. EFFECTS OF THE .
HUMAN GROWTH GROUP PROCESS
0N S-ELF-ESTEEM ‘

. Thesis for the Degree “of M. 'A. ' _
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSH‘Y ' -
JAMES MECHAEL GOSSE

' 1874 '

THEbIS

 

IllllllllllllllllllllllHlllllllllIll!Illilllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 10418 9216

 

    
   
     

E" amomc av "7
HMS & SONS'
‘ 800K BMUERY INC.

‘ LIBRARY amoms

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF THE HUMAN GROWTH GROUP PROCESS
ON SELF-ESTEEM
by

James Michael Gosse

The examination of the Human Growth Group process was
undertaken in an attempt to establish the factors of that
process which are conducive to the enhancement of self-esteem
for group participants. The developmental stages of the
Human Growth Group were outlined along the two dimensions of
Group Structure and Task Activity. Self-esteem was presented
as a higher-order human need which manifests itself throughout
human development. and which is affected by crucial factors
in infant dependency. language acquisition. peer-group
relations. and self-evaluation. Special emphasis was placed
on the parallels between the developmental stages of the
group process and the development of self-esteem. as a means
of demonstrating how process-learning facilitates the

enhancement of self-esteem.

As experimental support for the theoretical conclusions
derived from a review of the literature. data from three
Human Growth Groups and a control group were introduced.
These data were in the form of participant self-reports on a
scale of group behavioral goals as well as self-reports on
self-esteem. Facilitator observations augmented participant
self-reports.

The conclusions from this combined theoretical and
experimental approach were that the Human Growth Group
process, in an effectively functioning goal-oriented group,
can facilitate the enhancement of self-esteem by simulating
interpersonal social conditions which are crucial to the

development of self-esteem.

EFFECTS OF THE
HUMAN GROWTH GROUP PROCESS
ON SELF-ESTEEM

by

James Michael Gosse

A Thesis

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Educational Psychology

1974

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background of Theory and Research . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . .

Definition of the Human Growth Group . . . . .

QQQWUH

Theoretical Foundations of the Group . . . . .

Group Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lb
Definition of Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . 31

Origins of Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Factors Contributing to Self-Esteem . . . . . #0
Manifestations of Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . 45
Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

III. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

THE PROBLEM

Our society is characterized by a relatively high level
of basic need satisfaction. The basic human needs for food.
water. shelter. and safety are not emergent problems for most
individuals. as most of these requirements of life are provided
through Job specialization in a fairly wealthy nation. On
the other hand. our society is also characterized by a somewhat
lower level of satisfaction of such human needs as belongingness.
love. and esteem. described by Haslow (1970) as higher-order
needs which can only be met once the basic needs are satisfied.
Therefore. since our basic needs are fairly well met. these
higher-order needs begin to emerge and require fulfillment.

However. while our basic needs for food. shelter. and
safety are met through a highly organized. technological
society. our ability to satisfy higheruorder needs is much less
developed. We have not been able to provide for a person's
sense of well-being. of worth. of being loved. as we have for
his physical body. The rapidly growing numbers of people who
have turned to group therapy-like experiences (Slum. 1970) is
an indication perhaps. of the attempt on a large scale to
meet higher-order needs. If this is the case. more must be
learned about the way in which these experiences are able to

provide satisfaction of higher-order needs such as esteem.

-2-

In view of the large numbers of people who are seeking
help through the group setting. our old methods for solving
interpersonal concerns are becoming inadequate. The limited
client capacity of therapeutic processes which involve a
one-client-to-one-therapist technique is unable to accomodate
the numbers of people seeking help. Moreover. this medical
model (Szasz. 1961) does not make use of a vast resource.
which is the inherent healing capacity which most humans
possess and are able to apply to one another. even as they
work toward solution of their own problems in living (Szasz. 1970).
A more appropriate. and likewise economical procedure presents
itself in the form of human growth groups which can simulate
the social conditions of everyday life and call upon the
powerful forces of the social group to reinforce and legitimise
conclusions about a person's relationship to his social world.

Learning to satisfy the need for esteem is a task
particularly well-suited to the social environment of the
Human Growth Group. for the issues of self-acceptance. belonging.
and an awareness of common human characteristics are in prime
focus. The group can become a source of self-esteem through
the creation of an environment in which people can learn to C
develop and cultivate self-esteem in their interactions with

other human beings.

STATEMENZ 9P PURPOSE

The purpose of this thesis is three-fold:

1) To examine the Human Growth Group process in some of its
forms by describing its origins. underlying principles.

developmental sequence. and procedures;

2) To examine the concept of Self-Esteem through study of
its origins in human development. the critical factors
which contribute to self-esteem. and its manifestations

in adult life:

3) To determine. through theoretical as well as experimental
methods. how the Human Growth Group process is related to
the conditions which help people improve their ability to

satisfy the need for self-esteem.

BQCKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH

This thesis involves the intersection of the theoretical
concept of self-esteem as it relates to human needs. with the
Human Growth Group process as a means for dealing with need-

gratification through learning. It also attempts to utilise

-b-

an experimental design which enlists the assistance of group
participants in the generating of data about the group process
and its effects through subjective self-reports.

Our examination of the Human Growth Group process will
focus upon the types of group formats. procedures. and
processes which are described by Carl Rogers. Gerard Egan.
Eugene Gendlin. and Bruce Tuckman. Special emphasis will be
placed upon the relatively non-structured. facilitator-led.
goal-oriented group process and the sequence of develop-
mental stages through which this process evolves.

As a theoretical foundation for the examination of the
concept of self-esteem. we shall rely primarily upon the
work of Stanley Coopersmith. Abraham Haslow. Nathaniel
Branden. Snell and Gail Putney. and Erik Erikson. From
these and several other sources will be developed a concept-
ualization of the origins. contributing factors. and
manifestations of self-esteem.

The theoretical framework for the experimental obser-
vation of the effects of the Human Growth Group process on
self-esteem is based upon a model proposed by Carl Rogers.

In this model. group participants are enlisted as co-
experimenters in the discovery of the dynamics of the group
process. The generation of data will be accomplished through
collection of subjective self-reports from group participants
and co-facilitators. rather than by the more common method

-5-

of measuring by empirical means only the observable_behaviors
of subjects who are assumed to be naive and unbiased. This
model will focus more upon the phenomenological events in

the participants lives as they experience the group process.

CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

DEFINITION OF 2;; HUMAN GROWTH GROUP

The Human Growth Group has been labelled as such in
order to retain some distinctions between this particular
process and a wide variety of other formats which go by such
names as 'T-groups”. “sensitivity groups”. “encounter groups".
”marathon groups”. ”training laboratories". “experiential
groups“. ”psycho-drama”. “reconditioning groups“. ”supportive
groups”. and most certainly. ”therapy groups”. This is not
to say that the Human Growth Group does not have features
in common with some of the formats named above: it is simply
an attempt to divest ourselves of erroneous connotations
derived from employing over-used and under-defined labels.
In this chapter. we will encounter terminology which is
common to many forms of groups as well as to other contexts.
In order to minimize confusion. the following brief definitions
of the basic terms and concepts used in this study are offered:

Human Growth Group: Approximately five to ten people who meet
on a regular basis with one or two facilitators. with the
purpose of exploring their methods of interacting and of
experimenting with new methods so that they may grow in

the area of self-awareness.

-7-

Facilitator: A person trained in the group process: he/she
functions as a model for group process behavior. as a
processor. and as a referee in the event that group

dynamics begin to diverge from intended goals and contracts.

Interaction: The basic experiential material for the Human
Growth Group. It is the real. primary experiencing of
one another. either through verbal or non-verbal means.
It is also the closest parallel to day-to-day social

experience outside the group.

Behavior: In the broad. general usage of the word - overt
actions: bodily movements. verbalising. facial expressions:
or covert actions: attitudes. silence. non-attendance

or withdrawal.

Group Process: The behaviors through which the small group
attains growth in self-awareness: they include such
behaviors as self-disclosure. giving feedback. striving
toward honesty in interactions. confrontation. setting

goals. and making contracts for behavior.

Fbedback: A form of group communications in which the group
provides a participant with reactions to his/her behavior.
Feedback entails feelings. impressions. and.attitudes

which group members have toward one another as they

.3-

experience one another during an interaction.

Contract: A series of group-developed rules that is intended
to make the group operative and to give it direction: the
participants agree. either explicitly or implicitly. to
follow these rules in order to achieve the purposes of
the group.

Goal: A behavior. attitude. ability. or outcome which a
participant. facilitator. or entire group is seeking to
achieve: goals can be expressed or can remain private

to the participant.

TREORETICAE ZQUNDATIQNS OF THE GROUP

The prime function of the group is to provide the
participant with the opportunity to actively contribute to
an environment where he and others can learn about the
subjective phenomena present in his life - his feelings.
behavioral styles. needs. and methods of'establishing his
interpersonal relationships. we will focus on the setting -
the group - and upon the purpose - learning about the
subjective self - before going on to the actual description

of the group process.

.9-

The Setting of the Human Growth Group
The Human Growth Group has some very clear differences

from other settings in which learning is meant to take place.
It differs from the authoritative didactic setting to the
extent that the participants themselves assume the responsibility
for providing leadership. direction. and material for
exploration. rather than relying upon a leader or teacher.
The assumption which makes this format appropriate is that
the individual member is the best possible source of knowledge
about himself. and the only person who can present his feelings.
behaviors. and needs to the group. The participant determines
at what point he will venture to share his feelings and
reveal his needs. while helping to create an atmosphere of
trust and support for fellow group members who are similarly
involved in sharing. As observed by Seashore (1972. p.56).
“Each participant is responsible for his own learning. What
a person learns depends upon his own style. readiness. and
the relationships he develops with other members of the group'.
The facilitator's role. then. necessarily becomes one of
modeling. helping to maintain boundaries and group-established
contracts. and of helping the group to process their interactions.
rather than one of teaching.

The group setting differs from the one-to-one. counselor-
to-client setting in that the “client“ in a group is immersed
in a social milieu. This situation is most closely representative

-10-

of his day-to-day existence in which he will ostensibly
practice what he learns about himself in the group. Thus.
the group is not only a familiar. and - hopefully - comfortable.
background for learning. but it is a necessary source of
information. The feedback offered by the group members to
one another carries with it the opportunity for immediate
testing of the assumptions about one's own methods of
interacting. Current social-psychological theory has demonstrated
the enormously powerful capacity of the social group for
reinforcing or for producing change in attitudes. which consist
not only of cognitive (objective) components. but also of
affective (subjective) components not readily available to
the didactic setting (Hollander and Hunt. 1971).

The Human Growth Group setting is also particularly
well-suited to the task of establishing and mmdntaining its
can norms for behavior. Once the group is able to define and
operationalize its goals and contracts. it is the responsibility
of all of the group members to enforce the behavioral
boundaries. The phenomenon of normative behavior and its
implications for group activities has been documented extensively
by Thibaut and Kelley (1971). and will be discussed later
in the section on Group Processes.

The three characteristics of the setting - the responsibility
of the participant to provide content and leadership. the
information/feedback pool of the group. and the normative

-11-

phenomena of the social milieu - create a set of conditions

which leads to what South (1972. p.130-131) calls Process

Learning as opposed to Traditional Learning. South suggests

that some of the highlights of the process-learning approach.

vis-a-vis the traditional approach are:

1)

2)

3)

The definition of problems. deve10pment of methods for
solution. and identification of relevant information are
tasks for which the learner is primarily responsible.

with the ”teacher” acting as a resource.

The roles of student and teacher become far less important
due to a sharing of social power: the group relationships
move in the direction of a network rather than radiating
from the teacher. and therefore. much more emphasis needs

to be placed on communication for understanding. participation
at a level satisfactory for all members. and self-direction
(risk-taking).

The focus of learning entails not only external phenomena.
but also the learner's internal. subjective phenomena:

an integration of these two realms helps provide more
relevant indicants of progress. for learning can be measured
by the individual (instead of the teacher) according to

the relationships and choices he makes. and the knowledge

he seeks.

Thus. the group setting as an appropriate place for

learning is established: it provides its own direction. its

-12-

own pace. its own subject matter. The lessons imparted by
group members to one another are reinforced by the very fact
that they are offered by real people living real lives while
in the group. Just what is meant to be learned is the subject

of the following section.

The Purpose of the Human Growth Group
The primary purpose of the Human Growth Group is to help

an individual learn about himself. He is in an uncommon position
to encounter others with a minimum of interference from.defensive
behavior. and to process the interactions in such a way that

he will come to better understand how and why he interacts

in a particular manner. and to learn how others perceive.

react to. and feel about him.

This kind of learning is well-suited to a small group
because of the opportunity for experimenting with interaction
behavior. The group functions as a mirror. reflecting back
to the participant a perspective of himself not often available
outside this special setting. By presenting himself to the
group as honestly as he can. the person contributes data about
himself. The participant quite often is not cognitively
aware of many of his behaviors. and by demonstrating them
to the group in real situations. he allows these behaviors to
be made the subject of feedback. Such information is usually

unavailable to him either because few people venture to offer

-13-

direct. honest feedback about his interaction behaviors. or
because he is not actively attuned to messages others give
him about his behavior.

However. the giving and receiving of feedback about
interaction behavior is not a sufficient condition for learning.
Gagne (1970) has demonstrated that the participant must begin
with at least some level of motivation to attain a different
capability for performance. The different capability might
involve becoming a more effective listener. or speaker. or
to be able to express feelings with less fear of being
vulnerable or of being considered weak or odd. The desire
for better communication skills may involve a belief that
increased quality of communications with other people will
lead to a happier existence: or the participant may feel
that he is functioning. as a person. at only a fraction of
his potential. and that he may become what Rogers (1961)
calls a ”more fully functioning". or “actualized” person as
a result of learning about his interaction behaviors.

The belief or need of the participant helps determine
what it is that the person can learn from.a small group
experience. In his article. ”Purpose and Process in Groups”.
Herbert Thelen (1972. p.15-16) proposes this summary of the
Purposes of the small group and the way in which the group
member is related to that purpose:

”...the purpose of the group. ... is to move toward

-1u-

the fulfillment of implicit and explicit purposes
held for the group and for themselves by each in-
dividual in his capacity as a member of the group.
This definition is cast to call our attention to
several facts about groups: (a) members have
different purposes. hopes. expectations. and wishes.
depending on their different ways of life -
identifications. loyalties and values: (b) the
purposes. wishes. etc.. exist in different degrees
of awareness in the minds of the members: (c) the
purposes of a member respect both the changes he
would like to make in himself but also those he
thinks others ought to make: (d) within the life-
style of each person. only certain of the purposes
(or only certain ways of achieving the purposes)
are legitimate ingredients in the negotiations of
the group: and (e) each person must accept
responsibility for defining what being a member or
developing membership in the group is to mean to
him.”

The process by which this learning can be facilitated

in the group setting is the topic of the following section.

GROUP PROCESS

In the two preceding sections on Group Function. the
theoretical framework of the group was developed through a
description of the group setting and subject of learning.
Within this framework there are specific activities. phases
ofidevelopment. and of course - human beings. all operating
in a unique interaction that produces the Human Growth Group
experience. The purpose of this section will be to describe
the activities and developmental phases which have been found
tO recur in small groups. hopefully with some insight into

-15-

the reasons why people tend to follow this pattern. A special
attempt will be made to identify the kind of learning which
occurs at each stage. as a means of introducing the integration
of the Human Growth Group process with the concept of self-esteem.
For the overlying structure of this section. we will
adopt the approach of Bruce Tuckman (1972). who has conceptual-
ized the developmental sequence of the small group as a function
of two parallel realms: l) the realm of Group Structure.
or the pattern of interpersonal relationships within the
group: and 2) the realm of Task Activity. or the content of
interaction as it relates to the purpose of the group. This
model is supported by the social-psychological theories of
8.3. Cattell (Shaw and Costanzo. 1970). who saw basic parallels
between the characteristics of group behavior and that of
individual behavior. In his theory. Cattell proposes the
concept of synergy - the sum total of the group members'
energy as applied to the existence of the group. He divided
this sum of energy into two portions - group maintenance
synergy and effective synergy - which correspond to Tuckman's
categories of Group Structure and Task Activity. respectively.
Group maintenance synergy is that portion of the total group
energy which is exerted in dealing with conflict and cohesion
(Group Structure): effective synergy is that portion of
group energy exerted in behalf of the stated goals of the

group (Task Activity). once its cohesion is assured.

-16-

Through this model. we will examine the sequence of
behaviors which generally characterizes a Human Growth Group.
moving from the initial phase of acquaintance and disorder.
through group conflict. to cohesion. and finally to fruition.

Lest we become overly concerned with a mechanical flow
of specific developmental stages and events. it is important
to note an observation made by Carl Rogers (1967. p.263)
while observing the irregular movement of groups toward

their stated goals:

”...I believe that I see some threads which weave
in and out of the pattern. Some of these trends
or tendencies are likely to appear early and some
later in the group sessions. but there is no
clear-cut sequence in which one ends and another
begins. The interaction is best thought of. I
believe. as a varied tapestry. differing from
group to group. yet with certain kinds of trends
evident in most of these intensive encounters and
with certain patterns tending to precede and
others to follow.”

With this word of caution. let us move ahead to explore
the first stage. Tuckman proposes as the first stages under
Group Structure and Task Activity. respectively: Testing
and Dependence. and Orientation to Task. Let us look first

at Testing and Dependence. the social interaction of the group.

Group Structure in Stggngne: Testing and Dependence
This is the stage during which the group first comes

together: group maintenance synergy is directed toward

establishing some group identity where none existed previously.

-17-

Since the group members have not yet been sufficiently exposed

to process-learning. there is an attempt by the members

to express their dependency needs by reverting to the traditional-
learning approach in which the facilitator is given the

authority to establish structure. This serves the dual purpose

of maintaining a safe. unobtrusive posture for each member

in a strange setting. and of testing the facilitator and

separate individuals. though they act in a common attempt

to thrust responsibility for structure upon the authority-

figure.

Carl Rogers (1969) terms this period of testing and
dependence. “milling around“. The group searches disjointedly
for an agenda. for introductions. for topics - for leadership.
The facilitator in turn presents the format. or ground rules.
in which the members are declared his equal in setting the
agenda. This perceived shirking of responsibility by the
facilitator usually leads to frustration on the part of
the participants. In the process of setting limits on his
own behaviors. the facilitator moves the group into the
first area of Task Activity. described by Tuckman as
Orientation.

Task Activitl in Stage One: Qgientation
During Stage One group synergy is directed at overcoming

the discomfort felt by members while establishing goals and

-18-

boundaries. There are mixed views on the value of allowing
the group to mill around during this period.

Gerard Egan (1973) feels very strongly that ”milling
around" is appropriate to a group whose purpose is to search
for goals: however. he does not feel it is appropriate if
the purpose is to help members improve their interpersonal
skills. As a means of orientation. he favors the presentation
of explicit goals. since he believes that other. concealed
goals will be substituted without the benefit of full
understanding or acceptance by the group. The following is
an example of a set of explicit goals which are presented
to a small group as a prelude to their actual participation
in the group (Thomas. 1971. p.60):

1. To increase each person's understanding of:

a. Ways he sends messages - how others see his actions
differently from the way he sees them.

b. His tendency to misread other people's behavior.

c. How feelings influence behavior - his own as well as
the behavior of others.

d. His silent assumptions (those he has been unaware of)
that give rise to his feelings about other people's
actions.

2. To increase each person's skill in:

a. Understanding the feelings and ideas of others: using
skillful checking responses to decrease damaging
misunderstandings.

b. Communicating his own feelings and ideas in ways that
are maximally informative and minimally hurtful to others.

c. Dealing with conflict and misunderstanding.

In order to operationalize the goals suggested by the
facilitator. Egan encourages the use of a contract. or set

of behavioral guidelines which will serve to create an

-19-

external authority to which all members. including the
facilitator. can appeal in the event that the group begins

to diverge from its stated goals. The contract specifies

each goal which the group chooses to adopt. and the procedural
rules which serve to operationalize behavior. Egan (1973. p.29-
30) suggests as procedural rules:

1. Initiative. Don't merely react to others: don't wait to
be contacted by others. Take the initiative. reach out.
contact others.

2. Genuineness. Be yourself. Don't be phoney. don't hide
e n ro es and facades. ... or play interpersonal games
with the members of the group. Whatever you do. do it
genuinely and sincerely.

3. Concreteness. Be direct. concrete. and specific in your
interactions. Avoid speaking about generalities and
abstractions and theory. Speak about behavior - yours and
that of other members.

#. Spgak to Epdividuals. As a general rule. speak to
n v ua mem ers rather than to the entire group.
... a major goal is to develop individual relationships.

5. ”Own” the Interactions of Others. Part of taking initiative
is "owning‘ tfie interactions of others. ...when two people
speak to each other. it is not just a private interaction.
Other participants may and should ... contribute their own
thoughts and feelings when they are deemed appropriate.

6. Speak for Yourself. Avoid using the word ”we”. When you
use "we". you speak for the group. and you should. generally
speak for yourself. The word ”we" tends to polarize: it
sets the person spoken to off from the group. ...when
you are speaking for yourself. use the pronoun ”I” rather
than less immediate and distancing substitutes - ”we".
”you”. "one". "people”.

7. Be It in the Grou . As much as possible ... say what
you mean wEIIe In the group.

8. The Here-and-Now. Deal with the here-and-now. When you
a on gs that are happening or have happened

-20-

in the past outside the group. do so only if what you

are saying can be made relevant to your interaction with
these people in this group. The there-and-then can prove
ERIE; boring evefi—fifien it takes the form of analyzing
past interactions of the group.

In contrast to this fairly structured. facilitator-
dominated approach to orientation. there is a far less
structured method of working through the task of establishing
goals. Ragers (1970) suggests allowing the group members to
discover their own goals. This method can be expected to
take more time. to generate more frustration with the
facilitator. and possibly to produce goals which are not
commonly accepted or agreed upon. However. its proponents
believe that these goals are more meaningful to the individual.
having been developed out of the individual member's own
needs.

A middle ground between explicit goal and contract
formulation in which the facilitator plays a dominant role.
and the non-directive approach. is offered by Gendlin (1972)
who proposes the use of Ground Rules. Special emphasis is
placed upon the tentative nature of these ground rules.
which require member endorsement to become operational. These
ground rules consist of basic assumptions regarding each
member's right to be in the group. the purpose of making
contact with one another. the value of honesty and listening.
and confidentiality. It then becomes the task of the group

to operationalize these assumptions or rules in a way which

-21-

is of their own choosing. as long as they do not increase
the leader's responsibilities beyond the two functions of
protecting the belonging of every member and of protecting

their being heard.
Of particular relevance to the question of the leadership

role of a facilitator during the early stages of Testing and
Dependence. and of Orientation. is Gendlin's ground rule of
realism: “If we know things are a certain way. we do not
pretend they are not that way”. According to Gordon (1972)
the group members begin by placing the facilitator in the role
of a leader. and it is difficult to pretend otherwise. As

the group begins to deal with. and hopefully overcome. their
dependency needs - thus becoming more self-directing - the
facilitator loses his leadership role to the group.

Attempts to actively control group direction run the
risk of stunting the group's ability to become self-directing:
attempts to deny any form of leadership role can produce
undue amounts of frustration by ignoring reality. In either
approach. it appears that the facilitator's role carries with
it an unavoidable amount of influence which weights his
behaviors - the group perceives extremes as it learns to
adjust to the process-learning approach. Therefore. leading
can be perceived as dominating. and non-direction can be
perceived as non-support. Perhaps the most valuable function

which the facilitator can serve in Stage One is to help members

-22-

become aware of the ways in which they express their dependency
needs. needs for orderly structure. and for otherndirected

rather than self-directed behavior.

Group Structure in Stage Two: Iptrggroup Conflict

Once the process-learning format has been presented.
and the expectations as well as opportunities for group
members have become more clear. there occurs a phenomenon
which characterizes the second stage of group development -
intra-group conflict. One way in which to explain this
phenomenon is to assume that some group members are more
willing to accept and experiment with the new learning
approach. while others respond more cautiously and resist
the perceived dangers in an unstructured environment (Tuckman.
1972). Progress appears to stall due to lack of agreement
over procedure. One faction desires to engage in self-
disclosure. probing behavior. and even presumes to take on
the leadership function which has been offered by the facilitator.
The other. more cautious. faction desires to refrain from
immediate self-disclosure. resists probing. and resents the
abdication of power by the group leader as well as the
assumption of power by the first faction.

Another possible source of this conflict behavior is
the level of frustration aroused by. and originally focused

upon. the facilitator who first presented the process-

-23-

learning format. As some group members propose more structure.
or as others propose acceptance of relative non-structure.
each faction takes upon itself some of the responsibility
for giving the group some direction (a leadership function)
and are met with the hostility which their opponents still
feel toward the original ”leader”.

A third possible explanation for the hostility and
conflict which dominates the Group Structure during the
second stage is that the group members are engaging in a
form of social aggression similar to that observed in
lower animal forms by Konrad Lorenz (1969). The group
members are. in effect. in the process of establishing
psychological "territories”. and in order to create bound-
aries which feel safe. they engage in a ritual of testing
one another's psychological aggressive strength. The
territory has as its base the person's safest posture. which
is non-disclosure. The member is. initially. least likely
to elicit hostility if he does not venture forth from his
base. On the other hand. by being assertive and exhibiting
psychological strength through risk-taking and self-disclosure.
another member poses a threat to the more anxious members
by encroaching upon their territory. and is met with hostility.

Whatever the reasons for the intragroup conflict. it
involves the participants in social interactions. thus

producing subject matter. or content. for future processing.

-zu-

This content characterizes the Task-Activity of Stage two.

Task-Activity in Sppge Two: Emotional Resppnse to Task Demands

Occurring simultaneously with the intragroup conflict
is the emotional response to the task demands. The realm
of Group Structure is difficult to distinguish from the
realm.of Task-Activity. as members are exhibiting hostility
toward.one another as well as toward the task. Progress
in task-activity precedes at an extremely slow pace during
Stage Two. as the effective synergy which energizes task-
activity is channelled back into maintenance synergy. as
the group attempts to deal with intragroup conflict.

Rogers (1970. p.16-18) describes group process behaviors
which are representative of this Stage Two Task-Activity:
1) esistance to Personal Ex e ion or lo tion: Rogers
quotes one group participant's reactions to the task-demand
of self-disclosure:

“There is a self which I present to the world and

another one which I know more intimately. With

others I try to appear able. knowing. unruffled.

problempfree. To substantiate this image I will

act in a way which at the time or later seems

false or artificial or 'not the real me'. Or I

will keep to myself thoughts which if expressed

would reveal an imperfect me."
This resistance is typical of the more dependent participant
described earlier. He might be expected to conflict with the

more probing and self-disclosing member.

-25-

2) Description of Past Feelings: This is a more subtle form
of resistance to self-disclosure. in that it deals with
feelings which are entirely removed from the group experience.
The effect of this ”story-telling" approach to self-disclosure
is that it maintains distance between speaker and listeners.
by not allowing them to be a part of those feelings.

3) Expression of Negative Feelgpgp: Rogers sees this form of
expression as the first attempt at here-and-now feelings..
albeit safer than the expression of positive feelings. which
are always vulnerable to rejection. By reacting negatively

to the immediate task and other members. the person tests

the freedom.and safety of the group by observing the punishment
and/or support he receives for his statements.

During Stage Two. then. the social interactions and
reactions to the task demands are characterized by hostility
and conflict. The learning which is available to the group
participants is directly related to their own expression
of hostility. to their being the recipient of hostility.
and in being introduced to the processing of conflict
interactions. The facilitator as well as other group members
observe the conflict-behavior and share with each other
their feelings about the conflict. their perceptions of one
another. and their insights into their own behavior during
this stage.

-26..

Group Structure in Stage Three: Development of Group Cohesion
Immediately following the period of Intragroup Conflict.

 

the small group develops a cohesive direction in its
interpersonal relationships. In his review of relevant
studies. Tuckman (1972) cites unanimous concurrence in this
observation of group cohesion following the period of Intra-
group Conflict. The reasons for this phenomenon appear to
bear upon the individual group member's realization that

the group. as it has progressed and developed to this point.
is partly a result of his own efforts - some of which were
painful ones. to be sure. Boundaries have been tested:

the process-learning orientation has become more acceptable
through testing and experimenting: fears about self-disclosure
as well as some basic expectations have been expressed by
the participants. The group knows itself better and is
beginning to feel comfortable. From this initial relaxation
of hostility comes the recognition that the participant

can engage in much more risk-taking and can trust the group
not to punish him when he is allowing himself to be more
vulnerable. With the group relationships in fairly stable
order. some of the maintenance synergy can be re-channelled
back into effective synergy. and the group task can be

resumed.

-27-

Task-Activity in Stgge Three: Open Excpgpge of Relevant
Interpretation

The immediate impact of this new-found sense of group
cohesion upon Task-Activity is that it accelerates and
becomes centered around actual sharing of feelings. The
opportunity has arrived for participants to exchange relevant
feedback. to confront one another - this time as partners
in exploration rather than as combatants - and to reveal
more intimate. personal feelings which carry with them more
of the essense of the speaker's ”being” than have previous
messages.

Despite the presence of a general sense of group
cohesion. not all of the feedback is positive. Rogers (1970.
p.29) reminds us that the genuine negative feedback ”... can
be decidedly upsetting. but so long as these various bits
of information are fed back in the context of caring which
is developing in the group. [it] seems highly constructive“.
In cases where the feedback is more intense and delivered
with more of a sense of urgency and personal involvement.
the group engages in what Egan (1973) calls ”confrontation”.
Egan has analyzed the nature of confrontation as a specific
kind of feedback. the manner in which it can be delivered.
the potential impact which confrontation can have upon the
confrontee. and even suggests guidelines for confrontation.

Suffice it to say here that confrontation is a powerful tool

-28..

available to the small group. and must be used with a constant
awareness of its potency as a form of direct. honest feedback.
and its place in the overall Task-Activity. which is to

help one another grow in self-awareness.

Thus we have moved during Stage Three into an area
which is summarized by Rogers (1970. p.3h-35):

”... an inevitable part of the group process seems

to be that when feelings are expressed and can

be accepted in a relationship. then a great deal

of closeness and positive feeling results. Thus

as the sessions proceed. an increasing feeling of

warmth and group spirit and trust is built up. not

out of positive attitudes only but out of a realness

which includes both positive and negative feeling.”

For some. the learning which is available in the Third
Stage is a rewarding end unto itself. Learning to take
risks. to reveal feelings - positive and negative - to
become involved with another human being in direct confron-
tation out of a sense of caring and trust. are all important
lessons to be learned if one values an increased ability
to deal honestly with fellow humans and with oneself. Much
hard and sometimes painful work has been done to arrive at
this point in communications quality: however. the group
is still at a stage of sharing information. The potential

use of this information is the subject of Stage Four.

Group Structure in Stage Four: Functional Role-Relatedness
Having developed through the stages of Testing and

Dependence. Intragroup Conflict. and Development of Group

-29-

Cohesion. the Human Growth Group arrives at the final stage
of growth.

Tuckman's survey of group process literature indicates
that the affective level decreases in the group's inter-
actions during Stage Four. and that they are characterized
by an atmosphere of (relatively) smoothly-functioning
normative behavior. This can be interpreted as a shift
of more maintenance synergy to effective synergy - from the
maintenance of functional relationships to active production
of growth. This in no way implies that the relationships
among group members are no longer important - quite the
contrary. It is the firmly established interpersonal
relationship which is the foundation upon which the learning
process is built. Through the improved functioning of
these relationships. the group has the capability to move
on to the Fourth Stage of Task-Activity. which is the

acquisition of insight.

Task-Activity in Stgge Four: Insight
With the interpersonal development of the group operating

with a minimum of maintenance synergy. the Taskchtivity

of Insight has the best opportunity to blossom. Insight may
be thought of as the broader application of the learning
which has been acquired from within the confines of the

group. to situations and settings in each person's day-to-day

-30-

life. This means that the person is upon the threshhold of
behavior change. and his patterns of behavior begin to undergo
change in the group as well as outside the group. we will

not focus upon the kinds of change that group members may
undergo. or attempt to argue the still unproven degree of
permanence or range of change: these issues depend very much
upon the individual and his or her circumstances. and are
beyond the scope of this study.

Throughout the development of the Human Growth Group.
the participants have been involved in a learning process
in which communications style and content has been a major
focus. The group member has experienced strong affect in
his interactions. which ranged from.non-involvement to
hostility to support and acceptance. The things that the
member was able to learn about himself from others and from
processing his own reactions to the group process. have
similar applications in his interactions outside the group
simply because in both settings he is dealing with fellow
human beings.

As mentioned in the discussion of the fourth stage of
Group Structure. the tools used to develop insight are the
same ones used to develop cohesion in the group. The difference
is that the group has refined the tools of feedback and
disclosure. and has become attuned to the possibility of
wider application of learning. The Task-Activity of Insight

-31-

is. more than any other. dependent upon the self-direction
of the members themselves. with the facilitator taking the
role of a source of additional feedback. The internalized
application of the learning available in this stage is up
to the individual member.

DEFINITION OF SELF-ESTEEM

Prior to developing a definition of self-esteem. let
us establish a sense of the person's awareness of himself
as a living entity. The construct ”self" implies that an
individual is in some way reflecting upon himself - that
the "I” regards itself. Considerable philosophical arguments
could be waged for or against the notion that there is such
an entity as the ”self”. or that it has the capacity to
stand apart from itself for review. In order that we may
proceed beyond even this basic assumption. it will be
useful to note Rollo May's (1967. p.55) treatment of this
issue:

"What does it mean to experience one's self as a

self? The experience of our own identity is the

basic conviction that we all start with as

psychological beings. It can never be proven in

a logical sense. for consciousness of one's self

is the presupposition of any discussion about it.

There will always be an element of mystery in

one's awareness of one's own being - mystery
here meaning a problem the data of which encroach

-32-

on the problem. For such awareness is a pre-

supposition of inquiry into one's self. That is

to say. even to meditate on ones's own identity

as a self means that one is already engaging in

self-consciousness."
As an individual engages in self-consciousness. he encounters
a person - himself. His collected impressions of his person
and the properties. abilities. and potentials which he
assigns to it has come to be described as the self-concept.
The self-concept as described is subjective. to be sure.
The biases which the individual holds toward himself create
a distinctly unique picture of himself as a person. one
which no other self can fully appreciate or come to
understand. However..in attempting to share and describe
one's self-concept. or more simply. as one presents himself
to others. the individual deals with value-judgments of
himself. The image or concept that a person has of himself
can be acceptable. unacceptable. enormously pleasing or
equally displeasing to that person. It is this subjective.
evaluative appraisal of the self-concept. which we will
label "self-esteem”. that will be the focus of our inquiry.

It is important that self-esteem be defined as a
conceptual tool. rather than as something which is tangible
or real. Self-esteem is a theoretical construct which
allows us to grasp and retain the essence of what we under-

stand to be the ways in which people value themselves. As

a construct. it has a certain subtle disadvantage. for-

-33..

in the process of assigning meaning and definitions to a
construct such as self-esteem. we can forget that it does

not truly exist in the same sense as do physical objects.

In short. we begin to reify the construct and to treat it

as a fixed. and therefore less flexible. entity (Gergen. 1971).
By reifying the construct. we expend energy trying to sharpen
definitions and to calibrate its functions. when the original
need for a construct of self-esteem was in response to the
larger problem of gaining a vantage point for understanding
the phenomenon of self-appraisal and its implications for
human interaction behavior.

With our purpose of developing a useful tool - the
construct of self-esteem - clearly in mind. let us examine
briefly some definitions of self-esteem. in order that we
may establish some limits for the scope of this investigation.

Stanley Coopersmith (1967) has described the concept of
self-esteem as a subjective percentage of an individual's
successes when compared against the sum total of his
aspirations in life - the goals toward which an individual's
value system leads him to work. Here we have a sense of the
self as a score-keeper. If the individual is able to
achieve a relatively high proportion of his goals in life.
he will view himself as an effective. and therefore. esteem-
worthy. person.

A composite definition of self-esteem is offered by

-3u-

Nathaniel Branden (1973. p.110):

”Self-esteem has two interrelated aspects: it entails

a sense of personal efficacy and a sense of personal

worth. It is the integrated sum of self-confidence

and self-respect. It is the conviction that one is

competent to live and worthy of living.”
Again we are confronted with the sense of an active evaluation
of self. a careful inspection of specific achievements and
failures. or a conscious measuring of self-confidence and
self-respect. However. Branden (1973. p.109) also feels
that this self-estimate...

”...is ordinarily experienced by him. not in the

form of a conscious. verbalized judgment. but in

the form of a feeling. a feeling that can be hard

to isolate and identify because he experiences it

constantly: it is part of every other feeling.

it is involved in his every emotional response.”
Here we get a sense of a much less empirical. more sub-
conscious and continuous flow of impressions which become
integrated with affect. Branden's psycho-epistemological
approach to self-esteem deals with the process of choosing
the values which a person attempts to uphold. and the
evaluation of that effort has very much to do with the
sense of being ”worthy of living". This view of self-esteem
is reflected in Boyd McCandless' (1970. p.162) remark that
self-esteem is. "...the degree to which the subject regards
himself as a worthwhile person”.

Self-esteem. then. is consistently described as a product
of an evaluative process. the most personal and inescapable

evaluation. and probably the most important evaluation. which

-35-

an individual can experience. A self-evaluation of this
import must surely have a profound impact upon the manner
in which the person relates not only to himself. but to the
environment as well. for his sense of competence. or worthiness.
can only be determined by the effects of his interactions
with the world. As Coopersmith (1967. p.h-5) states it:

”By self-esteem we refer to the evaluation which

the individual makes and customarily maintains

with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude

of approval or disapproval. and indicates the

extent to which the individual believes himself

to be capable. significant. successful. and worthy.

In short. self-esteem is a personal judgment of

worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes

the individual holds toward himself. It is a

subjective experience which the individual conveys

to others by verbal reports and other overt

expressive behavior.”

From the preceding definitions. we have some sense of
what the concept of self-esteem is. and how it embodies the
process of self-evaluation. For the purposes of this
thesis. we shall use the term self-esteem to indicate
the subjective. evaluative feeling which a person holds
about himself - a feeling which arises from continuous
appraisal of his competencies and shortcomings. virtues
and faults. and which results in a sense of his own
acceptability and worthiness as a human being.

The person attains a level of self-esteem by first
regarding himself as he experiences the world. and in turn
meets the world with a sense of his own worthiness to take

part in life. But when and how does the individual come

-35-

to begin this process of evaluation of self? What are the
factors which contribute to the blending of environment with
self-evaluation? What effect do the early evaluations have
upon future interactions with the environment. and what are
the manifestations of low and high levels of self-esteem?

We will attempt to deal with these questions in the following

sections.

ORIGINS OF SELF-ESTEEM

The roots of a person's sense of self-esteem can be
found among the very earliest interactions with other human
beings - primarily the parents. Just as a child's sense
of basic trust is believed to develop through the extent
of his need-gratification in infancy (Erikson. 1963). a child's
sense of being esteempworthy is intimately linked to the
extent to which he is cared for. Wenar (1971. p.168-169)
feels that. ”...the well-loved infant feels good all over.
enjoying the maximum amount of physiological and psychological
pleasure. From this rudimentary notion of 'good me' will
come the ego ideal. which ... will assure the child of his
own goodness...'. If we assume that the infant's role in
this relationship is basically passive. it is not clear how

he could relate need-satisfaction with esteem-worthiness.

-37-

However. Leland Stott (Endler. 1968) points out that the
infant does play an active part in establishing a give-and-
take relationship with his parents: indeed. the infant can
contribute to his parents' own sense of self-esteem
according to his responses to their attempts to take on the
role of good parents. Thus. almost immediately in life.
the foundation for the sense of self-esteem is formed.

A new dimension to the origins of self-esteem.is added
with the acquisition of language. Through language. the
child's parents can convey approval and disapproval. can
affix value-labels to the child's behaviors and experiences.
and begin to explain the restrictions of socialization
(Ferguson. 1970). Thus. as the child is able to distinguish
himself as a separate person. and as he acquires a symbolic
labelling system for registering approval and disapproval.
he has the necessary tools for evaluating himself. Not
only are a child's parents able to convey their evaluations
of the child through language. but the child himself is now
able to attach self-evaluations to his behaviors. Admittedly.
he takes his cues from those around him. Consider. for
example. the following observation by Putney and Putney (1972.
p.31):

”We once watched a small boy in a pediatrician's
waiting room building a tall tower of blocks. When
the tower was finished he deliberately knocked it

over with one sweeping blow. As he did so. he
chortled. 'Good boyl'. Then he looked carefully

-33-

around the room to see how other people (above

all his mother) would evaluate his action and what

consequences it might have for him.”

The issues which Erikson (1963) categorizes as Basic Trust
versus Mistrust. Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt. and Initiative
versus Guilt. are primarily encountered within the immediate
family. The child's level of success in dealing with these
issues has a powerful impact upon his level of self-esteem
due to the numerous occasions for feedback from parents.
However. as the child broadens his circle of significant others
from mother and father to include peers. he encounters yet
another crisis. the resolution of which contributes to his
budding sense of self-esteem. Erikson labels this crisis the
issue of Industry versus Inferiority. The child is confronted
with standards for performance which he and his peers have
established. Among his peers. the child gains esteem not
because he is a member of a family. where love is nearly
impossible to separate from esteem: rather. the child garners
group esteem through physical prowess. intelligence. sociability.
and generosity (Wenar. 197l). For the first time. the child can
compare his worthiness as a person with other people of similar
physical and mental capacities. and truly earns a sense of
integrity which stands apart from the family's love and esteem
which was his birth-right.

The most salient factors relating to the origins of

self-esteem reviewed thus far are the interactions the person

-39-

has with the significant others in his life. and with the
material environment. The child gathers impressions from
parents and peers about his worthiness as a person. He
begins to acquire a sense of his own worthiness by testing
his capabilities and mastery of the environment.

The stream of evaluations upon the individual has begun -
but how do future evaluations from self and others interact
to further build upon this foundation? Will self-esteem become
more difficult to change as time goes on. and what factors
are likely to have the greatest effect? Coopersmith (1967.
p.5) has done considerable research into the subject of self-
esteem. and concludes that. ”... at some time preceding
middle childhood the individual arrives at a general appraisal
of his worth. which remains relatively stable and enduring
over a period of several years.” A not entirely contra-
dictory. yet surely a more present and future-oriented
approach to self-appraisal is offered by the Putneys (1972.
P-B”):

”The self-image can never be established once and

for all: if it is to be accurate. it must reflect

the self as it exists in the present. Although

drawn out of past experience. it must accurately

mirror what the individual is now. Verifying and

expressing a self-image which he values is a source

of deep satisfaction for the individual. Moreover.

by expanding the self in ways consistent with his

desired self-image he opens new areas for the

fulfillment of his self needs."

Our next step will be to examine the factors contributing

-uo-

to self-esteem. to determine how they spring from the origins

established above.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SELF-ESTEEM

The key to understanding the manner in which various
factors affect self-esteem. is to view self-esteem as the
end-product of continuous social comparison. The process
of social comparison gives the person a sense of ”being“
in relation to other persons. The individual differences
which are discovered by the person allow him to place himself
on a spectrum for any given focus of comparison. Thus. the
person can view himself as ”better" than some. “worse" than
others. more or less esteem-worthy. more or less able. and
so on. The process of social comparison is both an internal
and an external process. in that comparisons can be made by
the individual about himself. and they can also be made for
the individual by others: the latter process is commonly re-
ferred to as feedback.

The four major factors which contribute to the on-going
development of self-esteem as described by Coopersmith (1967.
P-37) are:

l) "... the amount of respectful. accepting. and
concerned treatment that an individual receives
from the significant others in his life."

-ul-

2) ”... our history of successes and the status and
position we hold in the world.”

3) "Experiences ... interpreted and modified in accord
with the individual's values and aspirations.”

4) ”The individual's manner of responding to devaluation
... [this] ability to defend self-esteem reduces the
experience of anxiety and helps to maintain personal
equilibrium.”

In each of these factors. the process of social comparison
plays an active part in allowing the individual to determine
his sense of self-esteem.

The first factor is important from the earliest days
of life. as discussed previously. Specific conditions which
parents can create. with the intent of enhancing the child's
level of self—esteem. are "nearly total acceptance. firm
and clearly defined limits leniently enforced. respect and
latitude for individual action within the clear limits. and
last but not least. good models for behavior“ (McCandless. 1970.
p.355). The message conveyed to the child is that he is
valued and loved enough to be restrained where necessary. and
allowed freedom where possible. His own behaviors have direct
impact upon the amounts of freedom and restraint. thus giving
him some sense of control over his own existence. an issue
which Branden (1973) feels to be at the very heart of self-
esteem. Not only parents. but teachers and valued peers are

capable of conveying to the individual a sense of his worth

to them by accepting and respecting him. and by showing concern

-42-

for his welfare. Of course. the absence of these kinds of
messages. or behaviors clearly opposite those mentioned above
would tend to undermine the person's level of self-esteem
with equal power.

The second factor - the person's history of successes
and failures. and the social position held by the individual -
entails both internal and external social comparison. Success
can have very specific definitions for different people. and
success for one individual in a given set of circumstances
could very easily be interpreted by another individual as
failure (Hamachek. 1971). To this extent. success and the
impact of success upon self-esteem. is primarily defined in
an internal process of social comparison. On the other hand.
status and social position in the world are largely products
of social comparisons made by others. Self-esteem which is
based upon these external social comparisons. however. is
subject to misinterpretation. or can at least be founded
upon reactions influenced by values not embraced by the
individual. Maslow (1970. p.h6) states:

”... we have been learning more and more of the

dangers of basing self-esteem on the opinions of

others rather than on real capacity. competence.

and adequacy to the task. The most stable and

therefore most healthy self-esteem is based on

deserved respect from others rather than on external

fame or celebrity and unwarranted adulation."

The values and aspirations of the person. and their effect

upon his interpretation of experience. comprise the third

-ug-

factor which contributes to self-esteem (Branden. 1973. p.11“).
”Whether the values by which he judges himself are
conscious or subconscious. rational or irrational.
consistent or contradictory. life-serving or life-
negating - every human being judges himself by
some standard: and to the extent that he fails to
satisfy that standard. his sense of personal worth.
his self-respect. suffers accordingly."
In the area of self-judgments based upon values and aspirations.
we are one step removed from direct social comparison. for
the person is comparing his perceived real self with his
ideal self. Nevertheless. the ideal self has been formulated
through careful selection of values and aspirations deemed
worthy by his normative reference group (Hollander and Hunt.
1971). To that extent. self-esteem which is based upon the
degree of congruence between ”real” and ”ideal” selves. is
still very much influenced by perceptions of what others value.
The fourth factor which Coopersmith cites as crucial to
development of self-esteem is the manner in which the person
responds to devaluation by others. To the extent that
social devaluation can be equated with failure (to acquire
approval). it seems logical that some amount of failure is necesb
sary for the establishment of realistic goals and expectations
from others. Likewise. the person who has weathered some
criticism and failure seems far more likely to survive with
self-esteem.intact. just as tempered steel is less brittle

and vulnerable than steel which has not been exposed to the

extremes of hot and cold. Of course. a history of frequent

success provides a fairly hopeful outlook for the person
who fails occasionally. for the probability of success on sub-
sequent attempts is still relatively high (Hamachek. 1971).

Finally. we must consider briefly the capacity of the
preceding factors to enhance self-esteem in relation to the
person's sense of being perceived by others as he really is.
As long as the person feels that feedback he receives from
others is directed toward him. and not toward a masquerade-
self which has been constructed out of fear of non-acceptance
of the real self. then that feedback will be useful. If.
however. parents and significant others are not willing to
accept an individual on the basis of what he is. the person
will quite likely seek compensation for this loss of self-
esteem by presenting himself as he believes they would like
to see him. Acceptance of this false self. however. cannot
lead to increased self-esteem. for ”the opinion of others
can contribute to self-acceptance only when the individual
believes that others see him as he really is”. (Putney and
Putney. 1972. p.72).

Clearly. the building of a high level of self-esteem is
dependent upon requisite conditions. It should not be
surprising then. to find that different people have very
different levels of self-esteem due to variance in the
conditions in which self-esteem is fostered. We will examine

next the manifestations of varying levels of self-esteem.

-45-
MANIFESTATIONS OF SEL§:ESTEEM

In the previous sections we have examined the sources
of and factors contributing to selfuesteem. We have seen
that the building of a sense of self-esteem is subject to
crises similar to those described by Erikson in his treatment
of personality development. The measure of success or lack
of success in traversing the crisis of feeling esteemed in
infancy. the acquisition of language and subsequent ability
to receive and make evaluations of oneself. gaining mastery
over the physical environment. and acquiring approved tech-
niques for social interaction are all variables affecting
self-esteem. A person's history of receiving and dealing with
external valuations and devaluations from significant others
is a crucial factor in determining self-esteem. as is the
manner in which the individual interprets his own behaviors
and motivations as esteem-worthy. Of prime importance. also.
is the extent to which the person can feel that he is being
evaluated on the basis of his true self. and whether or not
his true self is capable of receiving positive feedback.

With such a vast array of possible sources of self-esteem.
we might safely predict that in any sizeable pOpulation. the
range of levels of self-esteem would be quite large. Indeed.
research has shown that people generally can be classed in

one of three large groups according to their level of self-

-h6-

esteem - high. medium. and low self-esteem (Coopersmith. 1967).
Persons who have high levels of self-esteem have
characteristic ways of confronting others and of viewing
themselves. For instance. Carl Rogers (1961. p.153) says of
the person who is relatively high in self-esteem: ”The self
becomes increasingly simply the subjective and reflexive
awareness of experiencing. The self is much less frequently
a perceived object. and much more frequently something

confidently felt in process". The person who can feel confident

 

in the “reflexive awareness of experiencing” reacts in a
characteristicly comfortable manner with other people. as
noted by the Putneys (1972. p.88):

”PeOple who are self-accepting have no anxiety about

the aspects of themselves which are not apparent at

a given moment. As a result ... they are comfortable

with other people because they are first of all

comfortable with themselves.”
This comfortable self-acceptance characteristic of people
with high self-esteem is not a static. permanent condition.
It is the product of continuous self-evaluation. of a self
which is aware of the relationship between values and behavior.
of keeping the real self in focus. and of venturing to risk
occasional devaluation as a means of maintaining realistic
goals. Nevertheless. Maslow (1970) feels thataperson with
a high level of self-esteem tends to become more consistently

high in self-esteem. just as a person low in self-esteem

tends to steadily lose ground. The effect of old experience

-u7-

seems to reinforce the expectation for continuation of move-
ment toward higher or lower self-esteem.

Another manifestation of a high level of self-esteem is
an increased willingness to live primarily in the ”here-and-
now". rather than dwelling upon the past or escaping from
reality by living in the future (Shostrom. 1968. p.58):

”Looking closer at this idea of the healthy individual

as being the one who lives primarily in the present.

we see that living fully in the moment or the present

requires no concern for support or sustenance. To *.

say 'I an adequate now.‘ rather than 'I was adequate

once.’ or 'I will be adequate again.‘ is self-

validating and self-justifying. Being - in the

moment. being - an active process. is an end in

itself. It is self-validating and self-justifying.

Being has its own reward - a feeling of trust in one's

self-support."

Yet another characteristic of the person with high self-
esteem is the ability to be more honest about himself. In
the event that he finds shortcomings. he can face the problem
squarely. confident of his competence to solve it. and feeling
that he indeed deserves to make progress.

Just as the person with a high level of self-esteem is
honest. present-oriented. and self-accepting. the person who
is low in self-esteem tends to be dishonest with himself and
others about revealing his true self: he tends to either fall
back on past glories (real or imagined) or feels compelled
to invest heavily in the future: and he is unable to feel
comfortable with the person that he is. Coopersmith (1967.

p.32. 48. 138) has made great strides in characterizing the

—48-

person low in self-esteem:

l) "The individual is continually guarding himself
against a loss of self-esteem. for it is this loss
that produces the feelings of distress that are
elsewhere termed anxiety."

2) "We find that persons with low self-esteem exhibit
higher levels of anxiety. but are otherwise lower
in the affect they express. and are likely to
exhibit more frequently psychosomatic symptoms and
feelings of depression."

3) "... persons low in self-esteem are more destructive.
more anxious. and more prone to manifest psychosomatic
symptoms than are persons medium or high in self-
esteem. But they are no more aggressive or delinquent.
presumably because such acts require qualities of
initiative and assertiveness ... lacking in individuals
with low self-esteem."

 

Thus we arrive at a picture of a person who is characterized
by feelings of helplessness. inferiority. and plagued by
doubts: he avoids closeness for fear of exposure of weaknesses.
He is unable to reveal his real self because he does not
hold it in esteem - consequently. even positive feedback from
others is of little comfort. since he cannot feel that they
are valid appraisals of himself. Eventually this self-alienation
causes the person of low self-esteem to treat himself as some-
one external and foreign (Shostrom. 1968. p.26).

”The more he disvalues himself the more of himself

he must project or disown and treat as ”things”

outside himself. When we do something that we

dislike. we say: 'It came over me.‘ or 'That's

not like me'. Soon this tendency to disown or

deny spreads into all areas of our lives. When the

home team is losing. it is no longer 'our team'

but 'that team' or 'them bums'. Similarly. one's

sweetheart becomes 'the nag' or 'the ball and
chain'. Hubby becomes the 'meal ticket' or the

-ug-

'dictator'. When you feel like an 'it'. others
about you seem like 'its' too."

The third category is medium self-esteem. In this case.
a medium level of self—esteem is not necessarily a combination
or half-way point between the two types already described.
In fact. Coopersmith has quite a specific set of character-
istics which describe the person of medium self-esteem. He “m
says the medium self-esteem people have been subjected to
more parental intrusion and protection: they have had lower
goals. demands. and aspirations from their parents: and they
rely more upon others for their self-evaluations. There is
more dependency upon the family. and usually strong commitment
to external values. which suggests that the middle portion of
the esteem continuum may reflect uncertain self-appraisal.

This high degree of commitment to values is indicative
of a less clearly defined self-worth than is found in high
or low self-esteem peOple. Those who have high levels are
more self-oriented than value-oriented: those who have low
levels are much less self-oriented. and are likely to accept
the community's values. although they do not enthusiastically
support those standards which ”virtually commit them to
judgments of failure" (Coopersmith. 1967. p.142).

The various manifestations of differing levels of
self-esteem seem disparate. even to the point of having very
little in common. What must be held firmly in mind is the

fact that self-esteem is a product of a complex interaction

-50-

of variables. Certain social forces have come to bear upon
an individual. and combined with the uniqueness of the
individual. have produced effects which are not necessarily
permanent. although they tend to perpetuate. If a person
desires to effect a change in his level of self-esteem. it
would seem valuable to keep in mind the kinds of sources.
contributing factors. and manifestations which helped produce
the kind of self-esteem which the individual experiences.
With the proper motivation and a suitable setting for simulated
as well as real social forces to come into play. the person
should be able to work toward positive change in his level

of self-esteem. A setting which seems particularly well-
suited for this type of movement is the Human Growth Group.
We will proceed to explore the ways in which the Human Growth
Group process can be applied to the problem of enhancement of

self-esteem.

SYNTHESIS

The synthesis of the concept of self-esteem.with the
processes of the Human Growth Group will be divided into
four stages. corresponding to the four stages of group

development.

-51-

Stage One:

The origins of self-esteem are rooted in infancy as the
child learns to distinguish himself from the totality of his
environment. Essentially he is involved in a process of
gathering a set of definitions about life. There are very
basic rules to follow. specific behaviors which elicit
specific responses from others. sensations to be valued -
warmth. a full stomach. tactile support from others - and
sensations that are less desirable. even painful. The role
Eof significant others in his life is unmistakable - they
(provide him with life-supporting necessities. In a word.
the child is dependent. Dependency is a fact of life for
the helpless infant. But being dependent can be either a
rewarding or a punishing situation for the child: if he is
loved and valued (esteemed). his lot in life generally begins
on a positive note. and he begins to develop a basic sense
of trust in his environment. The child whose needs are not
met. or are met irregularly. is provided with a confusing.
frustrating environment.

Much the same kind of environment is set up for the
new group member. Because of old learning settings such
as home and school. the member is aware of his dependence
upon the group in general and upon the facilitator in
particular. They have at least some control over his level
of comfort in this new situation. and he has some amount

of experience - good and bad - in being dependent. The

-52-

member learns that there are very basic rules to follow.

specific behaviors which elicit specific responses from

others. sensations to be valued - warmth. general acceptance.

recognition - and other. more painful sensations. There are

new discoveries to be made also. for the group experience

is likely to be different from life outside the group.
/Therefore. the new member is not sure of the amount of esteem
; others hold for him. though he is likely to have a more clear

sense of the esteem he holds for himself at this point.

 

Just as the child gains a new tool for determining
how much he is esteemed by others when he acquires the use
of language. the new group member begins to learn about his
esteem-worthiness for the group when he ventures to involve
himself in the very early interactions. mostly with the
facilitator who still symbolizes authority and power. He
tests his boundaries ever so slightly and carefully by
asking about limits for behaviors. for expectations. for a
definition of his role. He learns that he is valued just
for being. though in different degrees by different members.
He also is made aware that some behaviors such as self-
disclosure. honest feedback. and listening. will be valued
more than others. Finally. he learns that he is not to be
allowed the safety of a dependent relationship with the
facilitator or the group for very long. There are certain

things which he must provide himself such as initiative.

-53-

helping with decision-making. processing. direction. and
making his own needs known. Above all. he is responsible
for letting the group know who he is in order that feedback
may be offered to the real person and not to a mask. The
group is to be a relatively safe place which will demand
some risk-taking. It will be a group much like the family
in which he is given support and responsibility. acceptance

and challenge. positive and negative feedback.

Stage Two:
Now that the group member has learned the expectations

for his behavior and has learned that the facilitator does

not want a dependent relationship with the group. the member
has some evaluations to make. First. he must decide if he

is willing to accept the guidelines that have been established.
He must also determine whether his acceptance or rejection

of the guidelines will be supported by his peers - the other
group members. As noted earlier. the group members usually
have some differences in their need for dependence. and
conflict arises when some attempt to take an active role in
making contracts. in self-disclosure. in giving and asking

for feedback. while others seek to establish a more structured.
authority-oriented environment where the facilitator takes

a more active role in decision—making and orchestration of

events.

-54-

An issue at stake at this point is one of productivity -
similar to Erikson's crisis of Industry versus Inferiority.
This is not to say that the crisis of Industry versus
Inferiority appears for the first time in the group: if we

are to accept Erikson's theory. we must assume that each

 

group member first encountered this issue during childhood. ..fi
However. the degree to which each member resolved this issue *
during childhood - for that matter. the degree to which each j
member resolves the issue every day of his life - contributes i

to the response he makes to the task demands presented in

the group. Some are content. even eager to accept the challenge
provided by anunstructured process-learning setting. They.

in effect. set the standards for performance: once the standard
is set. the process of social comparison begins. As in
childhood. the group member finds himself immersed in a peer
group which is setting standards for performance. His
performance becomes a locus of evaluation. and esteem follows
closely after evaluation.

Moreover. the participant has the opportunity to disclose
his feelings about performance. standards. Industry and
Inferiority. and to learn what others feel about these issues.
Through processing. he can not only re-create situations
which are representative of real-life issues. but also gain
a perspective upon his feelings relative to those of people

who share his situation. Fears of being odd or alone can

-55-

often be eased through the sharing of apprehensions about
performance and evaluation.

Also at stake during the Second Stage is the issue of
psychological boundaries. Through aggression and conflict.
the members test one another and themselves to determine
whether or not the group can be trusted to accept them when
they disclose negative feelings. Rejection is more easily
taken when the participant has not yet risked the vulnerable
posture of trying to be close to another member. Again.
through processing. by examining the conflict behavior and
its implications. the participants can become aware of the
ways in which they approach uncertainty in social relationships.
Feelings of inferiority or guilt associated with disclosure
of negative feelings is a conceivable cause of loss of self-
esteem. and can be regained through an understanding of the
dynamics and acceptability of such behavior. Thus self-
evaluation and evaluation by others. both crucial factors
in the development of self-esteem. begin early in the group

process e

Stage Three:
Once the group has developed through the stage of

Intragroup Conflict. the peer standards have been established
and self-evaluation has begun - aided by the tool of

processing - the group moves into the stage of Cohesion

-56-

Development and Exchange of Relevant Interpretation. Just
as the individual emerges from childhood with a basic sense
of self-esteem. formed in his interactions with the
significant others in his life. the group member has a
foundation of information upon which to build. With some

' sense of his place within the social group. the child and
group participant alike can venture to experiment with the

environment and his own capabilities. The increase in

is

sharing of feelings. the more open interactions. the giving 1
and receiving of positive and negative feedback in the group
all serve to provide a rich learning experience for the
participant.

The other group members have taken on the role of
significant others for the participant. Therefore. just
as in childhood. the "amount of respectful. accepting. and
concerned treatment that an individual receives from the
significant others in his life” has a great deal to do with
the participant's level of self-esteem (Coopersmith. 1967.
p.37). Their acceptance of his feelings. of his value as a
person. of his observations. strengths and weaknesses cannot
but make it easier for the participant to accept himself as he
is.

Furthermore. growth is not dependent solely upon the
giving and receiving of positive feedback. Just as the

complimentary opposites of success and failure enable the

-57-

individual to establish realistic limits for his behavior.
so toothe encounter with negative feedback gives the
participant a sense of boundaries. Provided that negative
feedback is presented with a spirit of caring for the recip-
ient - as information that will be useful to him as he seeks
improved methods of interacting - it is just as helpful as
positive feedback. Through processing. the individual is
able to place both positive and negative feedback in a per-
spective seldom available during day-to-day encounters.
Feedback is not only information: it is also experience.
for in the giving and receiving of feedback. the individual
displays values. defenses. biases. and needs. By processing
these factors the individual is able to learn more about
himself and his motivations for certain behaviors.

Outside the group. the person's level of self-esteem
is affected by his interpretation of experience according
to his values and aspirations (Shostrom. 1968). Likewise.
the participant comes to regard his group experiences as
more or less satisfying depending upon the manner in which
he integrates them with his value system. If he feels that
his growth needs are being met (one responsibility of the
group member is to make his needs known) and that the
interaction experiences are contributing to a general sense
of well-being. the opportunity for enhancement of self-esteem

is increased. Again we see the need for the participant

~58-

to share in decision-making and to risk self-disclosure in
order for his own goals to be realized.

The key to the value of the group experience is the
degree to which the participant is able or willing to present
his real self to the group. The treatment he receives from
these significant others. his successes and failures. the
positive and negative feedback he receives are all irrelevant
if they are offered to a false self. One of the prime reasons
for establishing an accepting environment at the onset of
the group experience is to encourage members to present
their real selves in order that they may come to esteem the
persons that they really are. If the participant can find
acceptance from others and himself for the person that he
truly is. there will be less need to invest energy in
pseudo-selves and more energy to invest in becoming a more
self-actualized person (Maslow. 1970). The recognition.
acceptance. and appreciation of one's own self is crucial

in realizing a high level of self-esteem.

Stage Four:
In the fourth stage of group development. the Human

Growth Group begins to function as a mature social unit.
The Group Structure is relatively stable and the Task-Activity
has shifted to the development of solutions or insight.

Through an increased level of trust for one another. as

 

-59-

well as a commitment to process-learning. risk-taking.
self-disclosure. giving and receiving feedback. the group
as a whole begins to manifest the characteristics of a
person with a high level of self-esteem. The individual
members are more consistently willing to interact in ways
which contribute to the enhancement of self-esteem:

1) They focus predominantly on the here-and-now. preferring
the reality of the present situation to an escape into the
past or future. This enhances growth opportunity. since the
here-and-now is the only real common ground on which the
group members can meet.

2) They are able to keep their real selves in focus. as
contrasted with pseudo-selves. roles. or ideal-selves. Only
that feedback which is directed toward the real self which
is honestly and openly presented to the group can contribute
to growth of the self.

3) They continually engage in self-evaluation as a means

of incorporating new growth into the developing self. The
result of growth is continuous change in self-perception.
and changes need to be shared with the group as a means of
keeping the real self in focus.

a) They continue to risk devaluation of self-esteem through
acceptance of negative feedback. Since the self-concept

is undergoing change. reality boundaries must continually

be tested and re-established.

-60-

5) They are more able to integrate their selves with actual
experiences rather than treating themselves as objects to

be molded. shaped. or changed by exposing them to various
experiences. The self is more easily owned. and taken to

be the totality of the person who is involved in group
interaction.

In essence. the group has arrived at the level of
self-esteem which becomes conducive to self-perpetuating
growth. To repeat Maslow's observation. this time with
greater understanding about the dynamics involved in the
phenomenon. the person with a high level of self-esteem
tends tobecome more consistently high in self-esteem. He
values himself enough to invest more time. effort. and
interactions in the interest of furthering his own growth

and enhancement of self-esteem.

CHAPTER III: METHOD

HYPOTHESES

The first hypothesis to be tested is that the experimental
Human Growth Groups will demonstrate greater improvement
than will the control group in ten areas of behavior: 1)
Empathy: 2) Warmth. respect: 3) Genuineness: 4) Concreteness:
5) Initiative: 6) Immediacy: 7) Self-disclosure: 8) Feelings
and emotions: 9) Confrontation: 10) Self-exploration. It is
expected that some increase in self-rating will occur in all
groups as a function of familiarity and subsequent relaxation
of some defenses among participants. However. the experimental

groups are expected to produce more positive change in the

ten behavior areas as a result of the growth-producing processes

of the Human Growth Group.

The second hypothesis to be tested is that the members
of the Human Growth Groups will report more feelings of
increased self-awareness. increased self-acceptance. and
increased self-esteem as a result of their group experience

than will members of the control group.

‘— ..w. -.. up

 

-62

SUBJECTS

Each of the three Human Growth Groups in this study was
composed of six participants and two co-facilitators. Two
of these groups had three men and three women each: the third
group had four women and two men. All six co-facilitators
were men.

The six participants in each group were undergraduate
college students who had responded to a Human Awareness
program offered by the counseling center. Each had been
screened for membership in a Human Growth Group by a
professional staff member of the counseling center. who was
also responsible for the training and supervision of the
six group co-facilitators.

The control group was composed of six undergraduate
resident assistants in a residence hall on campus who met
weekly during the same nine-week period that the Human Growth
Groups were meeting: four were men and two were women. One
of the facilitators was their supervisor and one was a staff
member of the counseling center: both were males. Their
purpose in meeting as a group was to engage in discussions
about their job performance with their supervisor and to
discuss their relationships with one another as co-workers.
The control group was characterized by a fairly structured

format. with the supervisor taking most of the responsibility

-53-

for initiating interactions. providing topics of discussion.
and providing exercises designed to stimulate group
interaction: these exercises consisted of a group concensus
task. writing personal inventories of strengths and weaknesses.
and listing personal values - each was used as an entry-point
for group discussion.

The facilitators for the Human Growth Groups were four

upper-classmen and two graduate students who had responded

 

to a group-leadership training program offered by the

 

counseling center. During the fifteen weeks of training the
facilitators met as a Human Growth Group in order to obtain
experiential training as well as content learning. Once

the facilitators had begun to work with their own groups.
they continued to meet weekly as a group to review problems.
share ideas and feedback. and obtain suggestions from their
staff supervisors. One of the facilitators for the
experimental groups was also a facilitator in the control

group.

INSTRUMENT

The instrument used by all four groups (see Appendix)
was a scale developed by Gerard Egan (1973. p.19-21) to

determine self-ratings on behaviors which he considers to be

-6u-

essential to high-level human relating. According to Egan.
the goal of a group experience such as the Human Growth Group
is to develop and increase one's skills in ten behavior .
categories: Empathy: Warmth. respect: Genuineness: Concreteness:
Initiative: Immediacy: Self-disclosure: Feelings and emotions:
Confrontation: and Self-exploration. Each group member was
to rate him/herself on a scale of one to nine. with nine
being the highest rating. for each of the ten categories. The
instrument was administered as a pre-test at the beginning of
the nine-week period. and again as a post-test following the
last group meetings.

The mean score for each group was determined for each
of the ten behavior categories on both the pre-test and
post-test. The change in the mean group scores between pre-
and post-testing was taken to be an indicant of the progress
or growth in a particular behavior during the nine-week period.
In addition. the scores of all three experimental groups
were combined to produce mean scores for the pre- and post-tests
for purposes of comparison with the control group. In this
manner. the instrument was to provide not only a general
indication of growth in interaction behavior. but also an
indicant of those particular behaviors which showed the most

improvement. and which the least.

-65-

LIMITATIONS

The inherent limitations in this design are primarily
the low number of available subjects and the imprecise
matching of control and experimental groups. While it is
not the purpose of this study to attempt a rigorous empirical
approach to human behavior. there is nevertheless a greater
opportunity to generalize observations and conclusions with
a larger sample population. The difficulty in providing a
matched control group for Human Growth Groups centers around
the format for the control group. Once a number of people
are organized and defined as a group. some interaction will
occur: it is difficult to control for the growth in the
interaction that occurs as a result of familiarity.

Moreover. the reliance upon self-report as a technique
for measuring change is subject to problems in the area of
validity. The attempt to incorporate phenomenological events
within empirical statements does not allow for rigorous
mathematical analysis: however. the relative empirical
efficiency of measuring only observable behavior does not

provide an accurate understanding of the whole person.

-66-

PROCEDURE

In the Human Growth Groups the facilitators began by
introducing the format to the participants. They were told
that they should be concerned with focusing upon the
interactions within the group itself and upon the "here-and-
now” situations which would arise. The facilitators
emphasized their own role as one of modeling group interaction
behavior. of giving and receiving feedback on equal terms
with the participants. and as co-equals with the participants
in determining topics. the direction of interaction. and
of enforcing the ground rule of here-and-now interaction.

The facilitators also told the participants that they.
themselves. were being supervised in their facilitator role
by professional staff members.

The relative vacuum of authority and structure left by
the facilitators' initial remarks and behaviors elicited a
dependency reaction in most group members. Most participants
pressed the facilitators for more detailed instructions.
asked for appropriate topics to discuss. and focused very
little attention upon one another. The facilitators. in turn.
focused upon the participants' need for and feelings associated
with dependency. as well as their own feelings about being
placed in an authority position.

Soon the participants were exhibiting hostility toward

-67-

the facilitators for not providing structure in the groups.
Some resisted by withdrawing from interactions while others
persisted in demanding structure from the facilitators.
Occasionally a less dependent participant would attempt to
initiate an interaction and would meet with resistance and
hostility.

Following the period of dependency upon the facilitators.
the groups moved into a period of conflict among themselves
and continued hostility toward the facilitators. Host of
the conflict occurred between those participants who wanted
to move ahead with self-disclosure. probing. and confrontation.
and those who resisted. The feelings of anger and frustration
generated in this period were brought into focus by the
facilitators. Direct expressions of anger were rare: the
participants initially tried to be very polite with each other
while angry. which in turn added to their own frustrations
and eventually resulted in more honest expressions of anger.
The participants expressed their hostility toward the
facilitators by challenging their feedback. by withdrawing.
or by giving them only negative feedback.

Eventually. as the participants were able to test their
own and others' anger and hostility. the groups began to
establish some cohesion. Participants noted that criticism
they had received had not destroyed them. and that they could

accept people with whom they had exchanged angry words. The

-68-

facilitators were given some positive feedback as well. and
the groups seemed to relax and enjoy their feelings of
acceptance. The aggressive interactions which had occurred
earlier became the topics of discussion. with participants
focusing upon their own feelings of anger. frustration. isola-
tion. fear. and later - warmth and acceptance. By disclosing
themselves and their feelings. they came to realize that
others had similar feelings. which contributed to a sense

of closeness.

In the final sessions. the participants began to discuss
their increased sense of self-awareness. and seemed surprised
at times that they still liked themselves in spite of the
weaknesses which they had discovered and owned. They
discussed their plans for improving their interaction skills
and their desires to be more open and honest with others.

A considerable amount of time was spent in discovering and
discussing the roles they found themselves playing in their
social interactions. These roles were seen as growth-inhibiting
and most stated that they would prefer to be their true selves.
A few of the participants were not pleased with the parts of
themselves they had discovered while in the groups and focused
primarily upon their perceived weaknesses - however. they

all seemed optomistic about their chances for improvement.

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As a demonstration of the effect of the Human Growth
Group process on self-esteem. the results from the control
and three experimental groups will be presented. These
results are a product of self-reports by group participants
as well as observations by group facilitators. The collection
of these data is an attempt to establish the quality of the
interaction in each group. measured on the list of ”behaviors
that are essential to high-level human relating“ offered
by Gerard Egan (1973. p.19).

In addition to the self—reports on the Egan scale. Human
Growth Group participants offered and were encouraged to talk
about their feelings about themselves. particularly in the
realm of self-esteem. As this information was offered in
the context of interaction behavior. it was not possible nor
would it have been appropriate to interrupt these interactions
for the purpose of obtaining ”empirical” data. According
to Rogers (1970) in his discussion of a means of developing
a realistic phenomenological human science. any empirical
data on phenomenological events growing out of group processes
are probably minute and of questionable validity. This is due
to the difficulty in obtaining naive and unbiased behavior
as well as operationalizing definitions for phenomenological
events. The attempt. therefore. was to gather information

from participants themselves about their own self-esteem. and

-70-

their perceptions of the effects of the group process upon
self-esteem.

The results of the pre-test and post-test self-ratings
follow in Tables 1 - 5. Tables 1. 2. and 3 represent the
difference scores between pre- and post-test administrations
of the instrument in the three experimental Human Growth

Groups. Table 0 contains the results from the control group.

 

Table 5 compares the difference scores of the control group

with the average difference scores of the experimental groups.

TABLE 1

Mean Group Scores for Experimental Group 1

 

Difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior Category Pro-Test Post-Test

Empathy 6.00 6.17 0.17
Warmth. respect 5.00 v—6.00 1.00
Genuineness 4.33 5.00 0.67
Concreteness “.33 5.33 1.00
Initiative 2.83 5.17 2.3a
Immediacy “.33 6.00 1.67
Self-disclosure 3.33 5.67 2.3“
Feelings. emotions 5.50 6.33 0.83
Confrontation 3.83 5.00 1.17
Self-exploration 5.33 6.83 1.50

 

-71-

TABLE 2

Mean Group Scores for Experimental Group 2

 

Behavior Category Pre-Test Post-Test Difference

   
 
 

 
 

“...

      

4.83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy 5.17 0.34
Warmth. respect 5.67 5.67 0.00
Genuineness 4.83 6.00 1.17
Concreteness 4.83 5.50 0.67
Initiative 5.00 5.67 0.67
Immediacy 4.83 5.17 0.34
Self-disclosure 4.83 5.83 1.00
Feelings. emotions 4.67 5.33 0.66
Confrontation 4.67 4.67 0.00
Self-exploration 5.83 6.67 0.84
TABLE 3

Mean Group Scores for Experimental Group 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior Category Pre-Test Post-Test Difference
Empathy 4.67 5.17 0.50
Warmth. respect 4.83 5.33 0.50
Genuineness 4.67 4.33 -0.34
Concreteness 4.17 3.83 -0.34
Initiative 4.00 5.50 1.50
Immediacy 3.83 4.83 1.00
Self-disclosure 4.00 5.00 1.00
Feelings. emotions 4.33 5.33 1.00
Confrontation 4.33 4.67 0.34
Self-exploration 5.67 6.00 0.33

 

TABLE 4

Mean Group Scores for Control Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior Category Pro-Test Post-Test Difference
Empathy 5.67 6.67 1.00
Warmth. respect 6.17 6.33 0.16
Genuineness 6.17 6.67 0.50
Concreteness 5.83 6.00 0.17
Initiative 5.33 5.67 0.34
Immediacy 5.50 5.67 0.17
Self-disclosure 4.83 5.67 0.84
Feelings. emotions 6.33 6.33 0.00
Confrontation 6.33 6.33 0.00
Self-exploration 6.67 6.67 0.00

 

 

In Table 5. the Difference scores of all three
experimental groups have been combined and averaged. These
figures have been compared with the Difference scores for
the control group. The third column of Table 5 represents
the difference in the amount of change (between pre- and
post-test administrations) in self-report between the

control group and combined experimental groups.

-73-

TABLE 5
Differences in Change of Mean Scores for the

Control and Experimental Groups

 

Behavior Category Control Group Exper. Groups Difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy 1.00 0.39 -O.6l
Warmth. respect 0.17 0.56 0.39
Genuineness 0.50 0.50 0.00
Concreteness 0.17 0.44 0.27
Initiative 0.34 1.50 1.16
Immediacy 0.17 1.00 0.83
Self-disclosure 0.84 1.44 0.61
Feelings. emotions 0.00 0.78 0.78
Confrontation 0.00 0.50 0.50
Self-exploration 0.00 0.89 0.89

 

The results of the pre- and post-test ratings indicate
that the first hypothesis - that the experimental groups would
demonstrate greater improvement than the control group in the
ten areas of human-relating behavior - was verified in eight
of the ten cases. with one category (Genuineness) showing no
difference between control and experimental groups: the
control group showed greater improvement in the area of
Empathy.

The Empathy category showed the greatest increase for the

-74-

control group and the least increase for the Human Growth

Groups. Possible explanations for this result are two:

1) one entire session in the control group was spent in the
discussion of Empathy as it applied to their jobs. thus
giving greater emphasis to this category: or

2) random chance.

The categories in which the experimental groups sur-
passed the control group by the largest scores - Initiative.
Self-exploration. and Immediacy - are all areas which.were
essential to the Human Growth Group process. In the absense
of authoritative structure. the participants in the
experimental groups were forced as well as permitted to
exercise initiative: the here-and-now emphasis of the groups
favored the development of skills in immediacy: and the
supportive. stimulating environment of the third stage of group
development (Group Cohesion and Open Exchange of Relevant
Interpretations) encourages self-exploration.

An area in which both the control and experimental groups
showed large improvement was Self-disclosure. This behavior
is perhaps the most dependent upon trust among group members.
While both the control and experimental groups showed improvement.
the experimental groups engaged in much more risk-taking.

Perhaps the most striking result from the instrument was
the lack of improved ratings for the control group in the

areas of Feelings. emotions: Confrontation: and Self-exploration.

-75-

It seems highly improbable that any of these behaviors would
have the opportunity to flourish in structured group settings.
as the interactions among members in the presence of an
authority figure rarely involve confrontation or the expression
of feelings and emotions. As noted above. self-exploration
has its best opportunity when the group has reached the third
level of group functioning. a level never attained in the
control group.

In the area of self-esteem. the facilitators of the
experimental groups reported nearly unanimous concurrence
by participants that they were more confident about themselves.
more willing to risk self-disclosure in their interpersonal
relations. more aware of their strengths and weaknesses. and
more willing to accept themselves as a result of their group
experience. Many voiced the intent to continue working on
specific areas of their personal dynamics. such as expressing
anger more openly. expressing caring for others. being more
concrete or specific in their communications. and being more
active in initiating contacts with others. Several participants
felt that the social roles they had been playing in order to
gain approval were no longer appropriate for them. and that
they were willing to experiment with different behaviors
while relying more upon self-approval. Nearly all participants
expressed a general. undifferentiated positive feeling about

themselves also. Those who were less glowing in their self-

~76-

appraisals were nevertheless able to be more honest about
themselves with other group members. more comfortable in their
interactions. and more willing to focus upon the here-and-now
aspects of their lives - all indicants of the higher levels

of self-esteem.

In contrast. the control group facilitators did not
encounter declarations of increased self-confidence. of
willingness to improve interaction skills. of increased self-
awareness except in two cases. or any appreciable increase
in honest self-disclosure. Three participants reported an
improved interpersonal relationship within the group. but the
other three reported no improvement. The control group was
seen as essentially unchanged in its ability to deal with
feelings. confrontation. or self-examination - defenses
remained intact. Reliance upon group structure remained high
and hostility toward the facilitators was at a peak when struc-
ture was not consistently provided. even during the last
sessions. The level of self-esteem in the control group was
seen as medium - that is. they had a high level of commitment
to external values (related learning more to job performance
than to personal growth). and their self-appraisals were
highly dependent upon the opinions of others. Most striking
was the lack of willingness to engage in self-exploration
which took on increasing relevance and importance in the

experimental groups.

-77-

That the experimental Human Growth Groups reported
greater increases in self-esteem than the control group. thus
verifying the second hypothesis. was amply clear. The
conditions present in the Human Growth Groups which most
directly contributed to enhanced self-esteem for participants
were the respectful. supportive. and concerned treatment
which each person received from persons who had become in
some ways ”significant others“: and each was afforded the
Opportunity to strengthen his/her self-esteem by risking
occasional devaluation and negative feedback within a more
encompassing environment of acceptance.

The Human Growth Groups involved in this study quite
clearly progressed through the first three stages of group
development. While in Stage One (Testing and Dependence:
Orientation to Task). they struggled to define goals. formats.
and roles for themselves. Issues of dependency. both upon
the facilitators and upon structured proceedings were evident
to some degree in all cases. During Stage One. comments
offered by the members regarding self-esteem were mostly
guarded. modest declarations of a desire for new learning
experiences combined with assurances that they really did
not need them.

In Stage Two (Intragroup Conflict: Emotional Response to
Task Demands). the groups were clearly involved in intragroup
conflict. offering one another primarily negative feedback

-73-

and engaging in quite a bit of defensive interaction behavior.
They would at times react negatively to the group format.
often passively through withdrawal. The effects upon self-
esteem. however. began to appear as realizations that neither
the negative feedback nor the perceived dangers of a
relatively unstructured environment were destructive. and

that each member had a measure of strength.which.had weathered
criticism and which other group members seemed to respect.

Quickly following Stage Two came the cohesive behavior
of Stage Three (Development of Group Cohesion: Open Exchange
of Relevant Interpretations). The division between these
stages was not clearbcut but rather. blurred. as the groups
shifted from conflict to cohesion and occasionally back to
conflict. Self-reports indicated that self-esteem.was
enhanced during this stage as group members found acceptance
and shared their positive feelings with one another. A less
threatening environment had been established in which they
could now relax their defenses and deal more openly with the
issues of growth and learning.

In the nine weeks that the groups were in session. they
not together for an average total of twenty to twenty-five
hours each. While there were signs that the experimental
groups were approaching the Fourth Stage of development
(Functional Role-Relatedness: Insight). they did.not fully
enter the last stage in the time which was available.

-79-

Expected outcomes during this stage would have been a continued
strengthening of self-esteem through confrontation and
subsequent defense of self-esteem. increased awareness of
interaction dynamics through feedback. and experimental
interaction behavior within the group as a testing ground for
extra-group interactions.

\kngHe implications for the use of Human Growth Groups to
help participants increase self-esteem should be considered
within the broader context of goals for such group experiences.
To establish a group solely or primarily for the purpose of
enhancing self-esteem would seem.to be inappropriate. Rather.
enhancement of self-esteem is an outcome of a group process
whose function is to deal with more specific goals such as
the improvement of human interaction skills. or reducing
self-defeating behaviors. or any number of therapy situations.
The fact that participants can experience enhanced self-esteem
as a result of Human Growth Groups and quite possibly from
other similar formats could be a powerful determinant in
establishing goals at various stages of group and member
development. By monitoring levels of self-esteem throughout
the group experience. facilitators and members could gauge
progress. estimate current potential for increased growth.
and even provide themselves with an indicant of the
effectiveness of the group process. By focusing upon the

issue of self-esteem as an on-going outcome of group interactions.

-80..

the group can broaden its own awareness of the impact of the
group process as it is occurring. As important a by-product
of Human Growth Groups as enhanced self-esteem.deserves
careful consideration as a possible therapeutic tool within
group settings.

Inasmuch as the group setting is gaining much popularity
in this society as a learning environment. involving many
times more people in various forms of group interaction
similar to Human Growth Groups. the possibility for providing
esteempenhancing environments for a large portion of the
population is increased considerably. The basic interaction
skills required to maintain productive relationships can be
learned in a relatively short span of time. They can also
be introduced into educational. governmental. and industrial
settings as a part of an over-all attempt to improve working
conditions and increase efficiency through improved human
relations.

Coopersmith's (196?) observations about self-esteem in
delinquent adolescents suggests further applications of
esteem-enhancing environments in an attempt to come to grips
with problems of motivation. delinquency. and mental health
in general. Haslow's (1970) and Rogers' (1961) observations
that a high level of self-esteem is a self-perpetuating phe-
nomenon leads us to speculate that the ultimate application

of such human relations training as offered in the Human

-31-

Growth Group is in the child-rearing setting. Adults. even
prior to parenthood. could be educated through group
experiences in the importance of and establishment of esteem,
enhancing environments in the home as a means of producing
healthier. more self-accepting and need-fulfilled children.
If a high level of self-esteem is indeed a self-perpetuating
phenomenon. the impact of a generation of children whose

need for esteem is primarily fulfilled could lead to
practically limitless possibilities in the realization of

meaningful human existence.

Ggoup gaging Scale. (Gerard Egan)

Listed below are a number of behaviors that are essential to high-level
human relating. Rate yourself on these behaviors. using the following scale.

1 ‘1, 2 / 3 1 4 j 5 l._ 6 1_ 7 g] 8 l 9
Very weak Moderately Adequate Moderately _ Very strong
weak strong

Hate that a rating of 5 means that in a particular category you would censider
yourself a resource person (if only minimally so) in a human relationship or
group. a giver in that category rather than just a receiver.

Empathy: I see the world through the eyes of others; I understand others
because I can get inside the skin of others; I listen well to all the cues.
both verbal and nonverbal, that the other emits and I respond to these cues.

warmth. respect: I express (and not just feel) in a variety of ways
that I am "for others, that I respect them; I accept others even though I
do not necessarily approve what they do; I am an actively supportive person.

Genuineness: I am genuine rather than phony in my interactions; I do
not hide behind roles or facades; others know where I stand; I am myself
in my intersections.

Concreteness: I am not vague when I speak to others; I do not speak
in generalities not do I best around the bush; I deal with concrete experience
and behavior when I talk; I am direct and specific.

Initiative: In my relationships I act rather than just react; I go out
to contact others without waiting to be contacted; I am spontaneous; I take
initiative over a wide variety of ways of relating to others; when in a group
I "own" the interactions that take place between other members and get involved
in them.

Immediacy: I deal openly and directly with my relationships to others;
I know where I stand with others and they know where they stand with me because
I deal with the relationship.

Self-disclosure: I let others know the ”person inside"; I am not
exhibitionistic. but I use self-disclosure to help establish sound relation-
ships with others; I smopen without being a "secret-revealer" or a "secret-
searcher”, for I am important. not just my secrets.

Feelings and emotions: I am not afraid to deal directly with emotion.
my own or other's; in my relationships I allow myself both to feel and give
expression to what I feel; I expect others to do the same: but I do not
"inflict" my emotions on others.

Confrontation: I challenge others responsibly and with care; I use
confrontation as a way of getting involved with others; I do not use confron-
tation to punish.

Self-exploration: I examine my lifestyle and behavior and want others
to help me do so; I respond to confrontation as nondefensively as possible;
I am open to changing my behavior. I use confrontation as an opportunity
for self-exploration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson. N.H.. Lindner. R.. and LOpes. L.L. Integration
Theory Applied to Judgements of Group Attractivenass.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973. Vol.26.
Os. " a

Bach. G.R. The Marathon Group: Intensive Practice in Human
Interaction. Psychological Reports. 1966. 18. 995-1002.

Birnbaum. M. Sense About Sensitivity Training. Saturday
Ruler. NOV. 15. 1969. 52' 82-83. 96-980

Blum. 8. Group Therapy: A Special Report. Redbook. March.
1970.

Bonner. H. 0n Rein Mindful of Man Essa Toward a Proactive
Psychology. Banon: ficugfiton Mi??IIfi Co.. I955.

Brammer. L.M.. and Shostrom. E.L. Thera eutic Pa ch lo :
Fundamentals of Counseling and Psychotherapy. EngIewood

C iffa: Prent ce-Ha . 19 O.

Branden. N. The Ps cholo of Self-Esteem. New Ibrk:
Bantam. 1975.

Brunei. J.S. The Process of Education. New Kerk: Vintage.
19 3.

Bugental. J.F.T. (Hd.). Challen es of Humanistic Pa cholo .
New York: McGraw-Hill. I957.

Bugental. J.F.T. Five Paradigms for Group Psychotherapy.
Pa cholo ical Re orts. 1962. 10. 607-610.

Cartwright. D. Achieving Change in People: Some Applications

0% Group Dynamics Theory. Human Relations. 1951. Vol.2.
3 1-920

Chiang. H.. and Maslow. A.. (Hds.). The Healt Persona1it :
Readings. New York: van Noatrand ReInEoId. I959.

Coopersmith. L. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco:
U.H. Freeman Co.. 9 7.

CRM Books. (Eds.). Readings in Psychology Today. Del Mar:
CRM Books. 1969.

Diedrich. R.C.. and Dye. H.A.. (Eds.). Grou Procedures:
Fur oses. Processes and Outcomes SeIected Heidi s for

    
 

   

 

-8u-

Egan. G. Encounter: Grou Processes for Inter arsenal
Growth. Belmont: BrooEs7CoIe. I970.

Egan. G. Face to Face: the Small-Grou Ex rience and
Interpersonal Growth: BeIiont: BrooksSCoIe. I975.

Endler. N.S.. Boulter. L.R.. and Osser. H.. (Eds.). Con-
tem rar Issues in Develo mental Ps cholo . New York:
HoIt. RineEarE. and Winston. I953.

Erikson. E.H. Childhood and Socie:y. New York: W.H. Norton
and Co.. 1963.

 

 

 

Ferguson. L.R. Personality Development. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
1970.

Gagne. R.M. The Conditions of Learning. New York: H.U.
Norton and Co.. 9 3.

Gendlin. E.T.. and Beebe. J. III. An Experiential Approach
to Group Therapy. In R.C. Diedrich and H.A. Dye (Eds.).

Grou Procedures: Pur oses Processes and Outcomes.
Boston: ficughton Mi?fIin. I972.

Gorgon. K.J. The Concgpt of Self. New York: Holt. Rinehart
and Winston. 197I.

 

Gibb. J.R.. and Gibb. L. Leaderless Groups: Growth-Centered
Values and Potentials. In H.A. Otto and J. Mann (Eds.).

ways of Growth: Approaches to gypgpding Awareness.
New or : rossman. 9 .

Ginotg. R.C. Between Parent and Child. New York: Avon.
l9 9.

Glass. 8.D. The Practical Handbook of Group Counselipg.
Baltimore! Be a s 8 Gas. s
Gordon. T. A Description of the Group-Centered Leader.

In R.C. Diedrich and H.A. Dye (Eds.). Grou Procedures:
sea Processes and Outcomes. Boston: Hougfiton
Mifinn. I972.
Haiman. F.S. Grou Leadershi and Democratic Action. Boston:
Houghtcn Mi??IIn Co.. I93I.

Hamachek. D. Encounters With the Salt. New York: Holt.
Rinehart . wins ton . 1971 .

Hollander. E.P.. and Hunt. R.C.. (Hds.). Current Pars ctives
New IorE :

in Social Psychology: Readipgs with Commentary.
Ox 0 Univers y Press. .

 

-95-

Howard. J. Please Touch A Guided Tour of the Human Potential
Movement. New York: fiSII. 1970.

Jourard. S.M. The Transparent Self. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co.. 1971.

Koplitz. E.D. The Sensitivity Training Movement: Professional
Implications for Elementary and Secondary School Counseling

and Teaching. Journal of the Student Personnel Association
for Teacher Education. V6IT9. No.5. Spring. 197I.

Langer. J. Theories of Develo ment. New York: Holt.
Reinhart. and Winston. I959.

Lieberman. M.A.. Yalom. I.D.. and Miles. M.B. Encounter:
The Leader Makes the Difference. Psychology Today.
March. 1973. 69-76.

Lorenz. K. On aggression. New York: Bantam. 1969.

Mann. J. Encounter1_A Weekend With Intimate Strangers.
New York: Grossman. 1970.

Maslow. A.H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper
and Row. 19

Maslow. A.H. Toward a Ps cholo of Sci . New York:
Van Nostrand ReinhoId. I953.

May. R. Ps cholo and the Human Dilemma. New York:
D. Van Nostrand Co.. I957.

McCandless. B.R. Adolescents Behavior and Develo ment.
Hinsdale: Dryden Press. I990.

Miller. G.M. A Study of Attitude Change Via Sensitivity
Training Groups. Journal of the Student Personnel As-
sociation for Teacher Education. Winter. I97I. 97-59.

Perla. F.S. In and Out the Garbgge Pail. New York: Bantam.
1972.

Putney. 8.. and Putney. G. The Adjusted American; Normal
Neuroses in the Individua and Society. New Yor :
Harper and Row. I972.

Rogers. C.R. Carl Rogers on Encounter Groups. New York:
Harper and How. 970.

Rogers. C.R. Community: The Group Comes of Age. Psychology
Tadals Does. 1969. 27-31. 58’610

-86..

Rogers. C.R. On Becoming A Person. Boston: Sentry. 1961.
Rogers. C.R. The Process of the Basic Encounter Group.
In J.F.T. Bugental (Ed.). Challen es of Humanistic Pa cholo .
New York: McGraw-Hill. 19 7.

Rogers. D.M. Leading_Teen-Age Groups. New York: Association
Press. 1963.

Schutz. W.C. J y. New York: Grove Press. 1967.

Seashore. C. What is Sensitivity Training? In R.C. Diedrich
and H.A. Dye (Eds.). Group Procedures: Purposes. Processes.
gpd Outcomes. Boston: Houghton Miff in. 97 .

Shaw. M.C.. and Costanzo. P.R. Tgeoyies of Social Psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill. 1970.

 

Shostggm. E.L. ManI the Manipulator. New York: Bantam.
l9 .

South. O.P. Observation Guide: On Seeing. Hearing. and
Feeling. In R.C. Diedrich and H.A. Dye (Eds.). Group

Procedures: PurposesI ProcessesI and thcomes. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin. 1972.

Szasz. T.S. Ideology and Insanity. Garden City: Doubleday.
1970.

Szaszé T.S. The Myth of Mental Illness. New York: Delta.
19 1.

Thelen. H.A. Purpose and Process in Groups. In R.C. Diedrich
and H.A. Dye (Eds.). Grou Procedures: Fur oaes Processes.
and Outcomes. Boston: HougEEon MiiiIin. I972.

Thibaut. J.W.. and Kelley. H.H. On Norms. In E.P. Hollander
and R.G. Hunt (Eds.). Current Pars actives in Social
Psychology: Readings with Commenpgyy. New YorE: Oxford
University Press. 971.

Thomas. T.A. For Elementary School Principals. National

Elementary School Principals. May. 1971. Vol.1. No.5.
9" a

Tuckman. B.W. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups.

In R.C. Diedrich and H.A. Dye (Eda). Grou Procedures:
Pur sea Processes. and Outcomes. Boston: Houghton
MiiFIin. I972.

 

 

Wenar. C. Personalit Develo ment: Frpmglnfancy to Adulthood.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.. I971.

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

Ill“ llll
9

”I lllll H" II “II
312 310418 1

926