Resonance to archetypes in media: There's some accounting for taste

17 Pages·2009·0.44 MB·English

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Resonance to archetypes in media: There’s some accounting for taste
Michael A. Faber*, John D. Mayer
DepartmentofPsychology,10LibraryWay,UniversityofNewHampshire,Durham,NH03824,UnitedStates
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: Modern mass media typically employ archetypes—prototypical characters—in their narratives. This
Availableonline11December2008 researchproposesthatpeople’saffectivereactionstoandpreferencesforthesecharactersinrichcultural
media—their‘‘resonance”toarchetypes—maybeanindicatoroftheirownpersonalityandlifethemes.In
Keywords: thefirstoftwostudies,aRichCultureArchetypeScale(RCAS)wasconstructedbasedonmediaexamples
Personality frompopular music,movies,and classic art representing certain archetypes. In thesecond study, the
Measurement
RCASwascomparedwithotherscalesofpersonalityandofarchetypes.Resultsindicatedthatthereexist
Popularculture
fiveclustersofarchetypestowhichpeopleresonate,andthatpeople’sresonancepredictstheirpersonal
Media
lifethemesandmediapreferences.
Preferences
Archetypes (cid:2)2009ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Resonance
1.Introduction nize(e.g.,fortheHero,growth,courage,andtriumphoveradver-
sity).Peoplewhohearsuchstoriesmayrespondquitedifferently
Peoplehavebeencultivatingandrefiningmasscommunication to a figure such as the Hero, and those patterns of different
for centuries (Dominick, 2002). We have long communicated to respondingmayrepresentimportantpersonalityqualities.
one another through etching, sculpture and painting, and music. Anumberofstudieshavetracedproposedarchetypesthrough
In our contemporary information age, much of our life is domi- the stories of various cultures (e.g., Jadot, 1975). Such research,
natedby suchmasscommercialmediaasmovies,television,and however, typically employs bibliographic, cultural approaches.
theInternet(Bogart,1991).Thestoriesandcharactersthatappear Using literary approaches, for example, several theories have at-
inthesemassmediaareessentialmeansofsharinghumanexperi- tempted to organize various specific archetypes into groups. A
encewithoneanother.Somepeoplediscuss,converse,andanalo- few studies investigate the connotations of archetypal symbols;
gize about television. Others infuse movie plot analogies and severalothersuseself-reportscalestoinferanindividual’sidenti-
metaphors into their professional presentations in order to com- ficationwithanarchetypesuchastheExplorer(e.g.,howstrongly
municate a sense of tangible, shared understanding (Downing, atest-takeragreeswiththestatement‘‘Ifeelrestless”;Pearson&
1991). Social institutions such as book clubs and Internet chat Marr, 2002b). But to what degree do individual judges recognize
rooms often are organized around their respective media (Domi- archetypes?Cantheyidentifyarchetypesinmedia,anddotheyre-
nick, 2002). These phenomena suggest that there exist internal, spondtothememotionally?
psychologicalforcesthatallowustorespondincommonwaysto Wefirstdiscusstheoriginofthearchetypeconceptandupdate
storiesandstorycharacters. thetheory,introducinga‘‘neo-archetypal”approach.Study1pre-
One part of personality proposed to explain our captivation sents a new psychometric procedure for testing the existence of
with cultural phenomena is the archetype. An archetype is an classes of archetypes (see Goldberg, 1992; Saucier & Goldberg,
internalmentalmodelofatypical,genericstorycharactertowhich 2002). Study 2 examines individual differences in people’s emo-
anobservermightresonateemotionally(Jung,1961–1963/1983). tionalresponsivenesstosucharchetypes,linkingthosedifferences
ExamplesofarchetypesincludetheHero,theJester,andtheSage, to personal preferencesin mass culture and establishing connec-
and they have been proposed as key elements in a commonlan- tionsbetweentastesinmediaandpersonality.
guage involving the stories that people tell one another (e.g.,
Campbell, 1949; Downing, 1991; Mark & Pearson, 2001). Arche- 2.Whatisanarchetype?
typal characters help promote actions in stories by embodying
characteristicmotivesandotherqualitiesthateveryonecanrecog- Theconceptofthearchetypemayprovideimportantexplana-
tions of how people respond to other people, story characters,
and media. Archetype theory began with the work of Carl Jung
* Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:[email protected](M.A.Faber). (1875–1961). The portion of Jung’s theory of particular interest
0092-6566/$-seefrontmatter(cid:2)2009ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.11.003
Author's personal copy
308 M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322
here is that archetypes represent personifications of behaviors— inrelatedareas.Inneo-archetypaltheory,archetypespossessfive
characters who embody behavior patterns (Jung, 1964, 1968). key characteristics. Specifically, archetypes: (a) are story charac-
Jung first proposed the concept of an archetype in the context ters, (b) are represented psychologically as mental models like
ofhisclinicalobservationsanddiscussionofthecollectiveuncon- self- and other-schemas and prototypes, and (c) often elicit in-
scious.Hecontendedthatpeopleemployedunconsciousorimpli- tense emotional responses when encountered. Also, such arche-
cit mental models of other people in the world based on a types (d) operate at an automatic or unconscious level, and (e)
network of ‘‘primordial...mythological images” and ancient be- areculturallyenduringsoastobeeasilylearnedandwidelyrec-
liefs that were ancestrally common to all humans and provided ognizable. We will elaborate briefly upon each of these ideas in
the ‘‘true basis of the individual psyche” (Jung, 1961–1963/ turn.
1983, pp. 16, 67; see also C. S. Hall & Lindzey, 1978, p. 120). First and foremost, in neo-archetypal theory (as in the origi-
Any real person, situation, or event could conjure up these pow- nal Jungian concept), archetypes are generic story characters.
erfulandancientimagesfromthecollectiveunconscious,eliciting For most people, they represent key figures in story narratives
a powerful and otherwise inexplicable emotional reaction andpossessfamiliarandconsistentconstellationsoftraits.Com-
(Shelburne, 1988, p. 57). monly, archetypes are represented directly as recognizable
Jungdescribedonlyafewarchetypessystematically,regarding genericcharacterssuchas‘‘amother,”‘‘acriminal,”or‘‘ahealer”
themas‘‘fundamentallyunobservable”(Jung,1961–1963/1983,p. acting in a given story plot. However, archetypes also can be
26; Shelburne, 1988, pp. 56, 63). Later, Joseph Campbell (1949/ manifestedthematicallyratherthanasdiscretestorycharacters.
2004) codified many archetypal images, and contemporary theo- For example, archetypal characters can be depicted in represen-
rists regularly discuss about 12 or 13 archetypes. Many of these, tational or allegorical paintings and/or sculptures; additionally,
such as the Innocent, have evolved in concept; others, such as they can be represented even more abstractly, such as a theme,
theLover,theHeroandtheMagician,havebeenrelativelystable.1 mood,ormotifinapieceofmusic.Thefunctionofthearchetype
Examples of these are illustrated in Table 1. Several organiza- isthesameineach medium:toserve toconvey meaning or tell
tional schemes for archetypes also have been proposed, dividing a story.
themintogroups;forexample,orientedbyagencyand/orcommu- Second, in neo-archetypal theory, archetypes are viewed as
nion (McAdams, 1993, pp. 127–131), or oriented by Maslowian standard mental models. Much of contemporary personality and
needs such as stability, belonging, mastery, or fulfillment (Mark socialpsychologydescribetheoperationofaperson’smentalmod-
&Pearson,2001,p.16). els of themselves and others (Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier,
Jungandothersoftenusedarchetypesasanexplanationforre- 1996; Higgins, 1987; Mayer, 2005; Oyserman & Markus, 1990).
sponsestoliteratureandotherculturalstimuli—anapproachthat Forexample,MarkusandNurius’s(1986)possibleselvesareaclass
earned them many admirers in the humanities. As intriguing as of mental models of peoples’ actual, ideal, feared, and desired
manyofJung’sconceptswere,however,theywerediscrepantwith selves.Closerstilltoarchetypes,peopleoftenrepresentothersas
mainstream American psychological thinking (and remain as personality types—as extraverts or introverts, for example—and
incongruenttodayastheywereintheearly1920s).Forexample, are able to learn and categorize such prototypes very quickly
Jung promulgated a view of archetypes as based on biologically- (Andersen & Cole, 1990; Cantor & Mischel, 1977; Glassman &
transmittedprimalideas.Moreproblematically, these archetypes Andersen,1999;Mayer&Bower,1986).
wereviewedbyJungaspartofpeople’scollectiveorracialuncon- Third, in neo-archetypal theory, archetypes are mental con-
scious, dating back to a prehistoric state and varying somewhat structionsthat,whentriggered,tendtoelicitpowerfulemotional
according to the ethnic group concerned (C. S. Hall & Lindzey, responsesinthosewhoareexposedtothem.Thearchetypecon-
1978;Jung,1961–1963/1983).Soastodistinguishbetweenthese cept is predicated on a person’s previous emotional encounters
earlier views of archetypes—to which many have objected (e.g., andinteractionswithsimilarcharactersorideas(C.S.Hall&Lind-
McGowan, 1994; Neher, 1996; Pietikainen, 1998)—and our own zey,1978;Jung,1961–1963/1983;Katz,1984;Stewart,1987).The
characterization,thenextsectionintroduces‘‘neo-archetypalthe- emotionalcomponentofmentalmodelscanendureacrossexperi-
ory,”whichpreservesthemoreusefulaspectsofarchetypaltheory ences(Scherer,1992)andevencanextendtounfamiliarsituations.
while integrating it within contemporary psychological Forexample,affectiveresponsestonovelconsumerproducts,so-
understanding. cialgroups,andevenpoliticianscanbemoreorlessautomatically
triggeredbypreviousexperience(Fiske&Taylor,1991).Similarly,
AndersenandBerk(1998)haveexaminedsignificant-otherproto-
3.Neo-archetypaltheory types—prototypesofotherpeoplethatincorporatethekeycharac-
teristics of those one has known closely in early life—and have
The neo-archetypal theory we develop in this section retains found that representations from people’s personal past can elicit
key aspects of Jung’s theory while leaving out its less substanti- strongeremotionalreactionsthanthoseofnon-significantothers.
ated parts. Wehave drawnon thework ofseveralcontemporary Personalityprototypesandouremotionalresponsestothemthus
theoristsinthearea(e.g.,Mark&Pearson,2001;McAdams,1993; are inextricably linked, even to the point where the emotional
McGowan, 1994; Pietikainen,1998), as well as many researchers reaction itself may be considered prototypical (Shaver, Schwartz,
Kirson,&O’Connor,1987).
Thefourthfeatureofneo-archetypaltheoryreferstothearche-
1 Asanexampleofanarchetypethathasevolvedinconcept,theInnocenthas types’ frequently automatic operation. The processing of some
gonebyseveralnamesinthearchetypalliterature.Jung(1968)himselfcitedaChild mentalmodels is oftenviewed as automaticor implicit(Bargh&
God archetype (which some later termed the Elf) but also used the flowery Chartrand,1999),andtheirnon-consciousnaturemaycontribute
terminology of Puer (cid:2)ternis to describe what is almost certainly the same
to how people construct and maintain models about themselves
character:theembodimentofrenewal,hope,andyouth.McAdamsdidnothave
an imago exactly like this; his Ritualist, however, was a simple, unambitious and others (Bargh & Tota, 1988; Epstein, 1998). Additionally, the
characterwhoaboveall else‘‘longedto returntoparadise”(McAdams,1993,p. automaticityofsomementalmodelsisthoughttoaffectanumber
158).ThissatisfactionwithtranquilityisborneoutinMarkandPearson’s(2001) ofdifferentmentalprocessesandoutcomes,including,howpeople
Innocent archetype: a simple, pure, and naïve character who holds traditional
form attitudes and judgements, how they interpret their moods
valuesandgenerallyexudesinnategoodness(Pearson&Marr,2002a).Manyother
and emotions, and how they behave under various conditions
currentarchetypeshavegonethroughsimilarprocessesofevolution,suchasthe
Creator,theRuler,andtheJester(seeTable1). (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Bowers, 1984; Carver, Ganellen,
Author's personal copy
M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322 309
Table1
Archetypedefinitions.
Archetype Definition Sources
Caregiver Representedbycaring,compassion,andgenerosity.Commonlyprotective,devoted,sacrificing, Campbell(1949/2004),p.109
nurturing,andoftenparental.Usuallyverybenevolent,friendly,helping,andtrusting C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),pp.120,122
McAdams(1993),pp.155,157,208
MarkandPearson(2001),p.210
Creator Representedbytheinnovative,theartistic,andtheinventive.Oftennon-social;perhapsadreamer; C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),p.122
lookingfornoveltyandbeautyandanaestheticstandard.Willemphasizequality(overquantity), McAdams(1993),p.145
beinghighlyinternallydriven MarkandPearson(2001),p.229
Everyman/ Representedbytheworking-classcommonperson;theunderdog;theneighbor.Persevering, Campbell(1949/2004),pp.295–308
Everywoman ordered,wholesome;usuallycandidandsometimesfatalistic.Oftenself-deprecating;perhaps C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),p.122
cynical,careful,arealisticandoftendisappointedhumanist MarkandPearson(2001),p.166
Explorer Representedbyanindependent,free-willedadventurer.Seeksdiscoveryandfulfillment.Often McAdams(1993),p.138
solitary;spiritedandindomitable;observeroftheselfandenvironment.Constantlymoving;a MarkandPearson(2001),p.72
wanderer
Hero Representedfrequentlybythecourageous,impetuouswarrior.Noblerescuerandcrusader;must Campbell(1949/2004),pp.34–36,227–
oftenundertakeanarduoustaskto‘‘provetheirworth”andlaterbecomeaninspiration. 228
Symbolicallythe‘‘dragonslayer”—theredeemerofhumanstrength C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),pp.121–122
McAdams(1993),p.135
MarkandPearson(2001),p.106
Innocent Representedbythepure,faithful,naive,childlikecharacter.Humbleandtranquil;longingfor Jung(1968),pp.158–159
happinessandsimplicity—aparadise.Oftenatraditionalist;saintly;symbolizingrenewal Campbell(1949/2004),pp.327–328
C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),p.122
McAdams(1993),p.158
MarkandPearson(2001),pp.54–55
Jester Representedbylivingforfunandamusement;aplayfulandmischievouscomedian.Usuallyironic Jung(1968),pp.255–258
andmirthful,sometimesirresponsible;aprankster.Enjoysmostagoodtimeanddiversionfromcare McAdams(1993),p.171
MarkandPearson(2001),p.197
Lover Representedbytheintimate,romantic,sensual,andespeciallypassionate.Seekingmainlytofindand Jung(1968),pp.28–30
giveloveandpleasure.Seductiveanddelightful,butperilous—oftentempestuousandcapricious. Campbell(1949/2004),pp.316–318C.S.
Oftenawarm,playful,erotic,andenthusiasticpartner HallandLindzey(1978),p.123
McAdams(1993),pp.148–151
MarkandPearson(2001),pp.179–181
Magician Representedbythephysicist;thevisionary;thealchemist.Seekingtheprinciplesofdevelopment Jung(1968),pp.35–37
andhowthingswork;ateacher,aperformerorascientist.Fundamentalistinterestedinnatural C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),p.122
forces,transformations,andmetamorphoses McAdams(1993),pp.208–209
MarkandPearson(2001),p.144
Outlaw Representedintherebelliousiconoclast;thesurvivorandthemisfit.Oftenvengeful,adisruptive McAdams(1993),p.209
rule-breaker,possiblystemmingfromhiddenanger.Canbewild,destructiveandprovokingfroma MarkandPearson(2001),p.124
longtimespentstrugglingorinjured
Ruler Representedbyastrongsenseofpowerandcontrol:theleader;theboss;thejudge.Highly Campbell(1949/2004),pp.319–322
influential,stubborn,eventyrannical.Maintainsahighlevelofdominance;canapplytoan C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),p.122
administrator,arbiter,oramanagerofothers McAdams(1993),p.208
MarkandPearson(2001),p.245
Sage Representedbyavaluingofenlightenmentandknowledge;truthandunderstanding.Thisisthe Jung(1961–1963/1983),pp.125–127
expertandthecounselor,possessingwisdomandacumen,perhapsabitpretentious.Scholarly, Campbell(1949/2004),pp.46–47
philosophical,intelligent;amysticalandprestigiousguideintheworld C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),pp.121–122
McAdams(1993),pp.143,208–209
MarkandPearson(2001),p.90
Shadow Representedbytheviolent,haunted,andtheprimitive;thedarkeraspectsofhumanity.Oftenseenin Jung(1961–1963/1983),pp.91–93
atragicfigure,rejected;awkward,desperatelyemotional.Canbeseentolackmorality;asavage C.S.HallandLindzey(1978),pp.122–124
nemesis
Froming, & Chambers, 1983; Ingram, Partridge, Scott, & Bernet, frequencywithwhichweemploysuchmodelsmayspeaktotheir
1994; Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley, 1989; Kitamura, 2005; Smith cultural importance. Most contemporary researchers who have
&Lerner,1986;Strauss&Allen,2006).Generallyspeaking,many studiedthearchetypeconceptmaintainthatitisculture,notbiol-
researchersbelievethatthemodelsweconstructcanaffectmental ogy,thatimpartsarchetypalmodelsfrompersontoperson(McAd-
functionsevenoutsideofperceptionormemory(Kihlstrom,1987). ams, 1993, 2006; McGowan, 1994; Neher, 1996; Pietikainen,
Thisnon-consciousactivationofsuchschemasineverydayexperi- 1998), although there may be partial exceptions (e.g., deSilva,
enceisconsistentwithJung’soriginal viewthatarchetypeswere Rachman, & Seligman, 1977). As such, people implicitly learn to
recognizedunconsciously. recognizetheappearanceandfunctionofagreatmanyprototypi-
Finally, neo-archetypal theory views archetypes generally as calcharactersfromtherolessuchcharactersplayintheirlifenar-
learned conceptualizations as opposed to being predisposed ratives(McAdams,1993,2006);indeed,thesymbolicandaffective
throughevolutionaryhistory.Originally,Jungandothersbelieved importanceofthesestorycharactersderivespartiallyfromthefact
archetypesweregeneticallyinherited.Today,however,mostmen- that they have endured for so long in the culture’s literary, folk-
talmodels,suchaspersonalityprototypesandscripts,areviewed loric,andartistichistory.
asbeingacquiredthroughlearning(e.g.,Anderson,1980;Mayer& Thisupdatedviewofarchetypes,withtheirfivemaincharacter-
Bower, 1986; Schank & Abelson, 1977), thus suggesting that the istics,canbesummarizedinthefollowingdefinition:
Author's personal copy
310 M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322
Archetypes are story characters—prototypes of culturally itspairedword,orgiventhewordandaskedtorecallitspairedim-
important figures—that are learned and recognized implicitly, age(Hustonetal.,1999;Rosenetal.,1991). Similarresultswere
andwhosehistoricalandpersonalsignificanceevokeemotional obtained using a word-completion task as an alternate condition
reactions. to the cued-recall. Yet although these studies may demonstrate
that certain archetypal concepts are associated in intriguing and
provocative ways, they fail to examine actual story characters of
4.Researchonarchetypes thesortcentraltotheneo-archetypeconcept.
At least one study suggests that people respond affectively to
Jung’s work on archetypes was initially embraced by many certain kinds of archetypes. Maloney (1999) used 18 selected
scholarsinthehumanities,butwaswelcomedlesswarmlyinthe images of the Hero and the Mother (i.e., the Caregiver) from the
sciences. For example, Jung’s theory was extensively explored aforementionedArchive,andaskedparticipantsabouthowpleas-
and developed by Joseph Campbell, in his (1949) seminal text, ing,interesting,andmemorabletheyfoundthevariousimagesto
The Hero With a Thousand Faces. By using the metaphor of the be. The author concluded there was evidence that people re-
‘‘hero’sjourney,”andarchetypessuchastheorphan,thewarrior, sponded in differential patterns to the two classes of archetypes.
and the saint, Campbell traced many archetypes and symbols However, the reported results—that participants responded to
across the mythological literatures of many different cultures, ‘‘quest,” ‘‘attachment,” and ‘‘conflict” themes—seem difficult to
arguingfortheiruniversality. interpret,and,atbest,areonlyinconsistentlysupportedbythesta-
Personality psychology soon incorporated the archetype con- tisticalanalyses.Assuch,thepresenceofanintegratednetworkof
ceptintoitstextbooks(e.g.,C.S.Hall&Lindzey,1957),recognizing archetypesremainsanopenquestion.
its possible application to understanding personality and re- Finally, some self-report scales have been developed that ask
sponses to other people. Early clinicians searched for archetypes people about themes related to specific archetypes and then try
intheirclients’responsestoRorschachinkblots,dreams,andeven toidentifyapersonwithanarchetypebasedonthesepersonallife
personal life stories. Many psychotherapists identified and ana- themes(Marr,1996;Pearson&Marr,2002b).Suchscalesassume
lyzedarchetypalresponsesintheseandotherproductions(Frame, thepresenceofarchetypalmodels,however,withoutdirectlytest-
2002; Lewis & McCully, 1994; Lockhart & Siegel, 1976; McCully, ingforthem.
1978, 1987; Solomon, 1991; Squyres & Craddick, 1990; Stevens, To summarize, the concept of the archetype has been used to
2000). explain how people respond to other people, story characters,
Archetypal concepts such as the anima and animus attracted andmedia.Thisnotionispotentiallyusefultopersonalitypsychol-
some research attention in the 1970s, at a time of considerable ogy, as well as to media studies and the humanities. However,
genderdifferentiationandchange.Craddick,Thumin,andBarclay empiricalresearchonthearchetypeissparse.Someevidencesug-
(1971)presentedthearchetypalsymboloftheyin-yang—believed geststhatpeopledoreliablyassociatecertainconcepts,suchasthe
torepresent,amongotherthings,opposingmaleandfemalequal- masculine and feminine, with various animals and symbols, and
ities—to college students, and asked participants to evaluate the yetmanyfundamentalempiricalquestionsconcerningthearche-
symbolon30bipolardimensionssuchas‘‘beautiful–ugly,”‘‘good- type remain unexplored. Can people reliably identify archetypes
bad,” and ‘‘strong–weak.” The experimenters found that partici- underlyingstorycharactersinmovies,andart,andrelatedthemes
pants saw the yin-yang as unifying qualities usually associated in music? What are some fundamental archetypes? Can they be
separately with men or women, and provided some support for grouped? Do people respond emotionally to certain archetypes
the dimorphic, yet intertwined models of the anima and animus morethanothers?
archetypes.Similarly,LashandPolyson(1987)attemptedtoiden- We conducted our first study to see if people could recognize
tify unconscious yet distinct gender associations to animals by archetypes within cultural media in a consistent manner, as
usingtheVividnessofVisualImageryQuestionnaire(VVIQ;Marks, hypothesized in neo-archetypal theory. Our ultimate aim was to
1973). They found that ‘‘maleness” was consistently associated assess whether people show repeated patterns for liking stimuli
with animals such as apes, cockroaches and walruses; images of thatallexemplifythesamearchetypeacrossdifferentmassmedia,
birds,cats,andkangarooswerelikewiseassociatedwithbeingfe- thus possibly revealing a personal life theme. If so, we hoped to
male.Whethertheneo-archetypeconceptisnecessarytoexplain construct an archetype scale using examples of cultural stimuli
thistypeofmentalimagery,however,orwhetheritcanbemore fromthreepopularculturemedia:music,movies,andart.
simplyexplainedasconnotativeassociationstothediffuseconcep- As a first step, descriptions of archetypes from previous
tualcategoriesofmasculinityandfemininityisuncertain. researchers were examined (e.g., Campbell, 1949/2004; Jung,
Inseveralrecentstudies,however,researchershavefoundthat 1961–1963/1983;Mark&Pearson,2001;McAdams,1993;Pearson
peopleoftenunconsciouslyrecognizeandaresensitivetoassocia- &Marr,2002a),andalistofthirteenconceptualarchetypes,with
tions between archetypal symbols and their suggested meanings definitions, was developed (see Table 1). For example, the Hero
(Huston,Rosen,&Smith,1999;Rosen,Smith,Huston,&Gonzalez, (or Warrior), the Caregiver (or Universal Mother), and the Sage
1991). Participants in these studies demonstratedbetterlearning (or Wise Old Man) have been quite consistent across theorists,
andrecallofwordsandimageswhentheimageswerepairedwith andthesewerefairlydirectlysummarized.Insomecases,however,
‘‘correct”(i.e.,conceptuallymatched)wordsthanwhentheimages theparallelsacrossarchetypesproposedbytheoristsinvolvesome
werepairedwith‘‘incorrect”words(i.e.,thosethathadbeenarche- approximations.Forexample,ouroperationaldefinitionoftheRu-
typallymismatched;Rosenetal.,1991).Forexample,learningand lersharessomecharacteristicswiththeRulerinMarkandPearson
recalloftheimageofabutterfly(aspartofalongerlistofword- (2001; (i.e., controlling, authoritarian, a leader), but also draws
image pairs) was better when the butterfly image had been uponMcAdams’(1993)Arbiterimago(ajudge;amanagerofoth-
matchedwithitspreidentifiedarchetypalassociateword(‘‘soul”) ers)andJung’s(1961–1963/1983)Fatherarchetype(highlyinflu-
than when it was matched with an incorrect, unrelated word ential,stubborn,andtyrannical).
(‘‘paradox”). The correct associations were determined by the Ifarchetypesexist,itthenstandstoreasonthattheseaffective
authorswithconsultationfromtheArchiveforResearchforArche- schemasormentalmodelscanbeidentifiedinthepopularmusic,
typalSymbolismattheC.G.JungInstituteinSanFrancisco.Thisdif- movies,television,literature,andclassicartoftoday(Mark&Pear-
ferencebetweenmatchedandunmatchedpairsremainedconstant son, 2001, pp. 9–10).It might be possible, then, to measuresuch
whethertheparticipantsweregiventheimageandaskedtorecall archetypes by using stimuli from such sources. For the purposes
Author's personal copy
M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322 311
of this research, items in each mass culture medium will be re- experimental course credit; their responses were identified only
ferredtoasrichculturalstimuli,orRCS. bynumber.
6.1.2.Materials
5.OverviewofStudy1 Each of the 13 archetypes shown in Table 1 was represented
with four stimuli in each of three rich cultural media (music,
An important assumption of neo-archetypal theory is the be- movies, and art), for an overall total of 156 items, which were
lief that individuals conversant with the theory can correctly block-randomized for administration. The 52 music stimuli were
identify archetypes (cf. Huston et al., 1999; Lewis et al., 1994; containedonaudioCDsandplayedaloudforallparticipants,while
Lockhart & Seigel, 1976; McCully, 1987; Solomon, 1991; Rosen theremaining104movieandartstimuliwereprintedashigh-def-
et al., 1991; Squyres & Craddick, 1990; Stevens, 2000). To test inition color images inside hardcover binders so that, for the
that assumption, we identified 156 rich cultural stimuli: 12 majorityofthesession,theparticipantscouldworkonthestimuli
examples each of the 13 archetypes identified in Table 1. Of the attheirownpace.Participantsreceivedthestimulibinders,anan-
12 examples per archetype, four each were drawn from music, swer sheet on which to record their responses, and a sheet of
art, and film. These 156 stimuli then were presented to the par- ‘‘archetypedefinitions”(fromTable1),whichtheyhadtheoption
ticipants in the study, to address a number of hypotheses about tokeepwhentheyleftthesession.
archetypes and their identification.
6.1.3.Procedure
5.1.Hypothesesconcerningrecognizingarchetypes Theparticipantsweregivenalistofindividually-letteredarche-
typedefinitionssothattheycouldbecomefamiliarwiththearche-
typesbeforetheratingsactuallybegan.Thearchetypeswerelisted
Hypothesis 1. People can perceive archetypes in rich cultural
alphabetically so as to preclude any notion of certain archetypes
media.
beingpreferabletoothers.Participantswerethengivenananswer
If people are able to perceive archetypes, they should exhibit sheetonwhichtheyweretoldtowritetheletterofthearchetype
interjudgeagreementastopreciselywhicharchetypesarerepre- that they thought each rich cultural stimulus (RCS) would best
sented by which stimuli. Specifically, participants should be able represent.
toclassifymostofthe156itemsasbeingrepresentativeofpartic- Afterallowingthe participantstostudythe definitions list for
ulararchetypes,orarchetypeblends,withsufficientagreement. 2–3min,thefirstsetofstimuli(music)waspresented.Themusic
itemswereselectedfromanumberofpopularmusicaltraditions
Hypothesis2. Archetypescanbegroupedintoclusters.
includingclassical,punk,jazz,rap,funk,pop,country,metal,and
Most Jungian archetype research focuses on individual arche- experimentalmusic(seeAppendixAforalistofthemusicitems
types.However,groupsofarchetypesthatoverlapmight becon- usedinbothstudies).Participantslistenedtoeachitemforapprox-
stituentsoflargerandmoreglobalarchetypeclusters,assomeof imatelytwentysecondsandwererequestedtoselectthearchetype
the archetypes share various characteristics with each other. For fromthedefinitionsheetthatwasbestrepresentedbythemusic.
example, despite differences described in some sources (e.g., The sequential number of each music stimulus (which always
Mark&Pearson,2001),theMagicianandtheSagearearchetypes was thesame)was announcedby theresearcherbeforetheitem
that both connote a wizard, or wise old man: a guiding spirit; a wasplayedsoastoavoidconfusion.
scientist and a prestigious teacher or grandfather (Jung, 1961– Theparticipants wereremindedtotryandgive ananswerfor
1963/1983; Campbell, 1949/2004). Such similarities prompted eachitem,eveniftheywereunfamiliarwithit,andtomakesure
us to hypothesize that certain archetypes could form groups or to use all 13 archetypes (though not necessarily equally often).
clusters identifiable via factor analysis. Aside from the expected Remindersofthisnaturecouldalsobefoundontheanswersheet
Magician-Sage similarity, however, we had no preconceived no- andinthestimulibinders.Oncethemusicstimuliwereallplayed,
tions about which archetypes, if any, might group together into the stimuli binders were distributed with the movie and art
clusters. images. As each participant finished all 156 items, their stimuli
binder and answer sheet were collected. The entire process typi-
5.2.Hypothesesconcerningscaledevelopment callytook60–75min.
6.2.Results
Hypothesis3. ARichCultureArchetypeScalecanbesuccessfully
developed.
6.2.1.Perceptionofarchetypesinrichculturalmedia
Iftheabovehypothesesweresupported,itwouldthenbepos- Ourfirsthypothesiswasthatparticipantscouldidentifyarche-
sibletoconstructaRichCultureArchetypeScale(RCAS)thatwould typesinRCSwithsomeagreement.Totestthis,amatrixwascre-
containrichculturalstimulifrompopularmusic,movies,andclas- atedwiththe156RCSitemsdowntherowsandthe13archetypes
sic art that were predetermined, preidentified representatives of acrossthetop.Participants’responseswerethentabulatedinthe
variousarchetypes.Suchascalecouldthenbeemployedtomea- matrix.Asegmentofthematrixforthepre-classified12Caregiver
sure individual differences in emotional responses to various and12JesteritemsisshowninTable2.Asexpected,theitemsse-
archetypesinthefuture. lectedbytheinvestigatorsasrepresentativeoftheCaregiverorthe
Jesterwere,onthewhole,nominatedassuchbytheparticipants
muchmoreoftenthantheywerenominatedasotherarchetypes.
6.Study1 Similarnominationfrequencyitembreakdownsfortheotherele-
venarchetypesalsowereobserved.
6.1.Methods TheleftsideofTable3showstheaveragenumberofnomina-
tionsforthe156RCSitemsintheinitialpool,basedontheirapri-
6.1.1.Participants ori-classified archetypes. For example, the twelve RCS items
100collegestudents(26male,74female)enrolledinintroduc- selectedtorepresenttheOutlawreceivedatotalof463‘‘Outlaw”
tory psychology courses participated in Study 1 and received nominations from participants—an average of 38.6 nominations
Author's personal copy
312 M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322
Table2
Study1:SampleDataSetup(Caregiver&Jester):individualitemnominationfrequencies.
Expectedarchetype Media ItemDescription Numberofnominations N
(i.e.,titleorartist)
CA CR EV EX HE IN JE LO MG OU RU SG SH
Caregiver Music TracyChapman 36 4 20 8 5 15 1 3 1 0 0 6 1 100
TheBeatles 15 0 5 0 2 20 0 45 0 1 0 12 0 100
JamesTaylor 74* 1 2 0 3 11 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 100
NatalieMerchant 39* 7 8 1 1 20 1 14 0 1 1 7 0 100
Movie ‘‘It’saWonderfulLife” 31 2 27 0 2 21 0 12 0 0 1 2 2 100
‘‘LifeisBeautiful” 31* 12 13 3 4 7 1 2 4 0 0 20 2 99
‘‘TheEnglishPatient” 45* 5 7 1 4 4 0 13 3 3 0 8 2 95
‘‘ThePrincessBride” 10 2 7 7 4 19 10 20 12 0 0 7 0 98
Art ‘‘VirginandChild” 45* 3 1 0 0 36 0 8 1 0 1 1 1 97
‘‘Whistler’sMother” 20 4 26 0 1 19 2 0 1 1 0 5 19 98
‘‘ChristHealingtheSick...” 34 9 4 2 24 0 0 2 7 0 5 10 2 99
‘‘TheBanjoLesson” 51* 4 8 2 0 17 0 5 6 0 0 6 1 100
Jester Music SteveMillerBand 2 6 2 14 0 9 53* 10 0 1 0 3 0 100
TheClash 1 9 4 10 0 4 29 3 10 17 4 3 2 96
ParliamentFunkadelic 0 5 2 3 0 6 73* 5 2 1 1 0 0 98
VanHalen 0 7 6 16 2 3 20 5 4 22 6 6 0 97
Movie ‘‘...SomethingAboutMary” 4 0 5 2 0 8 69 9 0 3 0 0 0 100
‘‘DuckSoup” 0 4 4 2 0 4 72 1 4 0 0 3 0 94
‘‘WeddingCrashers” 0 1 0 3 0 0 91* 3 0 0 0 1 0 99
‘‘JayandSilentBob...” 0 1 4 7 3 1 73* 0 1 6 0 0 2 98
Art ‘‘TheMerryDrinker” 4 4 11 6 1 7 55* 1 1 2 3 3 0 98
‘‘ALuncheonatBourgival” 7 2 32 0 0 32 15 4 0 1 0 6 0 99
‘‘ABoldBluff” 1 2 9 1 2 7 67* 0 3 6 0 1 1 100
‘‘TheOrgy” 2 4 12 2 0 3 14 47 0 7 2 3 4 100
CA,Caregiver;CR,Creator;EV,Everyman/Everywoman;EX,Explorer;HE,Hero;IN,Innocent;JE,Jester;LO,Lover;MG,Magician;OU,Outlaw;RU,Ruler;SG,Sage;SH,Shadow.
* StarreditemsarethoseselectedforinclusionintheRCASinStudy2.
Table3
Study1:Averagenumberofnominationsfortargetarchetypeandnon-targetarchetypesforinitialandfinalitempoolsincludedintheRCAS.
Archetype Averagenumberofnominations
Initial156-itempool(12items/archetype) Final83RCASitems(6items/archetype+5auxiliaryartitems)
Expectedarchetype Allotherarchetypes Next-highestarchetype Expectedarchetype Allotherarchetypes Next-highestarchetype
Caregiver 35.92 5.24 15.75(IN) 47.50 4.31 15.83(IN)
Creator 32.42 5.53 11.33(SG) 41.57 4.74 12.57(SG)
Everyman/Everywoman 41.67 4.76 9.25(EX) 53.29 3.79 9.71(EX)
Explorer 38.58 4.99 12.50(EV) 53.67 3.83 11.00(EV)
Hero 42.17 4.80 9.75(EX&RU) 56.14 3.65 14.29(RU)
Innocent 49.17 4.13 11.67(CA) 59.43 3.26 6.86(CR)
Jester 52.58 3.81 7.58(EV) 68.67 2.51 5.67(EX)
Lover 60.08 3.27 11.08(IN) 72.33 2.24 5.67(IN)
Magician 19.67 6.54 12.50(EX) 32.00 5.57 15.00(EX)
Outlaw 38.58 5.00 11.67(RU) 49.33 4.10 8.50(JE)
Ruler 32.67 5.47 16.67(SH) 42.33 4.68 15.17(OU)
Sage 24.42 6.21 14.42(MG) 31.00 5.63 12.17(MG)
Shadow 68.67 2.59 12.17(OU) 81.14 1.56 8.71(OU)
Average 41.28 4.79 12.03 52.95 3.84 10.86
CA,Caregiver;CR,Creator;EV,Everyman/Everywoman;EX,Explorer;HE,Hero;IN,Innocent;JE,Jester;LO,Lover;MG,Magician;OU,Outlaw;RU,Ruler;SG,Sage;SH,Shadow.
peritem(ExpectedArchetypecolumn).TheAllOtherArchetypescol- culatedthemodalcategoricalresponseforeachitem.Theresulting
umnrepresentstheaveragenumberofnominationsfortheother Kappaindexofinterrateragreement(the50judgesin onegroup
12(inthiscase,non-Outlaw)archetypesforeachofthe12items: versusthe 50judgesin theother)for allstimulithatexhibiteda
5.0 nominations per item for each ‘‘other” archetype. The next modalarchetypalcategorizationwasj=.79.Takentogetherwith
highest-nominatedcategoryfortheseitemsaftertheOutlawwas the overallnominationfrequencies of the archetype items(Table
theRuler(averaging11.7nominationsperitem)andtheremaining 3), this provided strong evidence that participants can reliably
elevenarchetypeswerenominatedevenlessoften.Thispatternof identifyarchetypes—evenacrossthreedifferentRCSmedia.
‘‘expected” versus ‘‘other” archetype nomination totals indicates Examplesoftwodifferentarchetypestimuli,onefortheInno-
that participants agreed as to which stimuli represented a given centandonefortheShadow,areillustratedinFig.1.
archetype and which did not, t(12)=9.59, p<.001, and that the
participants’ responses reflected the expected categorization ini- 6.2.2.Groupingthearchetypesintoclusters
tiallydeterminedbytheinvestigatorsinmostcases. Table 4 shows the similarities between archetypes based on
As a second perspective on rater agreement, we divided the participants’ nomination answers. These correlations indicated
sampleintotwogroupsof50judgeseach.Forbothgroups,wecal- thatthethirteenarchetypesweresometimesindependentofone
Author's personal copy
M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322 313
Fig.1. ExamplesoftwoRCSitemsusedinStudy2,representingtheInnocent(left)andtheShadow(right).(Seeabove-mentionedreferencesforfurtherinformation.)
Table4
Study1:Intercorrelationsofsubjects’perceptionsofthesimilarityofpairsofarchetypecategories.
CA CR EV EX HE IN JE LO MG OU RU SG SH
Caregiver –
Creator (cid:2).10 –
Everyman/Everywoman .07 (cid:2).11 –
Explorer (cid:2).20 (cid:2).06 .08 –
Hero (cid:2).12 (cid:2).17 (cid:2).15 (cid:2).04 –
Innocent .23 .04 .01 (cid:2).14 (cid:2).21 –
Jester (cid:2).15 (cid:2).06 (cid:2).03 (cid:2).02 (cid:2).17 (cid:2).09 –
Lover .08 (cid:2).09 (cid:2).12 (cid:2).19 (cid:2).13 (cid:2).01 (cid:2).07 –
Magician (cid:2).13 .29 (cid:2).18 .06 (cid:2).07 (cid:2).09 (cid:2).09 (cid:2).18 –
Outlaw (cid:2).23 (cid:2).18 (cid:2).13 (cid:2).01 (cid:2).02 (cid:2).27 (cid:2).04 (cid:2).21 (cid:2).15 –
Ruler (cid:2).19 (cid:2).13 (cid:2).21 (cid:2).09 .35 (cid:2).26 (cid:2).15 (cid:2).18 (cid:2).10 .20 –
Sage (cid:2).01 .27 (cid:2).01 .06 (cid:2).03 (cid:2).06 (cid:2).19 (cid:2).16 .48 (cid:2).25 (cid:2).07 –
Shadow (cid:2).17 (cid:2).14 (cid:2).18 (cid:2).18 (cid:2).16 (cid:2).21 (cid:2).18 (cid:2).18 (cid:2).07 .10 (cid:2).01 (cid:2).18 –
Note:Agivencorrelationisbetweenthetwospecificarchetypesindicated.Forexample,thecorrelationofr=(cid:2).10betweentheCaregiverandtheCreatorrepresentsthe
correlationbetweenthenumberofendorsementsofeachofthe156stimuliasaCaregiverversuseachrespectiveitem’sendorsementasaCreator(or,thecorrelationbetween
thecompleteCaregiverandCreatorcolumnsindicatedinpartinTable2).
Correlationsinboldaresignificantatp<.05.CA,Caregiver;CR,Creator;EV,Everyman/Everywoman;EX,Explorer;HE,Hero;IN,Innocent;JE,Jester;LO,Lover;MG,Magician;
OU,Outlaw;RU,Ruler;SG,Sage;SH,Shadow.
another, and at other times moderately correlated. Nominations ‘‘CaringandLoyal,”‘‘StrivingandDriven”,and‘‘AverageandInde-
for the Ruler and the Hero overlapped appreciably, r(154)=.35, pendent.” Table 5 shows the rotated loadings for the five-factor
p<.001, as did those for the Magician and Sage, r(154)=.48, solution,whichappearedmostencompassinginincludingtheori-
p<.001. That is, two particular archetypes (e.g., Magician and ginalarchetypes.
Sage)wereoftennominatedhighlyforthesameitems,suggesting
that they shared some characteristic similarities. The remaining 6.2.3.ConstructionoftheRCAS
pairsofarchetypes,however,hadlowerrelationships;i.e.,between Inordertotesthowpeoplerespondtoarchetypesinrichcul-
r=(cid:2).2and.2,suchastheLoverandCreator,r(154)=(cid:2).09,ns,or ture media, it was necessary to collect clear examples of arche-
theSageandExplorer,r(154)=.06,ns. types into a scale. Study 1 provided detailed information
Thecorrelationmatrixsupportsideasthatboth(a)thethirteen regarding the quality of archetypal RCS; using that information,
archetypesweremostlyrepresentativeofverydifferentRCSitems, webuiltascalecalledtheRichCultureArchetypeScale(RCAS).
and(b)thatsomearchetypesaremoreinterrelatedthanothers.An Thereweretwomaincriteriaforitemselection:(a)representa-
exploratory factor analysis provided a more detailed look at this tivenessofthearchetype(i.e.,itemswiththehighestrawnumber
latternotion.Principlecomponentsanalysisyieldedinitialeigen- of nominations for a particular archetype were usually selected;
values (2.1, 1.9, 1.4, 1.3, 1.2, 1.0, and 0.9) and an accompanying see individual cell totals in Table 2), and (b) distinctiveness (i.e.,
screeplotsuggestingthatthearchetypesmightclusteronfouror itemswiththelargestdifferencebetweenthehighest-nominated
five factors. When these factors were varimax-rotated, the four- category and the second-highest-nominated category were pre-
andfive-factorsolutionsexplained51.5%and60.4%ofthevariance, ferred;comparetocelltotalsofothercolumnsinTable2).Thefirst
respectively. Rotated solutions for both models indicated arche- criterionwas regarded as the most important. Using these selec-
typeclustersforcharacterswhowere‘‘KnowingandConstructive,” tion criteria, two items in each medium (music, movies, and art)
Author's personal copy
314 M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322
Table5
Study1:FactorLoadingsforafive-factorrepresentationofarchetypes(NominationFrequencies),usingaprincipalcomponentsanalysiswithvarimaxrotation.
Archetype Factor
I:Knowing&Constructive II:Caring&Loyal III:Striving&Driven IV:Conflicted&Destructive V:Average&Independent
Magician .801
Sage .776
Creator .642
Caregiver .737
Innocent .584
Jester (cid:2).488 (cid:2).429 (cid:2).486
Outlaw (cid:2).316 (cid:2).470 .382
Hero .822
Ruler .729
Shadow .840
Everyman/Everywoman .674
Explorer .653
Lover (cid:2).371 (cid:2).563
Note:Loadingsgreaterthan.5areinbold;loadingssmallerthan.3aredeleted.
thenwerechosentorepresenteachoneofthethirteenarchetypes traits,andwhethermediapreferencescanbepredictedfromarche-
intheRCAS,foraninitialtotalof78items.Fiveadditionalartstim- typesevencontrollingforthesetraits.Assuch,Study2investigated
uliwereaddedtothescale,inanticipationofpotentiallimitations twosetsofhypotheses:(a)measuringresponsivenesstoarchetypal
withfamiliarityeffectsinthatarea,resultinginatotalof83items. content,and(b)predictionsfromthatmeasurement.
Eachitemwaschosentorepresentonlyonearchetype.
AsseenintherightsideofTable3,the83itemschosenforthe 7.1.Hypothesesconcerningresponsivenesstoarchetypes
RCASdisplayed,onaverage,largedifferencesbetweenthenumber
of nominations for the archetype they were chosen to represent
Hypothesis1. Resonanceisaunitaryconstruct.
and their average number of nominations for the twelve other
archetypes,t(12)=11.82,p<.001.Forexample,thesixitemscho- Neo-archetypal theory characterizes a person’s response to an
sentorepresenttheExplorerintheRCASwerenominatedasthe archetypeasinvolvingadiffusebutpotentemotionalandspiritual
Explorer an average of 53.67 times by the participants in Study reaction(e.g.,Jung,1961–1963/1983,p.16).Tocapturesomething
1; these six items were only nominated 3.83 times on average of that overall response, the RCAS included questions examining
foreach oftheothertwelvearchetypecategories.Thisdifference participants’interest,liking,disliking,andfamiliarityforeachitem.
for each archetype indicates that the RCAS uses a manageable Wehypothesizedthattheseratingswouldcorrelatetogetherand
andconcisesetofstimulithataredistinctivelyarchetypal. approximatethestrikingexperienceofencounteringapsycholog-
ically meaningful character (cf. Maloney, 1999). This combined
6.3.DiscussionofStudy1 reactiontoanarchetypewastermed‘‘resonance.”
Hypothesis 2. General clustering patterns will be found in the
Study 1 indicated that people can reliably identify individual
archetypemeasures.
archetypes in rich culture media; specifically, in music, movies,
andclassicart.Thestudyalsoshowedthatpeoplecanagreefairly We expected the RCAS resonance scores to reveal that people
consistently on the individual archetypes the RCS items most respond to groups of archetypes similarly. For example, in Study
clearlyrepresented,evenwithminimalexplicitknowledgeofthe 1, a ‘‘Caring and Loyal” cluster of archetypes emerged consisting
archetypesthemselves.Finally,thethirteenarchetypesusedinthis of the Caregiver and the Innocent (possibly including the Lover
study were found to be sufficiently independent of each other, aswell).Weexpectedthatpeoplewouldresonatetospecificarche-
although some overlaps were suggested by participants’ patterns types,andalsotothegroupsinwhichthearchetypesclustered(as
ofcategorynomination.Whatstillisrequired,however,isadem- suggestedbythefactoranalysisinStudy1).
onstrationthatpeoplewillrespondemotionallyanddifferentially
Hypothesis 3. Archetyperesponseswillreliablydistinguishindi-
tosuchstimuli.InStudy2,weexaminewhetherindividualdiffer-
vidualdifferences.
encesoccurinresponsestoarchetypes.
Athirdhypothesiswasthatpeoplewouldexhibitreliableindi-
7.OverviewofStudy2 vidual differences as to archetype resonance. This was a particu-
larly stringent test of the theory, as the RCAS spanned multiple
People’smentalmodelsoftheworldmayinfluencetheirfeelings dissimilarmediainmusic,art, and stillshots frommovies;how-
aboutthethingstheylike.Forexample,peoplemaypreferrichcul- ever, we expected that people would recognize the archetypes
turemediathatrepresentaspecificarchetypetowhichtheyareat- acrossmediaandresonatetothemaccordingly.
tracted.Additionally,preferencesforspecificstorycharactersmay
relatetosocioemotionaltraitssuchas theBigFive(Mayer,1995, 7.2.Hypothesesconcerningpredictionsfromarchetypalresonance
2005;McAdamsetal.,2004;McCrae&Costa,1999).Recallingthat
peoplearethoughttorespondtoarchetypesbyexperiencingcogni-
Hypothesis 4. There will be gender differences in resonance to
tively-accessibleemotionssuchasfascination,interest,andsignifi-
archetypes.
cance, Study 2 examines the questions, ‘‘Do people respond to
archetypes in unique patterns?” and ‘‘Do these differences relate Jungandotherssincehimhavesuggestedthatmenandwomen
systematically to individuals’ self-identification with archetypes mightdifferentiallyrespondtocertainarchetypes.Whetherthese
and/or media preferences?” In addition, we wanted to assess differences are framed as anima/animus dynamics (Bradway,
whetherpeople’sreactionstoarchetypesrelatetotheirpersonality 1995;Brozo&Schmelzer,1997)orduetosocialgenderschemas
Author's personal copy
M.A.Faber,J.D.Mayer/JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009)307–322 315
(Archer&Lloyd,2002;Bem,1974;Diekman&Eagly,2000;Eagly, ipant’s answer sheet on a six-point Likert-type scale. The RCAS
1987), research suggests that people will respond to archetypes generallycanbecompletedin30–45min.
inafashionconsistentwithtraditionalsexroles.Thus,inthecon- Pearson-Marr Archetype Indicator (PMAI). The PMAI (Pearson &
textofthisstudy,weexpectedthatmen,relativetowomen,would Marr,2002b) contains72itemspredictingtwelvePearson arche-
respondmoretosucharchetypesastheRuler,theOutlaw,andthe types(cf.Mark&Pearson,2001).Forthisstudy,sixnewitemswere
Jesterbecause,onaverage,theywouldidentifymorestronglywith added and staggered throughout the PMAI, which otherwise ne-
power, rebellion, and certain forms of humor. Similarly, we be- glects the Shadow. Examples of the added Shadow items are,
lievedthatwomen,relativetomen,andalsoconsistentwithtradi- ‘‘Sometimes people describe me in ways I refuse to accept,” ‘‘I
tionalsex-roleconceptions,wouldrespondmoretotheCaregiver, sometimes frighten others with the ways I talk and act,” and
Lover,andInnocent,because,onaverage,theywouldidentifymore ‘‘Sometimes I really enjoy feeling a bit evil.” These six additional
stronglywiththecompassion,stability,andintimacythatcollec- itemswereintendedtomatchascloselyaspossiblethetoneand
tivelycharacterizethesearchetypes. formatoftheexistingPMAIstatements,andall78oftheseself-re-
portitemswereansweredonastandardfive-pointLikertscale.
Hypothesis5. TheRCASwillrelatemoderatelytootherarchetype
Perceivedsimilarity.Participantsweregivenanalphabetizedlist
measures.
ofthe13archetypesandtheirdefinitions(seeTable1)andasked,
Our fifth hypothesis was that a person’s resonance to one or ‘‘Pleaseratehowsimilaryouaretothisarchetype,”onascaleof1–
morearchetypeswouldcorrelatewithhisorherself-reportedlife 7,where1was‘‘Notatallsimilar”and7was‘‘Extremelysimilar.”
themes,asindicatedbothbyapre-existingscaleofarchetypes(the Big Five descriptors. These 100 unipolar personality markers
Pearson-MarrArchetypeIndicator[PMAI];Pearson&Marr,2002b) developed byGoldberg(1992)measurepersonalitytraitsaccord-
andself-judgedsimilaritytothevariousarchetypesastheywere ing to the taxonomic organization of the Big Five, and responses
definedbytheinvestigators. to each trait adjective are reported on a nine-point Likert-type
scale.(Asecond,muchbrieferBigFivescalewasalsoadministered
Hypothesis 6. Archetype resonance will relate to entertainment
inthestudy,butdroppedfromtheanalysesbecauseitwasdeter-
preferences.
minedtoberedundant.)
Archetypes often are said to exist in artistic works (Mark & Entertainment Preferences Questionnaire (modified; EntPQ). The
Pearson,2001).Wewereconcernedwithwhetherarchetypereso- Entertainment Preferences Questionnaire (Rentfrow, 2004) is an
nance would predict people’s preferences for groups of leisure unpublished scale, which requests participants to rate, on an
activities, and in particular, their preference for certain genres of eight-pointLikert-typescale,theirleveloflikingforanumberofgen-
mediathat,arguably,emphasizedifferentarchetypes.Totestthis, resinmassculture,suchas‘‘Folk”and‘‘Rap/hip-hop”(music),‘‘Busi-
the RCAS was correlated with a modified scale of entertainment ness”and‘‘Fiction&literature”(booksandmagazines),‘‘Action”and
preferencesbyRentfrow(2004). ‘‘Romance”(movies),and‘‘Reality”and‘‘Soapoperas”(television).
Several modifications to the original Entertainment Preferences
Hypothesis7. Archetypeswillcorrelatewithpersonalitytraits.
Questionnaireweremade:forexample,thegenres‘‘Hardcore”and
Onewaytothinkaboutarchetypalstorycharactersisthateach ‘‘Industrial”wereaddedtothemusicsection,andanentirelynew
canbedefinedasaprofileoftraits.Forexample,Jestersmightdis- sectiononclassicartwasadded,witheighteencategoriesranging
play high extraversion but low conscientiousness, while Creators from‘‘Prehistoric/Neolithic”to‘‘Modernphotography.”
maybehighinopennesstoexperience.Assumingthatpeopleres- Demographic questions. Finally, three general questions were
onatetoarchetypessimilartothemselves,ourfinalhypothesispre- asked regarding each participant’s gender, age, and academic
dicted that resonance to a given archetype would correlate with concentration.
participants’ownpatternsofBigFivetraits.
8.1.3.Procedure
Participantsreceivedananswersheetcontainingtheresponse
8.Study2 scalesforusewiththeitemsontheRCAS.Participantswereencour-
agedtoanswereveryitemandtoavoidglobalpre-judgmentsofthe
8.1.Methods stimuli(forexample,relyingonfriends’opinionsofmoviesthatthey
personallyhadnotseen)andinsteadtoanswerbasedontheirinitial
8.1.1.Participants impressionsofwhatspecificallywasbeingpresentedinthestudy.In
Datafrom125collegepsychologystudents(52male,73female) additiontobeinglistedatthetopoftheanswersheet,thefourpref-
wereusedinallanalyses forStudy2. AsinStudy1,studentsre- erencequestions(i.e.,interest,liking,disliking,andfamiliarity)were
ceivedexperimentalcoursecreditforparticipatinginthestudy. listednexttoeachimagetohelpparticipantskeeptheminmind
whentheywerelookingateachitem.The26selectedmusicalstim-
8.1.2.Materials uliwerepresentedinafixedorderforabouttwentysecondseach;
Thematerialsusedforanalysesinthisstudywere(a)theRCAS, participantsthenansweredthefourquestionsfortheitemafterits
(b)thePearson-MarrArchetypeIndicator(PMAI;Pearson&Marr, presentation.Followingthelastmusicitem,hardcoverbinderswere
2002b), (c) a scale of self-to-archetype judged similarity, (d) a distributedforthelast57stimuliinmoviesandart.Oncepartici-
100-itemmeasureofBigFiveunipolartraitdescriptiveadjectives pantswerefinishedwiththeitemsinthestimulibinder,theyturned
(Goldberg, 1992), and (e) a modified scale of media preferences inthebinderaswellastheiranswersheetandreceivedthe‘‘life
(Rentfrow,2004). themes”packet,whichincludedthemodifiedPMAI(Pearson&Marr,
RichCultureArchetypeScale(RCAS).TheRichCultureArchetype 2002b), the Goldberg (1992) Big Five descriptors, the modified
Scale (RCAS) developed in Study 1 consists of 83 art, music, and Entertainment Preferences Questionnaire (Rentfrow, 2004), and
movie items, representing each of 13 archetypes (see Fig. 1 and thearchetypesimilarityscale,aswellasthedemographicquestions.
AppendixAforexamplesoftheseitems).Participantswereasked
the following questions for each item: (a) How interested are 8.2.Results
you in this stimulus?, (b) How much do you like this stimulus?,
(c)Howmuchdoyoudislikethisstimulus?,and(d)Howfamiliar Study 2 was designed to assess participants’ dominant arche-
areyouwiththisstimulus?Answerswererecordedoneachpartic- typallifethemesandtocomparethesethemestotheirself-identified