1979.
10.
SherwoodJ. J.NataupskyM., Predicting the Conclusions of Negro-White Intelligence Research from the Biographical Characteristics of the Investigator, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, pp. 53–58, 1986.
11.
UngerR. K.DraperR. D.PendergrassM. L., Personal Epistemology and Personal Experience, Journal of Social Issues, 42, pp. 67–79, 1986.
12.
BurnsA. L., World View and Attitudes about Reality: Group Differences among College Students using the Attitudes about Reality Scale, Individual research project in partial fulfillment of the doctoral program in psychology, University of California, Davis, 1986.
13.
JacksonL. A.JeffersD., The Attitudes about Reality Scale: A New Measure of Personal Epistemology, Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, pp. 353–365, 1987.
14.
UngerR. K.JonesJ., Personal Epistemology and its Correlates: The Subjective Nature of Sex and Race, paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Meadowlands, New Jersey, 1988.
15.
HoweK. G., The Psychological Impact of a Women's Studies Course, Women's Studies Quarterly, 13, pp. 23–24, 1985.
16.
UngerR. K.LemayM., Who's to Blame: The Relationship Between Political Attributions and Assumptions About Reality, Contemporary Social Psychology, 15, pp. 144–149, 1991.
17.
UngerR. K., Will the Real Sex Difference Please Stand Up?, Feminism and Psychology, 2, pp. 231–238, 1992.
18.
HoneckR. P.KiblerC. T.SugarJ., The Conceptual Base View of Categorization, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14:2, pp. 155–175, 1985.
19.
SearleJ., The Background of Meaning, in Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, SearleJ.KeiferF.BierwischM. (eds.), D. Reidel, Boston, 1980.
20.
GeeJ. P., The Social Mind: Language, Ideology, and Social Practice, Bergin & Garvey, New York, 1992.
21.
CrawfordM.ChaffinR., The Reader's Construction of Meaning: Cognitive Research on Gender and Comprehension, in Gender and Reading: Essays on Reader, Text & Content, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1986.
22.
TannenD., What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence of Underlying Expectations, in New Directions in Discourse Processing, FredleK. O. (ed.), Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1979.
23.
BernS. L., Androgyny and Gender Schema Theory: A Conceptual and Empirical Investigation, in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1985: Psychology and Gender, SondereggerT. B. (ed.), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1984.
24.
AndersonS. M.BernS. L., Sex Typing and Androgyny in Dyadic Interaction: Individual Differences in Responsiveness to Physical Attractiveness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, pp. 74–78, 1981.
25.
LippaR., The Naive Perception of Masculinity-femininity on the Basis of Expressive Cues, Journal of Research on Personality, 12, pp. 1–14, 1983.
26.
DutchR. A. (ed.), Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, St. Martin's, New York, 1965.
27.
JorgensenJ. C., Definitions as Theories of Word Meaning, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 5, pp. 293–316, 1990.
28.
BarsalouL. W., Context-independent and Context-dependent Information in Concepts, Memory and Cognition, 10, pp. 82–93, 1982.
29.
BarclayJ. R.BransfordJ. D.FranksJ. J.McCarrellN. S.NitschK., Comprehension and Semantic Flexibility, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, pp. 471–481, 1974.
30.
SchoenL. M., Semantic Flexibility and Core Meaning, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17:2, pp. 113–123, 1988.
