Social Mood Conference | Socionomics Foundation
This essay by Robert R. Prechter, Jr. originally appeared in
The Elliott Wave Theorist in October 2005.

Ascending Triangle
The chartists’ and Elliott’s ascending triangles are nearly identical in general form and implication, per Figure 12a. Edwards and Magee affirm, as did Elliott, that “they give advance notice of their intentions”18 for subsequent price movement. The main difference between the two ideas is that triangles under the Wave Principle always occur as or within corrections such as in Figure 11c, while chartists also see them in places that Elliotticians would view as epiphenomena attending normal Elliott wave development. Figure 12b is an illustration from Edwards and Magee showing a purported Ascending Triangle between dashed lines. I have added wave labels to show that this apparent form has nothing to do with an ascending triangle under the Wave Principle, either in form (it has only three subwaves) or position.

Figure 11c

Figure 12a

Figure 12b

Descending Triangle

Comments under “Ascending Triangle” pertain equally to Descending Triangles. See Figures 13a and 13b.

Figure 13a

Figure 13b

Broadening Formation
Edwards and Magee’s “broadening formation” is a general description of Elliott’s more specifically defined “expanding triangle.” Elliott’s triangle, as depicted in Figure 14a, “always occurs in a position prior to the final actionary wave in a pattern,”19 i.e., just before a top or bottom. Edwards and Magee observe the same thing about the broadening formation, which “develops most frequently in the later and more ‘excited’ stages of a Primary Bull Market.”20 Figure 14b shows a close-up of a real-life example of Elliott’s expanding triangle. Figure 14c shows its position in the larger pattern, showing that it occurred in exactly the position that Edwards and Magee (and Elliott) described. Figure 14d shows one of Edwards and Magee’s examples of a “broadening formation.” Elliott wave labels are added to show that again it occurs in the position that Elliott and Edwards and Magee described. See Figure 5-5 in Elliott Wave Principle for another real-life example.

Figure 14a

Figure 14b

Figure 14c

Figure 14d

The chartist’s rectangle is Elliott’s “sideways” correction, per Figures 15a and 15b. Chartists also see rectangles at tops and bottoms, but again these may be deemed a spurious pattern imposed upon normal wave development. An example is the apparent rectangle from February through September of 1976 shown in Figure 15c, which is properly depicted in Figure 14b as part of an expanding triangle.

Figure 15a

Figure 15b

Figure 15c

Double and Triple Tops and Bottoms
According to the chartist, these are four distinct patterns. According to an Elliottician, these are not distinct patterns at all but the occasional result of certain quantitative relationships among two or more waves near the termination of a larger wave. Supporting that conclusion are Edwards and Magee’s own words, “True Double Top and Bottoms are exceedingly rare; Triple forms are even rarer.”21 In the unusual circumstances when wave 5, C or A is relatively short and/or wave 2 or B is relatively long, the market has the appearance of a double or triple top or bottom. Figure 16a shows Elliott wave labels imposed upon Edwards and Magee’s example of a double bottom. Figure 16b does the same thing (the solid line has been added to delineate a triangle) with their example of a triple top, which is rather strained given that the peaks actually occur at three different levels.

Figure 16a

Figure 16b

Like the rectangle, “the Diamond is not a common pattern.”22 Elliotticians once again would explain this fact by saying that the diamond, which typically occurs near market tops, is an epiphenomenon attending occasional times when ending waves are clustered. Figure 17a is a graph from Edwards and Magee showing a diamond. The Elliott wave labels superimposed upon it are crystal clear. A mid-trend diamond, such as Edwards and Magee see in at least one instance, is simply a complex corrective wave such as illustrated in Figure 17b, from Elliott Wave Principle.

Figure 17a

Figure 17b

Falling or Rising Wedge
A wedge is a formation in which “the price fluctuations are confined within converging straight (or practically straight) lines, but differing from a Triangle in that both boundary lines either slope up or slope down.”23 This general description is part of Elliott’s more specific description of a “diagonal triangle.” Figure 18a shows Elliott’s depiction of a diagonal triangle. Figure 18b shows Edwards and Magee’s example of a wedge at the end of a trend. I have added Elliott wave labels to show that Elliott’s depiction accounts for this example.

Figure 18a

Figure 18b

The appearance of a wedge intra-trend, which Edwards and Magee call a pennant, may simply outline the shape of a single, double or triple zigzag under the Wave Principle. Figure 18c is from Edwards and Magee, with Elliott wave labels added to reveal a triple zigzag.

Figure 18c


A flag “looks like a flag on the chart…. It might be described as a small, compact parallelogram of price fluctuations….”24 This is another example of a general form that may be imposed upon Elliott’s more specific forms. Figure 19 is a chart from Edwards and Magee, with labels added to show how well it depicts an Elliott wave. The “flag” is simply two boundary lines around a zigzag and waves 1-2, i-ii of the next advance. Most examples from Edwards and Magee are single, double or triple zigzags.

Figure 19


For a continuation of this report, read Does the Wave Principle Subsume All Valid Technical “Chart Patterns” – Part III.


18 Edwards, Robert D., and John Magee. (1996, 5th ed.). Technical Analysis of Stock Trends. Springfield, MA: John Magee, p. 102.

19 Frost, Alfred John, and Robert Prechter, Jr. (1978). Elliott Wave Principle—Key to Market Behavior. Gainesville, GA: New Classics Library, p. 51.

20 Edwards and Magee, p. 141.

21 Ibid., p. 128

22 Ibid., p. 153.

23 Ibid., p. 155.

24 Ibid., p. 169.

Socionomics InstituteThe Socionomist is a monthly online magazine designed to help readers see and capitalize on the waves of social mood that contantly occur throughout the world. It is published by the Socionomics Institute, Robert R. Prechter, president; Matt Lampert, editor-in-chief; Alyssa Hayden, editor; Alan Hall and Chuck Thompson, staff writers; Dave Allman and Pete Kendall, editorial direction; Chuck Thompson, production; Ben Hall, proofreader.

For subscription matters, contact Customer Care: Call 770-536-0309 (internationally) or 800-336-1618 (within the U.S.). Or email

We are always interested in guest submissions. Please email manuscripts and proposals to Chuck Thompson via Mailing address: P.O. Box 1618, Gainesville, Georgia, 30503, U.S.A. Phone 770-536-0309. Please consult the submission guidelines located at

For our latest offerings: Visit our website,, listing BOOKS, DVDs and more.

Correspondence is welcome, but volume of mail often precludes a reply. Whether it is a general inquiry, socionomics commentary or a research idea, you can email us at

Most economists, historians and sociologists presume that events determine society’s mood. But socionomics hypothesizes the opposite: that social mood regulates the character of social events. The events of history—such as investment booms and busts, political events, macroeconomic trends and even peace and war—are the products of a naturally occurring pattern of social-mood fluctuation. Such events, therefore, are not randomly distributed, as is commonly believed, but are in fact probabilistically predictable. Socionomics also posits that the stock market is the best available meter of a society’s aggregate mood, that news is irrelevant to social mood, and that financial and economic decision-making are fundamentally different in that financial decisions are motivated by the herding impulse while economic choices are guided by supply and demand. For more information about socionomic theory, see (1) the text, The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior © 1999, by Robert Prechter; (2) the introductory documentary History's Hidden Engine; (3) the video Toward a New Science of Social Prediction, Prechter’s 2004 speech before the London School of Economics in which he presents evidence to support his socionomic hypothesis; and (4) the Socionomics Institute’s website, At no time will the Socionomics Institute make specific recommendations about a course of action for any specific person, and at no time may a reader, caller or viewer be justified in inferring that any such advice is intended.

All contents copyright © 2022 Socionomics Institute. All rights reserved. Feel free to quote, cite or review, giving full credit. Typos and other such errors may be corrected after initial posting.