Each sentence was coded for any occurrence of a particular form of self-‐
discrimination. In some cases sentences were coded with multiple codes but each code appeared only once for a given sentence. The sentence (rather than individual words or phrases) was chosen as the unit of analysis to facilitate comparisons of coding from different raters and to avoid repetition within sentences. Coding
categories were based upon the contextual-‐behavioural theory of self-‐discrimination presented above in Chapter 2: focusing on self-‐as-‐story, self-‐as-‐process and self-‐as-‐ context.
Coding evolved throughout three rounds of this study. However, it was difficult to determine how to present these changes. I wished to present the coding in one section prior to the results, but these results influenced how the coding developed. Rather than confuse the reader by presenting conflicting versions of the coding, I have presented all the coding in one section. I provide definitions, descriptions and examples of each code beginning with the Self-‐as-‐Process category, followed by Self-‐ as-‐Story, Self-‐Rules and Self-‐as-‐Context. Where relevant I discuss how various passages were coded and the evolving rational behind the coding process. Following the coding, in the Results section, I present and discuss a series of correlation and regression analyses that analysed the relationship between code frequency and the wellbeing measures taken. These results are presented under the appropriate headings (Round 1, Round 2 or Round 3).
‘Self’ Codes
Self-‐as-‐Process
Self-‐as-‐Process statements were descriptions of unfolding experience in both current and historical contexts and were classified into three types of statement: Self-‐as-‐ Process Hedge, Self-‐as-‐Process Now and Self-‐as-‐Process Then. Each of these is discussed below.
[SP-‐hedge] Self-‐as-‐Process Hedge
Definition
[SP-‐hedge] = Self-‐as-‐Process Hedge referred to self-‐discrimination phrases such as “I think” or "I feel” that apparently functioned to denote the speaker as knower. If the identified statement sounded more rigid if the self-‐discrimination bit of the sentence (e.g. “I think”) was removed, this statement would be coded SP-‐hedge.
Description
Self-‐as-‐Process Hedge statements drew attention to a 'self' as a fallible speaker or a speaker with a particular perspective (subjectivity). Examples include "I think", "I feel" and possibly “I mean”. Without the self-‐discrimination, the statement would have been decontextualised as coming from a knower and taken as more rigid and factual. SP-‐hedge often reflected what Pennebaker (2011) called Hedge phrases.
Examples of SP-‐hedge Statement
“I think with my business hat …”
“I’m thinking, probably wrong decision.”
“I think [name] being hurt would be the worst thing.” “In one sense I suppose by keeping him…”
“I suppose the responsibility frankly, that to a certain extent I had interfered and I don't think – this is a complex situation.”
“That's probably right and I appreciate, it's obviously, I don't think like most decisions in life I don't think there's 100% right answer.”
[SP-‐now] Self-‐as-‐Process Now
Definition
[SP-‐now] = Self-‐as-‐Process Now referred to any description of the current experience of the self. These statements reflected the ongoing private experience within the physical and mental worlds of the speaker.
Description
The standard form of a Self-‐as-‐Process Now statement was a description of a current private experience (thought, feeling, image or sensation). SP-‐now statements
apparently functioned to inform the listener of current experience, e.g., “I don’t know” “I’m not comfortable”. These statements were not about drawing attention to the subjectivity of experience but were about reporting the actual content of
experience. Bits were a functional equivalent of “MY <private experience> HERE and NOW.”
Examples of SP-‐now Statement
“I'm trying to think of what the main thing is.” “I don't know what's going on with him.” “One wonders why do I think that.”
“Um, I don't know, maybe I do, I don't know.” “Yeah so I know it's interesting.”
“Oh that's an interesting question you mean do we have all the correct inputs.” “I'm not sure I know how to answer the question.”
“I’ve got the three examples there.” “It's hard to, it's hard to remember.” “Possibly that one.”
“I'm trying to think of the others.” “No, I'm responding here.”
“It's difficult to see in every individual transaction that you're involved in a morally, it's something hard to describe.”
[SP-‐then] Self-‐as-‐Process Then
Definition
[SP-‐then] = Self-‐as-‐Process Then statements were descriptions of past and possible future behaviours and inner experiences that were examples of conceptualised personal history rather than rigid descriptions of the self.
Description
Flexibility apparently arose from either a) the speaker holding Self-‐as-‐Process Then statements somewhat more tentatively as a provisional interpretation rather than the literal truth, or b) the speaker not identifying the ‘self’ with the qualities, characteristics or experiences being described. In other words, these statements were less about the speaker defining “who I am” in terms of qualities and
characteristics, but more about describing, “what I have experienced or might experience in the future”. Self-‐as-‐Process Then statements apparently functioned to describe a person’s experiences rather than their ongoing stable or developing identity. These statements did not involve identity fusion as described below for SS, although people could be fused with their stories about what had happened or will happen. In practice, SP-‐then statements referred to all aspects of the conceptualised self not included in SS, VOR and COR discussed in the following section. Bits were a functional equivalent of “I/MY experience – THERE and THEN.”
Examples of SP-‐then
Below I provide a number of examples of SP-‐then statements and an explanation for the code. These statements all contained a personal pronoun, which made them a self-‐statement. As they were not referring to self-‐ascribed qualities and
characteristics but rather behaviours or experiences they were classified as Self-‐as-‐ Process Then.
Example Explanation for code
“We remain friends throughout that whole period with all of our mutual
friends.”
"Being friends" is a description of a behaviour not a quality or
characteristic of the ‘self’.
“So, I'm not saying that, from time to
time, things don't piss me off, they do.”
Being “pissed off” is a contextually sensitive response to “things” not a stable quality or attribute of the ‘self’.
“Yes, when things don’t change [at work] that frustrates me, and that makes me angry to the extent I have to
console myself, do I really care?”
In this statement frustration, anger and self-‐consolation are emotional
experiences or responses to a work situation, not qualities or
characteristics ascribed to the ‘self’ therefore SP-‐then.
“Look, I would just have the
discussion.”
This statement is a description of likely future behaviour without any self-‐ evaluation.
“I had a good time in Kathmandu in 1997"
This is non-‐rigid despite the evaluation, as the evaluation is of the event not the person. It is an episodic memory and does not entail abstraction of qualities and characteristics of the person.
“We've done a couple of things, and we're getting a bit more confidence.”
In this statement “we have done a couple of things" is coded SP-‐then, and “we’re getting a bit more confidence” is coded SS (see below) as the
characteristic “confidence” is ascribed to the ‘self’. Therefore the statement
was double coded SP-‐then and SS.
“I would not have been able to do that before.”
This statement is a description of past behaviour without any secondary attribution to the self.
How the definition of SP-‐now evolved
Originally there was only one SP code, which remains as the current SP-‐now code that captures experience in the current context. After coding several interviews it became apparent a second, then a third, SP code was required. SP-‐hedge, was created to capture statements such as “I think” etc. SP-‐then was created to capture experience in historical contexts. This was in part to capture the significance of such statements if relevant.
SP-‐hedge statements function as space fillers
Statements such as “I think” or “I mean” were at times uttered unconsciously and functioned in part to create space for thinking. While such statements denoted the speaker as knower they were more habitual and routine and were in part
functionally equivalent to saying ‘um’ or silence or clearing the throat. Still, as these statements did denote the speaker as knower, they were coded SP-‐hedge. The following are examples of this type of SP-‐hedge statement that also functioned as a space filler.
Statement
“I mean it's quite [pause] because it's different from the [pause] um [pause] …” “I mean just [pause] [sighs] maybe it doesn't ahh ... well just insofar as if you um [pause] what was I going to say?”
“I mean it would just be… I guess again… what's the word?”
“… because I mean, it's not um, no I think so, I think it is [laughter].”
How the definition of SP-‐then evolved
Before settling on the classification of SP-‐then to capture experience in historical contexts these statements were coded Self-‐as-‐Story Flexible. In my original coding all SP statements were limited to descriptions of experience in the present moment. This view was based on an understanding of self-‐as-‐process adopted by some members of the CBS community (Foody et al. 2012). However, as coding and analysis proceeded I came to the view that equating self-‐as-‐process with present-‐moment experiencing was mistaking form (i.e. present-‐tense) for function. SP-‐then statements were
descriptions of a person’s ongoing, present based experience relative to a historically situated context present or otherwise. They functioned to describe the self in a context and the contingencies of their behaviour in that context. This was in contrast to self-‐as-‐story statements that functioned to describe aspects of the self as explained below.
Self-‐as-‐Story
The second category of coded statements was the Self-‐as-‐Story category, which includes three codes: Self-‐as-‐Story (Positive, Negative & Neutral). Each of these is discussed below.
[SS] Self-‐as-‐Story (Positive, Negative & Neutral)
Self-‐as-‐Story was divided into three categories, positive, negative and neutral. These codes discriminated between, and captured positive, negative and neutral self-‐ discrimination statements. These discriminations were made to see if each type of statement predicted wellbeing differently. As will be seen in the results section below, both positive and negative SS statements tended to be negatively correlated with wellbeing. All SS code definitions, description and examples follow.
SS-‐pos Definition
[SS-‐pos] = Self-‐as-‐Story Positive statements involved abstracted conceptualisations of the self that were framed in the positive. Self-‐as-‐Story referred to instances in which
the speaker expressed abstracted story in a way that was relatively inflexible. SS referred to literal (i.e. held as the truth) descriptions regarding who or how the person was; either enduring qualities or characteristics, or evaluations of those qualities and characteristics. SS-‐pos referred to instances in which those qualities or characteristics were framed in the positive.
SS-‐neg Definition
[SS-‐neg] = Self-‐as-‐Story Negative statements involved abstracted conceptualisations of the self that were framed in the negative. Self-‐as-‐Story referred to instances where the speaker expressed abstracted story in a way that was relatively inflexible. SS referred to literal (i.e. held as the truth) descriptions regarding who or how the person was; either enduring qualities or characteristics, or evaluations of those qualities and characteristics. SS-‐neg referred to instances in which those qualities or characteristics were framed in the negative.
SS-‐neut Definition
[SS-‐neut] = Self-‐as-‐Story Neutral statements involved abstracted conceptualisations of the self that were framed in neutral terms. Self-‐as-‐Story referred to instances in which the speaker expressed abstracted story in a way that is relatively inflexible. SS referred to literal (i.e. held as the truth) descriptions regarding who or how the speaker was; either enduring qualities or characteristics, or evaluations of those qualities and characteristics. SS-‐neut referred to instances where those qualities or characteristics were framed in neutral terms.
Description
SS statements frequently implied that self ascribed qualities and characteristics were the cause of current behaviour. Furthermore, the speaker was usually strongly identified with the quality or characteristic; the “I” was seen as being “the same as” the quality or the characteristic. In the RFT literature, this quality of identification with an abstracted term is called “fusion” (McHugh & Stewart 2012). According to Fletcher et al. (2010), "Fusion refers to the domination of verbal events over other
sources of behavioural regulation due to difficulty in separating the verbal constructions that shape the perception of any private event, whether sensory, cognitive, or emotive, from the event itself. Defusion refers to processes that
undermine that domination primarily by becoming aware of the process of thinking itself and being able to become aware of thoughts, emotions, and memories as
passing events rather than ‘things’ that are literally true or false" (p. 56). A statement was coded as SS if the speaker appeared to suggest that their story about themselves was literally true and (often) causal of their behaviour and experience. Statements were further qualified as –pos, –neg or –neut to delineate positive, negative or neutral framing of the self. Bits were a functional equivalent of “I + verbal products HERE and NOW are literal and causal representations of who I am recently, now or in the future.”
Examples of SS
The following statements are examples of positive, negative and neutral SS
categorised in terms of different attributes and behaviours that had been ascribed to the self. Each statement has been marked SS-‐pos, SS-‐neg or SS-‐neut to delineate between the types of statement.
‘I am’ statements
The first category of SS statements were simple statements involving the use of the phrase “I am…” or variations thereof. For example:
Statement
"I am quite decisive.” [SS-‐pos]
"I am not someone who looks backward.” [SS-‐pos] "I’m tidy minded.” [SS-‐pos]
"I am fair, its my job.” [SS-‐pos]
"I am reasonably understanding and moderately imaginative.” [SS-‐pos] "I am not as effective as I thought.” [SS-‐neg]
"I am a disappointment, I don’t match up.” [SS-‐neg] “I am a bit of a push over.” [SS-‐neut]
“I am not a 9 to 5er" [SS-‐neut]
"I'm so anal, it's just disgusting" [SS-‐neut]
Almost all statements identified as SS could relatively easily be recast as “I am…”.
Statement Explanation for code
“From a personal and emotional level being inclusive is how I like to be.” [SS-‐ pos]
This statement can be recast as, “I am inclusive”.
“I get concerned as a friend that I should be 100% worrying about people as a friend and then I think, ‘Oh maybe there's a bit of me that's also worrying about the practice’ and that in some ways I’m a less good friend for doing that.” [SS-‐neg]
This statements is not so obviously an equivalent to “I am…”. While it is lengthy it can be recast as, "I am a less good friend for worrying about the practice rather than my friend". Note, this statement would be double coded SX1 as the participant is objectifying two thoughts, “then I think…”
Self-‐evaluations in terms of standards and values
A second category of Self-‐as-‐Story were statements about personally held values or preferences. These were where a respondent defined their identity at least in part by the standards and values that they held. These were Self-‐as-‐Story as participants appeared to be somewhat fused with their conceptualisation of their own values and preferences. The following were typical examples:
Statement Explanation for code
“I guess it's a feeling within myself of trying to achieve a certain level of perfection or competence and I do sort
Here “perfection” being achieved is in a frame of equivalence with the ‘self’ trying to achieve it. Functionally this is
of have that.” [SS-‐pos] “I am achieving perfection”.
“I’m not a disciplinarian.” [SS-‐pos]
The quality of being a “disciplinarian” is in a frame of equivalence with the ‘self’.
“I needed to love myself when I was irresponsible because, I had been brought up being significantly responsible.” [SS-‐pos]
This is a borderline interpretation. This has been interpreted as “I am
someone with sense of responsibility”.
I compare myself to the academic strengths of another" [SS-‐neut]
The standard “academic strengths” is not cast as being positive or negative, therefore this statement is coded SS-‐ neut.
Self-‐evaluations in terms of character
A third category of Self-‐as-‐Story was when the person evaluated themselves in terms of character or a personality trait. These statements were treated as Self-‐as-‐Story because they were held as literally true. That is, the ‘self’ was equivalent to the characteristic or trait.
Statement Explanation for code
"I am much more mindful.” [SS-‐pos]
The interviewee is defining the ‘self’ as being “mindful”.
“You know I always look on the bright side, its better being positive about stuff.” [SS-‐pos]
In this statement the participant describes themself and their behaviour as “positive”, “looking on the bright side”.
“You know I'm sure there's a
selfishness at the heart of it.” [SS-‐neg]
The quality of “selfishness” is ascribed to the self, “I am selfish at the heart of it.”
“I was hopeless at it before, because now I try and solve the problem, but
This statement is about an enduring trait “hopeless” that is getting better.
I'm better than I was.” [SS-‐neg]
Functionally this is equivalent to “I am (or at least was) hopeless”.
“You know, I'm back at home again thinking about trying to please everyone.” [SS-‐neg]
This statement infers a general characteristic of “pleasing”. It is equivalent to “I am a pleaser.”
"Its not in my personality to be tough and ballsy" [SS-‐neut]
This statement is neutral in that the characteristic not being “tough and ballsy” does not have either positive or negative connotations.
Self-‐evaluations in terms of emotional feeling states
A fourth category of Self-‐as-‐Story was where the person categorised themselves in terms of the quality of their emotions and feelings in different contexts. Again, these statements were SS because the emotion and/or feeling state was held as literally