Science
Human Ecology Theory represents a new paradigm for psychology and a new breed of instruments have evolved within it. From our original instrument, the Personal Ecology Profile, launched in 2002, we now have seven platforms of psychological diagnostics and development applications: The Leadership Signature Profile, Coaching Signature Profile, Human Ecology Team Role assessment, Human Ecology Recruitment Arena, Human Ecology Organisational Construct and 360 Arena.
Our instruments have now been used with over 1000 clients in the UK, Europe, North Amercia, Africa and Asia.
Our commitment to good research and evaluation is continual. We have ongoing research projects gathering and monitoring evidence of the process and impact of our instruments. Using contemporary participative research methods, our growing bank of data helps us contunually refine and improve our tools.
We publish appropriate levels of research data on the site. Below is a survey of the theoretical and methodological commitments of the PEP and some data samples.
Click here for PEP data gathered on sample popluations in various professional roles.
PSYCHOMETRC CREDENTIALS
Human Ecology tools have been developed using statistical methods to establish their reliability and validity. There are a number of unique aspects of the Human Ecology Theory that need to be understood when considering these properties:
MEASURING CHANGE NOT JUST FIXED DATA
The PEP is based on a belief that people inhabit deeply rooted self constructs, but those constructs can and may change over time. Unlike other tests, the PEP can provide not just a one off 'snapshot', but an emerging picture of the story of a person's development.
Some reliability statistical tests are therefore not applicable- such as test-retest. On other reliability measures the PEP scores within acceptable norms for statistical tests; the PEP Alpha coefficient in 2002 was 6.9 and Factor Analysis supported the independence of the seven factors analysed by the PEP.
Conclusion:
He tools tools most useful in development interventions
COMPARING AGAINST OTHERS OR AGAINST DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
Conventional tests (such as OPQ, MBTI, 16 PF, CPI, NEOPiR) compare a person with a wider population sample. This relies on large data collection to norm the population and gives results about how one person compares to another. This is useful, but the data Human Ecology is assessing is different. Human Ecology tools work by comparing the individual or group under assessment with their own self-perception, or other people's perceptions of them, in different scenarios.
So, for example, the Leadership Signature profile assesses not simply the individual's leadership style, but the posture they adopt in different leadership scenarios- such as in a team, under authority, in crisis, in negotiation etc. The validity of the assessment is created by the comparison between those different scenarios, each of which has been generated by the candidate alone.
Conclusion:
He instruments most useful in recruitment for complex roles with behaviour in different scenarios to be assessed
OBSERVER ASSESSMENTS
All Human Ecology instruments can generate observer assessments by which self assessment can be qualified and corroborated.
Conclusion:
He instruments are most useful when a high level of ownership and responsibility for personal behaviours is required.
COMMENSURATE DATA
All Human Ecology tools assess against the same categories of data, whether one is looking at an individual leader within an organisation, or the organisational culture as a whole. Because of this, the data can be stored on a single database and compared across the organisational levels, strata and divisions.
Conclusion:
He data platforms are most useful in organisations requiring a high level of internal coherence and consistency of talent management.
SOME KEY DISTINCTIVES OF HUMAN ECOLOGY TOOLS
PROJECTIVE METHOD
Psychologists have realized since the 1930’s the power of projective tests to access the deeper self. The Rorschach Ink Blot test is the most well known though there are numerous others. However it has always proved difficult to get reliable results from such tests. The PEP has created a solution to this problem by integrating its unique projective technique with its unique structured questionnaire.
VISUALISATION
Other profiles return their findings solely by a written or diagramatic behavioural report. Such reports are often dry and, whilst they may be accurate if honestly filled in, may prove of less value in enabling life change and development. This is because we often only change our behaviour if we can visualise different possible behaviours. The PEP creates a way to do just that- visualising both yourself as you are and yourself as you could be. Drawing on cognition theories and metaphor therapy the PEP engages the emotions and helps people move beyond ideas to sight and then action.
RECENT THEORY
The PEP is based upon its own unique constructionist psychological theory developed through research at Oxford University. This draws on recent advances in psychological understanding of personality and other areas. Important notions such as self-expansion, self-presentation, attachment theory and cognition inform the underlying PEP model. It supports a comprehensive new personality theory. This theory unpacks the difference between the two ‘selves’ in any individual- the front stage and the back stage; enables understanding of psychological strategies an individual uses; predicts responses to stress; opens up choices and possibilities for change; highlights hidden unconscious issues and obstacles
THE FOLLOWING TEXTS REPRESENT A SELECT SAMPLE OF THE RESEARCH LITERATURE WHICH HAS INFORMED THE PRIMARY RESEARCH FOR THE PEP:
Altman, et al. in Walsh W.B., K.H.Craik and Price, R.H., eds. Person-Environment Psychology: Models and Perspectives, Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum, 1992
Bochner, A.P, Ellis. C. and Tillmann-Healy L.M., Relationships as Stories, In Duck. S.W. ed. A Handbook of Personal Relationships, John Wiley and Sons, 1997
Baumeister, R.F and Leary, M.R., The need to belong, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529
Baumeister R.F, Smart L., and Boden J.M, Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self esteem, Psychological review, 103, 5-33
Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L.M., (1991), Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four category model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244,
Bowlby, J., Attachment and Loss, Vol 1, 1969, Vol 2, 1973, Vol 3, 1980, New York, basic Books
Carlsen, M-B, Meaning Making: Therapeutic Processes in Adult Development, New York, Norton and Co, Inc.1988,
Duck, S.W. Meaningful Relationships: Talking Sense and Relating. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage 1994
Grove, David, J., and Panzer, Bazil, Resolving Traumatic Memories: Metaphors and Symbols in Psychotherapy, Irvington, New York, 1989
Gergen, Kenneth,The Saturated Self : Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life, New York: Basic Books, 1990
Goffman, E., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, 1959
Jones, E.E. and Pittman T.S. Toward a General theory of Self presentation in Suls. J (ed.) Psyhcological Perspectives on the Self, Hillsdale, N.J. Erlbaum, 1982
Johnson, J, (1981),The ‘Self-Disclosure’ and ‘Self-Presentational’ views of item response dynamics, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 761-769, Lawley, James and Tompkins, Penny, Metaphors in Mind, Transformation through Symbolic Modeling, The Developing Co. Press, 2000
Snyder, M., Public appearances, private realities: the psychology of self monitoring, New York Freeman, 1987
Siegelman, Ellen Y., Metaphor and Meaning in Psychotherapy, Guildford Press, London, 1990
Tetlock, P and Manstead, A, (1985), Impression management versus intra-psychic explanations, Social Psychology, Psychological review, 92, 59-77 Tice, D, et al. W (1995), When modesty prevails: differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and strangers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1120-1134
