Barbuto Jr., John E.

Bryant, Stephanie

Pennisi, Lisa

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Papers in Natural Resources Natural Resources, School of
2010
Testing the intergenerational differences in mental
boundaries
John E. Barbuto Jr.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Stephanie Bryant
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lisa Pennisi
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, lpennisi2@unl.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natrespapers
Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Management and
Policy Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Barbuto Jr., John E.; Bryant, Stephanie; and Pennisi, Lisa, "Testing the intergenerational differences in mental boundaries" (2010).
Papers in Natural Resources. 937.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natrespapers/937
Psychological Reports, 2010, 106, 2, 562-566.  © Psychological Reports 2010
DOI 10.2466/PR0.106.2.562-566 ISSN 0033-2941
1Address correspondence to J. E. Barbuto, Jr., Department of Agricultural Leadership, Edu-
cation, and Communication, Univ. of Nebraska–Lincoln, 303C Agricultural Hall, P. O. Box 
830709, Lincoln, NE 68583-0709 or e-mail (jbarbuto@unl.edu).
INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN MENTAL BOUNDARIES1
????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Summary.—382 employ????????????????????????????????????????????????-
graphic variables and organizational and interpersonal boundaries. Analysis of 
????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????
Boomers I (born 1946–1954) and Generation X (born 1965–1976) cohorts.
The s?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ????????-
es (Christenson, 1977) and, more recently, value priorities (McConatha 
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
???? ???????? ????????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ????????-
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????? ? ??????????? ???? ?????????????? ?????????????????????? ?????????
?????????????????????????????? ????? ???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??-
sion of personality unique from the traditional NEO Five Taxonomy (Mc-
Crae & Costa, 1987), termed “boundaries in the mind” (Hartmann, 1991).
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
????? ?????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????-
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????
??????????? ???? ???????????? ???????? ???? ?????????????? ???? ????????????-
???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????
self from others’ circumstances. Thick boundaries describe the tendency 
to keep distinct one’s conscious from one’s unconscious. Thick boundaries 
of the mind are characterized by holding others at a distance, valuing pri-
vacy and personal space, preference for established roles and norms, and 
dogmatic approaches to complexities.
INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES: MENTAL BOUNDARIES 563
??????? ????????????????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????????????? ???
scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hartmann, 
1991), Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Barbuto & Plummer, 1998, 2000) and 
Rorschach measures (Levin, 1986), indicating that they capture a unique 
?? ???????????????????????????????? ??? ????????????? ?????????????????-
es in mental boundaries across generational cohorts. Testing boundaries 
in the mind across generations provides an opportunity to understand 
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
erational cohorts then empirical evidence for justifying notions of “gen-
erational gaps” exists.
???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????-
?????? ???????????????? ??? ????????? ????????? ????? ????????????? ????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Boomers II (1956–1965), Generation X (1966–1980), Generation Y (1981–
1990; Eisner, 2005; Dencker, Joshi, & Martocchio, 2007).
????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
ty, conservatism, and traditional family values (Dencker, et al., 2007). Post-
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I cohort tends to self-authored values and personal development (Denck-
er, et al., 2007). The Baby Boomers II cohort tends to value competition and 
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????-
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
X cohort values emotional security, informality, independence, life bal-
ance, and entrepreneurial spirit, requiring frequent change and variety to 
??????????????????????????? ??????????????et al., 2007). This generation like-
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
valuing patriotism, physical safety and security, and technology (Denck-
er, et al., 2007). They appreciate feedback relating to performance rather 
?????????????????? ????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????? ????? ??? ??????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????
?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????-
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
dicted performance for individuals in the Baby Boomer I and II cohorts. 
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
logical traits and inferred that younger generations are more likely to chal-
lenge authority and seek greater clarity and certainty than older genera-
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????? ?????? ???????????????????????? ??? ???????????????????
Boomer I and Baby Boomer II cohorts. 
J. E. BARBUTO, JR., ET AL.564
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????? ????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????
requested, representing an approximate 45% response rate. Mean age of 
????????? ?????????????? ???????? ??????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????-
??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??????????? ???????????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ?????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
mographics (sex, date of birth) and 25 items from the Mental Boundaries 
Questionnaire (Hartmann, 1991), encompassing boundaries in the “inter-
personal” and “opinions about organizations” subscales. Sample items in-
????????????????????????????? ????????????? ???????? ???????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
???????????
The 25 Mental Boundaries items achieved an acceptable reliability 
estimate (????????????????????????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????????? ???? ??????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
?????????????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????????????? ??? ????????
estimate of the amount of variance ascribed to one common factor (Zin-
barg, Revelle, Yovel, & Li, 2005; Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009). Analysis of vari-
????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Baby Boomers II (1955–1964), Generation X (1965–1976), and Generation Y 
??????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
sample population. 
????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????-
??????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
the three generational cohorts: Generation X (?? ????????SD???????????????
Boomers I (M??????????SD?????????? ????????????? ??? ?M??????????SD??????????
????? ????????? ??? ?? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????
and produced an R2?????????Post hoc Tukey HSD and LSD ???????????????
????????????????????????? ????????????????? ???? ????????????? ??????????
?? ??????????????SE???????????p?????????
???? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??????
across three generational cohorts. Individuals representing the Baby 
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
scores than individuals representing the Generation X cohort. This dif-
?????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???? ??????
than 2%) indicates that practical implications must be very cautiously as-
sessed. This means that those generational cohorts representing Genera-
tion X might have slightly higher tendency to respect authority or estab-
INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES: MENTAL BOUNDARIES 565
lished chains of command, less likelihood of adherence to structures and 
established norms or roles, and be less likely to polarize issues (seeing 
????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
very slight tendency to respond in the opposite manner. 
?????????????????? ????????????????????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ?????
???????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????
?????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????-
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???
cohort is particularly time sensitive as this group is transitioning out of the 
?????????????? ??????? ?????? ??????????????????????????????????????-
????????????????? ???????????????? ???? ???? ?????????????? ??????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
??????????????????????????????? ??????????????????? ????????????????????-
????????????????????????????????????????????
REFERENCES
????????? ???????&???????????????? ?????? ????????????????????????????? ??????????
personality: a comparison of Hartmann’s boundaries in the mind and Jung’s psy-
chological types. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 421-436.
????????????????&????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????The Journal of Psychological Type, 54, 17-21.
????????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????????????????????????The Gerontologist, 17, 367-
374.
???????????????????? ???&? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????-
?????????????????????????Human Resources Management Review, 17, 208-220.
???????????????????? ???????????????????????SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70, 
4-15.
??????????????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ????
?????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????????????????
International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 20, 33-40.
??????????????????? Boundaries in the mind: a new psychology of personality?? ?????????
HarperCollins.
???????????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????-
???????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????-
phrenia.? ?????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????
???????????????????????????&????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????????????????-
?????????????????????????????????????????Psychological Reports, 101, 339-352.
??????????????????&??????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????
of value priorities of adults living in the U.S. Psychology: a Journal of Human Behav-
ior, 34, 27-35.
???????????????&???????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ????????????????????
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 
81-90.
J. E. BARBUTO, JR., ET AL.566
????????&??????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
genders. Social Indicators Research, 62-63, 411-435.
????????????????? ???? &? ???????????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????????????????? ???????????
?????????????????????????????????????Community, Work & Family, 11, 215-229.
?????????????&???????????????? ?????? ????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????Psychometrika, 74(1), 145-154.
???????? ???????&??????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????????
????????????????? ???????????? ??????????Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862-
877.
????????????????????????? ??????????????&????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????
McDonald’s ?
H
:
 
???????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????-
tions of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133.
Accepted March 4, 2010.


Testing the intergenerational differences in mental boundaries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnPapers in Natural Resources Natural Resources, School of2010Testing the intergenerational differences in mentalboundariesJohn E. Barbuto Jr.University of Nebraska-LincolnStephanie BryantUniversity of Nebraska - LincolnLisa PennisiUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, lpennisi2@unl.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natrespapersPart of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Management andPolicy Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Natural Resources, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Ithas been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Barbuto Jr., John E.; Bryant, Stephanie; and Pennisi, Lisa, "Testing the intergenerational differences in mental boundaries" (2010).Papers in Natural Resources. 937.https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natrespapers/937Psychological Reports, 2010, 106, 2, 562-566.  © Psychological Reports 2010DOI 10.2466/PR0.106.2.562-566 ISSN 0033-29411Address correspondence to J. E. Barbuto, Jr., Department of Agricultural Leadership, Edu-cation, and Communication, Univ. of Nebraska–Lincoln, 303C Agricultural Hall, P. O. Box 830709, Lincoln, NE 68583-0709 or e-mail (jbarbuto@unl.edu).INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN MENTAL BOUNDARIES1University of Nebraska–LincolnSummary.—382 employ -graphic variables and organizational and interpersonal boundaries. Analysis of Boomers I (born 1946–1954) and Generation X (born 1965–1976) cohorts.The s --es (Christenson, 1977) and, more recently, value priorities (McConatha ---sion of personality unique from the traditional NEO Five Taxonomy (Mc-Crae & Costa, 1987), termed “boundaries in the mind” (Hartmann, 1991).---self from others’ circumstances. Thick boundaries describe the tendency to keep distinct one’s conscious from one’s unconscious. Thick boundaries of the mind are characterized by holding others at a distance, valuing pri-vacy and personal space, preference for established roles and norms, and dogmatic approaches to complexities.INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES: MENTAL BOUNDARIES 563scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hartmann, 1991), Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Barbuto & Plummer, 1998, 2000) and Rorschach measures (Levin, 1986), indicating that they capture a unique -es in mental boundaries across generational cohorts. Testing boundaries in the mind across generations provides an opportunity to understand -erational cohorts then empirical evidence for justifying notions of “gen-erational gaps” exists.-Boomers II (1956–1965), Generation X (1966–1980), Generation Y (1981–1990; Eisner, 2005; Dencker, Joshi, & Martocchio, 2007).-ty, conservatism, and traditional family values (Dencker, et al., 2007). Post-I cohort tends to self-authored values and personal development (Denck-er, et al., 2007). The Baby Boomers II cohort tends to value competition and -X cohort values emotional security, informality, independence, life bal-ance, and entrepreneurial spirit, requiring frequent change and variety to et al., 2007). This generation like-valuing patriotism, physical safety and security, and technology (Denck-er, et al., 2007). They appreciate feedback relating to performance rather --dicted performance for individuals in the Baby Boomer I and II cohorts. -logical traits and inferred that younger generations are more likely to chal-lenge authority and seek greater clarity and certainty than older genera-Boomer I and Baby Boomer II cohorts. J. E. BARBUTO, JR., ET AL.564requested, representing an approximate 45% response rate. Mean age of --mographics (sex, date of birth) and 25 items from the Mental Boundaries Questionnaire (Hartmann, 1991), encompassing boundaries in the “inter-personal” and “opinions about organizations” subscales. Sample items in--The 25 Mental Boundaries items achieved an acceptable reliability estimate (-estimate of the amount of variance ascribed to one common factor (Zin-barg, Revelle, Yovel, & Li, 2005; Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009). Analysis of vari--Baby Boomers II (1955–1964), Generation X (1965–1976), and Generation Y sample population. -the three generational cohorts: Generation X ( SDBoomers I (M SD M SDand produced an R2 Post hoc Tukey HSD and LSD SE pacross three generational cohorts. Individuals representing the Baby scores than individuals representing the Generation X cohort. This dif-than 2%) indicates that practical implications must be very cautiously as-sessed. This means that those generational cohorts representing Genera-tion X might have slightly higher tendency to respect authority or estab-INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES: MENTAL BOUNDARIES 565lished chains of command, less likelihood of adherence to structures and established norms or roles, and be less likely to polarize issues (seeing very slight tendency to respond in the opposite manner. --cohort is particularly time sensitive as this group is transitioning out of the ---REFERENCES&personality: a comparison of Hartmann’s boundaries in the mind and Jung’s psy-chological types. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 421-436.&The Journal of Psychological Type, 54, 17-21.The Gerontologist, 17, 367-374.& -Human Resources Management Review, 17, 208-220.SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70, 4-15.International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 20, 33-40.Boundaries in the mind: a new psychology of personalityHarperCollins.--phrenia.& -Psychological Reports, 101, 339-352.&of value priorities of adults living in the U.S. Psychology: a Journal of Human Behav-ior, 34, 27-35.&across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.J. E. BARBUTO, JR., ET AL.566&genders. Social Indicators Research, 62-63, 411-435.&Community, Work & Family, 11, 215-229.&Psychometrika, 74(1), 145-154.&Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862-877.&McDonald’s H: -tions of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123-133.Accepted March 4, 2010.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1946&amp;context=natrespapers

Testing the intergenerational differences in mental boundaries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska