Rules for detecting an implicative dilemma (ID)

The rules come from the word doc Adrian sent me.

  1. Discrepant: A a construct is classified as discrepant when the ratings assigned to the element self and the element ideal self differ on 4 or more points on a the 7-point scale.
  2. Congurent: A construct is classified as congruent when the score given to self and ideal self coincide (or there is no more than 1-point difference) on a 7-point scale.
  3. No mid-point: Whenever either of the two elements (self or ideal self) is rated on the scale middle point (i.e. 4 on a 7-point scale), it is excluded from the classification.
  4. Correlation + direction: The correlation \(r\) between the discrepant and congruent construct is \(|r| \geq .35\) and the desired pole of the discrepant construct is associated with the undesired pole of the congruent construct.
Adrian, what is the reason for rule c? Could you elaborate on that one?

Scenarios - Which scenario implies a dilemma?

In the following graphics some scenarios are decribed. The filled circle denote the self, the open circle the ideal. The green and red arrows denote desired or undesired changed, respectively. I would like to make sure I understand everything correctly, before programming it again. Please have a look at the scenarios. Especially at the unclear scenario and the general questions below.

Case 1: Dilemma

Check rules

This case is quite clear. A positive change on construct 1 implies moving away from the ideal in construct 2.

Criterion Result Why
Discrepant ✓ difference \(\geq 4\)
Congruent ✓ difference \(\leq 1\)
No mid-points ✓ no mipoint rating on any element
Correlation + direction ✓ \(r \geq .35\) and direction correct

Case 2: Dilemma

Check rules

This case is also clear. A positive change on construct 1 implies moving away from the ideal in construct 2.

Criterion Result Why
Discrepant ✓ difference \(\geq 4\)
Congruent ✓ difference \(\leq 1\)
No mid-points ✓ no mipoint rating on any element
Correlation + direction ✓ \(r \geq .35\) and direction correct

Case 3: Dilemma

This again implies a dilemma, as we move away from the ideal.

Criterion Result Why
Discrepant ✓ difference \(\geq 4\)
Congruent ✓ difference \(\leq 1\)
No mid-points ✓ no mipoint rating on any element
Correlation + direction ✓ \(r \geq .35\) and direction correct

Case 4: No dilemma

This implies NO dilemma, as the first construct cannot be classified and the difference is not \(\geq 4\).

Criterion Result Why
Discrepant ✗ difference not \(\geq 4\)
Congruent ✓ difference \(\leq 1\)
No mid-points ✗ midpoint rating on first construct
Correlation + direction ✓ \(r \geq .35\) and direction correct

Case 5: No dilemma

This implies NO dilemma, as the second construct cannot be classified.

Criterion Result Why
Discrepant ✓ difference \(\geq 4\)
Congruent ✓ difference \(\leq 1\)
No mid-points ✗ midpoint rating on congruent construct
Correlation + direction ✓ \(r \geq .35\) and direction correct

Case 6: Unclear

Criterion Result Why
Discrepant ✓ difference \(\geq 4\)
Congruent ✓ difference \(\leq 1\)
No mid-points ✓ no mipoint rating on any element
Correlation + direction ✓ \(r \geq .35\) and direction correct
What about this case? All the rules apply, but for the person the implication is positive, not negative. So, is this really a dilemma? At least for the beginning of a change, as things will get better according to the implication. The person will move deeper into the self-satisfaction zone at first. How do you classify such a case?

Case 7: Midpoint rating for self

I am unclear about this one. The rating for self but not for ideal self is on the midpoint on the congruent construct. According to rule c, as formulated above, no classification is done, because the self is on the midpoint on the congruent construct. Is that correct?

If so, why? We can identify a preferred pole, as the ideal self is not on the midpoint. So we know which direction is desired.

General questions

Self-satisfaction zone

The rules for detection require the second construct to be congruent. As Adrian wrote:

congruent constructs represent areas of self-satisfaction (as indicated by the similarity between the present and the ideal self, both described by one construct pole) which might be connected to personal values or beliefs.

Does this mean, that if a desired change has a negative implication on a construct where the person is in the self-satisfaction zone, is experienced worse than if the person was not in the self-satisfaction zone? Even when not being in the self satisfaction zone, the implication is still negative. Does this mean that the situation in the next figure (which implies no dilemma according to the rules) is better than the one afterwards (which implies a dilemma).

In both cases the consequence of change is negative. But only one is a dilemma. What role does the self-satisfation zone play, in order to represent a dilemma? Can you point me to literature where I can find something on the importance of the self-satisfaction zone?