Introduction Judd (1986) attempted to develop a questionnaire to measure respondents' level of agreement or disagreement with scale items claimed to be representative of an integrated or alienated state, emotional disposition and personal needs. A review of the research findings summary expressed several criticisms concerning concept development, methodology and description. Although these comments challenge the value of the research a review of the aims and outcomes offer some insight into the history and development of the SILM® model. The research was conducted to '...investigate the subjective experience of '...being within a social context and how that might relate to 'self-experience'.' (p.3) In developing the scale 'Factor analysis revealed five orthogonal factors which identified distinctly different dispositions towards society and self. At least two new emergent factors appeared that reflected neither the theoretical view of "the alienated state" nor any factors on existing alientation scales.' (p.2) The five factors were labelled: Integrated Self-Alienated Anger (Towards Others) Society Dominated Society Dependent These lables are defined as follows. "F1 [Factor 1] is measuring both an experience and social disposition opposite to the alienated state. This factor alone is capable of measuring degree of social integration. F2 positively correlates with total scores on all other scales. Hence it is argued that this factor alone is capable of measuring a cognitive belief state or experience hitherto described as 'alientated'. However, the subsequent three factors would seem to suggest that the state of alienation is not only complex but a far more subtle concept than theory has previously suggested. High correlations between anger and the Maddi and Miyashita scales would suggest that this factor is more than a 'measure of emotion'. Undoubtedly this anger is not simply 'felt' it is directed at others'. None of the existing scales have identified this dimension of the alienated state. F4 and F5 did not correlate significantly with any other of the existing scales (with the exception of Soc.Dom. & Ray scale @ 0.05). It is suggessted that these two new emergent factors represent further dimensions of the alienated state." Back to Top Discussion Judd argues that: "F1 Integrated would appear to be capable of measuring a positive disposition towards society...[with] a high need level for social involvement, love and friendship. F2 [Self-alienated] suggests...estranged from self and others. F3 Anger (towards others)...There is a desire to 'say something nasty, something that will hurt someone, with an impulse to strike out, explode, but I hold back, control myself.' Apparently there is an intolerance with own 'faults and weaknesses' and perhaps an intolerance of others. These findings suggest an interesting parallel with Davitz's findings when conducting a cluster analysis of definitions of emotions. The cluster 'moving away' parallels Self-alienation [F2] and 'moving against' parallels Anger (towards others) [F3]. F4 Society Dominated implies an attitude towards society of being oppressed...[and] perhaps reflects even more than F2 the Self-alienated state. However, the important distinction is that the Self-alienated are frustrated with self and the Society Dominated are frustrated with the world. F5 Society Dependent typifies one who feels social structures are in fact 'a blessing' which can help overcome the 'disorganised self'...it would seem the structure of society is important rather than others." ©1986 Linton Judd Back to Top