{.Fi

EMWSS‘M

:2 rg-‘EZPF

f

5'?

' NW?

-74.

W;

r?"

_ A: 'm-ra.

:1:-

, 4 an...“ vr 1.1

..?-‘«r

. “1.3:.-

|~4 . -
_I\ . .1 nu'dfilt
“gum -

mum-r
- ». 'I,
fill"...

.1.1..u 34 1.
he...“ mm

m

g)“

nu ~~A-';'
.. I.” -.

.éw...,./...'.-.

. .m.v.l y.

‘ . ‘ “mam:

:. . .z...:.n.-. u. , .
v... I<H~JV> .14 .

. run-unhal -.

Luna. ;uu.,-4

.I
w. \-

“tn.
. “hunt
.71.. n L

v1"
"in.
.vm- m
.1 mvld' mm
x . m.
:u
.- ..
sunny-«u:
‘ J.
_,_, .. -I.l».‘
‘53”. ’1'1’Il.~l
um...“
“.4...“

Jul-u"
.mru:

H
mm

m ~Iu4u-u'
'u.l.“‘\1. r «.-
znwxm u
I.l.lnr.r'.’\h . .4: ‘.

..\ unm. ‘. u.

u.l\'\'.'q-I.I an...
W“. v

1 .1}!

.. u‘.‘
u‘u‘u ’

'11:” u; 3 ‘
.u H... - ...- -

~..n ...¢.,.«u-.‘41‘£
:._u‘.'u.:.‘ wuv‘
mg..." 4
.11. “hm..."
.......»......u.’.
‘ ‘ l "h: [h

.1
mun»: .4
v.- ¢l~l\(‘
mu

1
.03...

x
1.1.. - Idh‘
‘nu .m-m , e uni m
- Lnu:
~ : ~~»I‘:~.‘~.
"v.1" . mm a
4.1 w ...u. «v
umm..:u.~ .
'mu

. ....y
. _.._

~.‘ 111'.
hum.- m“
“" u «.1:
’Iu'./
.4

"l {”4“

m. ;-.,..~

. .‘7"

an...“

(H-ulu;d--
‘

5 .1.“ ~...

«.
m“.
"4.”:
4.11. nxmv r ‘1‘
.v n 1'
u.;u.n: -.r -.u.
n unnmm

v.1
\

.4.
"u:

1:

.. .1 us
‘ mung-.3.
an: “M u

,

u.w...n. ,
Au 4.: n
m w (4 ~. a
ugffluuuu, .

n..-

v:
. "mu. .‘w
.n“. 1'

m-nmr

. ‘1’! “yum

'2 f
L- . u-IV

.uw ~ .m‘u.
.. ‘I .5 ..

. I” . . .I.’

I; man \,..-'

half:
‘I‘.-4...VI"
u... ,_ ly40..1‘.‘
'u \. . N..-

m gum 2.1

\Hluthrv“. 2-3:

.1

mm
. .,..,~,..
11 p,

. 1.. 41 «Mun-xv.

u nv-

WM...”
x......-. .. ...

L...
-...vn.w

.x
a mm”.

“1.

..,

21.1 m .1. m

mm“.-

mm . .u no . v

m.

.3. .-....r,
- ( mind.
an

.n
.1...u‘

:./.- :.

.1qu
5"!"

(u..-
.Jul nw. \‘lh'

m... ..
.~ My .

. m: 1.. (u

u
I

u.“

U...

urmmmw‘
I

e .1“
L;
Il"l~'?~l~l‘l—Llnl‘.

I”

-u . \
yrmuu.‘

“CK

' :1233’)’;.“‘
but: .1"

a.

u. .1
HM u. ' m. at... .. tn

’1

“mm.“ .:
,\ .«-. :.nr../

:1

Lu.

1:!

UN ‘4

.mn \N*.l’l\l.'lru-x -
‘u'u4vunum‘... m:
ll “1|

1.. . u.
u uv I'M-«mu. “u...

u\
u x
«v:

. f. k...
um .n-m. .x u‘. \'\. w
rr‘{\.-l.:. . - -

‘ ("hr“-
1. | .-

4” “4...: ‘

mum... .. ._

.mugwmwn ~1.

an. »..:-.uu'..

mm...
9,.
m ..,.

“‘vfi‘fiam

a... at. .. .4 ‘
”any. ugh. mun.
ugvuu ..\. '
.v..x.1 \
1.1.3:. .1
I... H at
l. ' . m
14.4., “\1 um.
....ux.. m...
tum’u.’
. mm
u. um ‘
ummm

> qunw...

'mr‘,

..\_ ‘.‘._
¢.~“4."1A"“r
1".MI‘; ..

.-. m-«.

n my
hum...
.\/.y.

c
- n u. my
Mum». ,.

.7». m.
.1:ng

m. 4w
4.4». ...
'm m: I -
mu .u \n
‘n-i‘u'm
.. t “M"
mu . w
.!\...:w.u

. um...

. v
u. A. h... m-
mummnm-mTIJ
m" 1: ..
...;. . . .
I": nA‘"4J»I
.quu mm.

. . .

m“)... w...
m. “a..-“ .
.u

.5...
‘ m“ elm”:

u . .. u n
”my. uh.

m.‘
luv

mm

.H
. a.
a“ .

‘A'.
fxmu u
u 4 .2z-u.m.a..u
- I.

“r.“

,5 uquuhlw u

‘u ..
m u
, . «71.x.
. ‘ <

m

... .... a}. ‘

. Nu”. ,. - ....

‘uwnu. w «32:: 4 c
:u\m‘.~..».:.:.u~

- anxucnau

. u....lv ~ «m

~ .1 he. (cu

31A: 1 . \

.-4.}r.:.ie(..-m.. u“

1...]. .4 -n(m<.'ul:h m:

.1” ' V

.I.
~ ..I
u.v. 1.1m. .:
- ’wu.

“mu

.nn-«Lm
,. ..
4.qu .4". . . M .
.1...;.....uu; ’«l~~‘un~l\"‘

u, \ I" «u .1.“

mm. .
a u u;
m u1
u “’1”:
am.“

l.vlyhl I“
‘ _ ...........r.
h... m...
-4

.. -..

1t .

4m .mu- um: umw

mum-4.1 r. ~14 I

.u

:‘m
«m um;

. .fi.“
.1...“

.r.“

m m

u.

lip.

«wt n:
L n

.u‘um

mm“: .
.ip\11!.'«x| .1.
;

«n.1-

.:.‘..-u x
Lluw' .-

.4.,w.du.:
q. .-

f - ‘
'43:“un In
at

JV”...

Lh' mm: 1.
v aruvm

n'l'x'1.-.

: ‘~{\I|lh

M...

“ 1-:
mu.- ..
. .l. ,

: ,.. w,“
t‘l'r'lu *u
N. ...,. .

Mu
mun.”
r

u. '.- m.
d, u.

i m «mu-a;
nu ma
‘ L. .

’ - vrxt'.
.msz’

1.. u:
\ '1'. a}

m
,u.

1 u: z
‘Mvuir A:
.n:..u.n.'v w m
....n(.mv w u _\w

.\ r)( «

<r .

.45w 4
w. ummyu u
I.,\‘;~r\l

fj- N
)u. .

Tux.
A‘Ll.~l41.lu‘
in"

m‘: .

~4-

4 . . .
1,;v|.vu
>1l~l-.I.1.\’
Fawn «mun

.rat'm
m.\-&-.
.u_ 1

v4.

ulfiix
('4
m

\'»(4L«: 1..“
.I-xnva'unzu.‘ 4‘

- ‘4.“ («c.‘cus u‘wuunu‘sx“

v...» . m...
\n~.
£‘uc

.«......
' (a

.—- s x m
‘ my

.1... w.
.—
. I . \ \. q. 4......
”Ham. :4 "WNW-1
w-x'u‘“ .: h...
.. 1m .14..-
.nu:. up

... AL'J«.~\k
«gm

wz'fll A

v.
.l">4"\.'
.u.-

. :Enun‘.

-_...u..

u waned
m”...- .u

.Na‘ui
.5... . «n.1,... a

A “1],. V
(I M. .mw x ""““‘"~"‘

1... nu; I:u..‘..'. gm'

3Q.\;\“
'11 ' '

inflhnv

.. “wt.
nu. .._.

win-HI r.
...r\

1;! 4 "X
lI‘wllI-u.\h|l.« .1
<«.\' “m“... .3.
Lanna-Mun -/
'ouu
w-

.....-k::......
1:4... .

mm» luuh
m...- g m

I. -..l.\.,.,' \~
... ~

.u.)
.t mu

u «mun
(

a. V

n

' ”(my)“ .
" Mural.

‘14-»...- “34;“;

n.4,» ,

u. u,
“in.
“‘4‘ ~ .vuuu

..... T
.....,.......-

m...)

N“ .n'J' .Jqu
vellum .
ma u z! u

u
.glflnahuu

wu
Mn «\N t -

.
m. .3... . .
\IL‘ (“l-VP n’wnxunvku
“var. W... c
”a... ,..,._ .. ..
u..~.~<m~r~u1 .11...

. .m: cunt-v. .m.‘
.. .

. - .
'ZJ\r1;(.Lu.
. .4.»» i\’ _ .
«um “wag. m‘ “
~4 .u mu
4...
m. .u u;
x... .“kidktl‘n
“N... .u s-

2.“ r.(
4.1.13.
..~..m.«. n .
new:

. . 1 .1
iv .r.:\s.<r..‘..u.7.x
may.“ / «nu p4,.
mama: . . - .
Wf"l“"A~‘-6 ._
' n u

. 71 a “147-“; Luau ~ “in".
”(A {J—IH‘JH (l ’(‘L «\IU‘.
..,. . .1“ u
n . ' - n ' m . . “2H?“ (
wank-H um r...r.bnm.1n ' 3‘ ‘7 J“ 3
N. I... .... W. ‘vr- 4L ...

.2555” ~44 n .m'

:J'. u.
“mm...” 71.

4 Lu. - w .. ...
1 mm? ’1 .

c

(‘
.».- m
..v»\_x ,

1.-
u :.
rug-1m:

I...“ u.
x .vu‘

an 4 u
.‘r; u),
1: v43:

\.
uusruuu r4
“qu:

1-: Km. mui

'r: mn‘vu

nl'ukl‘v HI
urn-4n .m

«aw

.,...:. -
4 mm 1 m"
WA) v-u
~ ' 1.I»"4"an| u ,- m
I -u mm: 1':qu in
u'J w m l . , u.
.1 Hu-u’vv'l I ma.
- "ux' - 1

r.‘ I
ur‘yk runny

nh‘iw'v'l 9

my...

‘I .‘AM

\u

l-I'IJHA; : 4-.”

M h‘Jux.

I‘v-“(qu-"1

21.1 v a
“

.n.1-.. 7.:
mun-.- ..
' numim

.mume-‘um
1".1 u.‘_~-h ..

. w

u um; .._ n.

n7'1-.wm,'. 12¢:
"4.1m.”
u-r u

\..M'

I‘M!"

«: A .
mm m: "
-.: m... r
amid-V41.

[Nu-:4 m"

4.7" .2, m. ‘*
‘ v-ncv ”an.” ».

mph... ,...,.. ..

1 I.” an nu

.4
uum-v. , 4. ‘
'r.‘ 1' v-gw mm
4......” .41
u-vxIn-tuuu'v
(unvnvv.

mum -

a

mu
nr

“my,
.4.

a

\J.
..A.....‘.«“

‘ ”.2.

I. mama»

.. awn-1... L». A:
sum“ . u “I‘VE"
n... an a.

-‘ - m. a.

1 x5“.-
u.. ”And.- “.1:
a. "u": Lu."
\.\n.~.-..<.¢u
‘ ' («‘th
r . . mm.
.. m “ulnar-a -
“1I4\; ,\Ii.'s:n\1\hh
Nun"! huh“
Vu.—»r.l\‘n w
m.

143.
”0...“... 141:”
a- “‘3. “1.1.5:“; LEI‘

m1'......‘.“‘"‘“‘
lam»;

mu

um: \‘k.’ «n.-

. ‘1... .r.

.- u
main“...
...-
u
um... .1
(.1 w
L)“:
. -.
11—1 .u.
null-«9‘
.u. . «.muw.»

Mun. ..
:wuu ‘ ’

«(u-I. I.
awn-r.

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIE

I II II IHHIHH

3 1293 00785 4239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

_ dissertation entitled

Self-Esteem and Socioeconomic Background:
The Relationship Between Self—Esteem and Work

presented by

Mohammed Al—Bakr

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in SOCiOlOgX

Major professor

Date June 12, 1990

MSUL! an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution O~1 2771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

   
  
 

“-

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
c:\c|rc\ddedue.pm3—p. 1

 
   
   
    

  

 

 

 

    

SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM AND WORK

BY

Mohammed Al-Bakr

 

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1990

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM AND WORK

BY

Mohammed Al-Bakr

This study addressed the question of how working
conditions and experiences influence employee
self—esteem, proceeding from the assumption that
employees' occupational experiences and work conditions
tend to affect rather than reflect their psychological
functioning. The study built upon the perspective which
rejects the common assumption that work necessarily
affects self-esteem and examined variables that may
affect the relationship between work and self—esteem.
Thus, this study aimed to explore the causal
relationship of job conditions and experience--
specifically, self-direction, occupational achievement
level, and perceived upward mobility-~to self-esteem,
and to determine how these conditions moderate the

effect of socioeconomic status of fanily-of—origin and

educational attainment on self-esteem.

 

 

 

Mohammed Al—Bakr

The study's population was drawn randomly from two
census tracts representing stable upper-middle and
working-class residential areas in lensing, Michigan.
Forty-five persons were selected from each tract. The
head of each household was interviewed.

The causal relationships between the independent,
moderating, and dependent variables were statistically
analyzed using path analysis. Also, regression analysis
was used to test the effect of career stage (number of
years in the labor force and age) on the relationship
between self-esteem and educational attainment,
occupational achievement level, self-direction, and
perceived upward mobility.

The statistical analysis indicated that
significant causal relationships existed among the
following variables: socioeconomic background,
educational attainment, occupational achievement level,
self-direction, and self-esteem, in the following order:
TSES -9 Tieducational attainment ——9 Toccupational
achievement level -—9 Tself—direction ——9 Tself-esteem.
Accordingly, the research proposition that socioeconomic
background affects self-esteem only indirectly through
mediating variables was sustained. The results did not
show a significant direct causal relationship tmtween
socioeconomic background and occupational achievement
level, occupational self-direction, or self-esteem.

There was also no significant direct causal relationship

self-direction,
self-esteem. The hypothesized effect

stage on the relationship of occupational

evement and experience with self-esteem was not

found.

 

 

 

 

 

DEDICATION

To the memory of my late mother

 

 

 

ACKNOW LEDGMENTS

A number of people by their support, interest, and
guidance have provided the opportunity for me to realize
this moment. I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness and
gratitude to them here.

A tremendous debt of gratitude is owed to
Professor William Faunce, my academic advisor and
chairman of my doctoral committee, for his endless
support and guidance, for his ability to patiently
listen and actively engage in the generation of new
ideas on work and self-esteem. I also wish to express
my appreciation for the sincerity, encouragement, and
intellectual criticism of my dissertation committee
members: Professor Chris Vanderpool, Professor Tom

Conner, and Professor Jack Bain.

I sincerely thank Professors Frederick Waisanen
and Chris vanderpool for their friendship and for being
sources of ideas and insight during my graduate
education in the Sociology Department. Thanks are also
extended to Professor Stan Kaplowitz, who provided
assistance in statistical analysis and interpretation.

A very special and deeply felt thanks is given to
my friends, Abdulaziz Al—Sebail, Mohammad Al-Gowaifli,

vi

 

 

    

bus assufioeflfibnl 2m spbslwonxos oJ deiw I .1nemom aid:
.eued mod" 31 ubudiflswp

o: bewo ai ebujljsup 30 Jdgb Evhhhurr"J f

hue uoaivbs aimebrss um .tcuu " r l5 . ~
eaclhns aifl no} \”Di?:hmm' ”p-w.~.- .

thrrHEjn- OJ vJZ.'-"u n‘“

,‘x

    

Gene Puriim for the tedious Bob of typinthhis
dissertation, which he did with the utmost patience and

professionalism.

vii

 

bns eonsldsq 33011111: and ddiw bib 9d doldw .nox'dsdtmeelb

.nnilerniuao?owq

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES o I o I o o t o I o t o o o o o n o 0

LIST OF FIGURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Chapter

II

II.

INTRODUCTION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Rationale for the Study . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . .
Significance of the Problem . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses to Be Tested . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Propositions . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literature Related to the Historical
Background of Self- Phenomena . . . . . .
Charles Horton Cooleg (1864-1920) . . . . .
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) . . . . .
A Critique of Cooley' 5 Looking- Glass Self
and Mead's Reflected Appraisal Theories . .
Literature Related to the Terms Self-Concept
and Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self—Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self—Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literature Related to Factors and Theories
Contributing to the Formation of
Self—Concept and Self-Esteem . . . . . . .
I. Reflected Appraisals . . . . . . . . .
II. Social Comparison . . . . . . . . . .
III. Self-Attribution . . . . . . . . . .
IV. Psychological Centrality . . . . . . .
V. Identity Theory . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. Self— Investment Theory . . . . . .
Literature Related to Work and Self- Esteem .
Literature Related to Social Class and
Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

xi

NOhWNH

H‘H

15

16
18
19

20

22
22
3O

33
34
40
46
47
48
50
51

52

 

 

Page

Literature Review on Studies of the Mediating
Variables between SES and Self-Esteem . . . 54
Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . 54
Self—Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Upward Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Occupational Achievement level . . . . . . 62

III. RESEARCH METHODS, INSTRUMENTATION, AND
PROCEDURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 65

Description of the Population . . . . . . . . 65
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Socioeconomic Status of Family of Origin
and Occupational Achievement level of
Target Population . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Occupational Self-Direction . . . . . . . . 70
Upward Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Self-Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Career Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Research Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Statistical Analysis and Procedures for
Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 80
Results of Path Analysis . . . . . . . 82
Findings of the Interaction Effect Model . . 89

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Recommendations Resulting from the
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Recommendations Resulting from the
Findings and Conclusions of This Study . 110

APPENDIX 0 o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o s I o o o o 112

Appendix A — Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 112
Appendix B — Socioeconomic Index for

Occupations in the Detailed Classification

of the Bureau of the Census: 1950 . . . . . . 141

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

ix

ma 1|

  

 

nipimo lo
30 loved

[Y I I 3
{IV I I I I
bl . .

I
II

notssluq.fl add in noifqi

I I I I
yllmsi 3c
sncmsvoidofl

n-.-i';|:1-.

9.11.1: .18

-.)

\l

b?.?

.- r.u"i" .

 

"CEU

n°j1fijnfimuq.
'- j’“ “515-: c Pum-
IsntiefiqU?r, _

lllpj 4‘: I _I(||'.':

:gn'i

LIST OF TABLES

Page
1. Distribution of Total Population by Gender . . . 66

2. Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Family Socioeconomic Status . . . 67

3. Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Educational Attainment . . . . . 68

4. Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Occupational Achievement Level . 68

5. Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Occupational Self-Direction
scores I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 72

6. Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Perceived Upward Mobility . . . . 72

7. Frequency Distribution of the Target

8. Zero-Order Correlation Matrix for All Variables
in the Causal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

9. Interaction Effect of Educational Attainment
with Career Stage on Self—Esteem . . . . . . . 9O

10. Interaction Effect of Occupational Achievement
Level with Career Stage on Self-Esteem . . . . 90

ll. Interaction Effect of Self-Direction with Career
Stage on Self—Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O

12. Interaction Effect of Upward Mobility with Career
Stage on Self—Esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

 

CD
Fl

Jepzsr'an lo nojjufiimjm

3"" \v‘ni‘L'p'J'fl
. equja oimonoaeoiam; 2:th '_ mm, :. ”q”!
$950153" '1” Ti- H ."ij _. -.r._-
' ' - -'r‘-'-‘r'=r.ir..*..-'*. ‘ . .'_-
l’_-'1L.':' .
I ' ',". I I .3,
f

    

3, Path model . . . . . . . .

'IZII

4.
5.

Final model . . . . . . . .

The Interaction Effect Model

~w

’ n5 l :6; --il(- i39§_- ;

 

. O O 84
I O O 89
. . . 90

 

 

pp I I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E‘H-‘l .lll' - I-

98 I I I I I I I I I I I I o - - I I I ‘5'

LI .2 I I I I I I 9 I I I -I '.

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Rationale for the Study

This research is designed to advance research which
challenges the common assumption that work is necessarily
a major determinant of employees' self-esteem, as proposed
by scholars such as Crites, who indicates that work is
centered in the life of the individual; it is the major
source of self-esteem, career satisfaction, and success.
Alternatively, based on the work of, among others,
Tharenou and Harker (1982), Tharenou (1979), Kohn and
Schooler (1983), and Faunce (1989), we propose that it is
not work per se but more particularly work conditions and
experiences such as occupational achievement level, upward
mobility, and self-direction, which are some of the most
salient. variables that may influence self—esteem. For
example, Kohn and Schooler (1983:141) provide evidence
that job conditions affect facets of personality such as
self-conception and social orientation. Moreover,
Tharenou (1979) indicated that jobs providing autonomy,
challenge, and skill are positively associated with global
and work-specific self-esteem and competence. Based upon

the fact that job conditions and experiences vary and are

 

daidw flaunaaeu sunnvbs

.113

yfiupncnn n :3 #IUH :efl:

.'-"= '5

boar-1' 82!.-

 

1

\3
subjected to alteration, we assume that these conditions
and experiences will highly influence self—esteem. They
may not, however affect self-concept. This is because
self—esteem fluctuates and depends on the individual's
endless experiences and social contacts, whereas
self-concept tends to be more stable and structured in
early childhood. Because occupational conditions and
experiences such as self-direction give one freedom at
work and more independence in making decisions, it will
lead to self—acceptance, self-respect, and positive
feeling at work, which implies a high self-esteem. On the
other hand, there are occupations where self—direction is
restrained or totally eliminated by performing very
routinized work. Such work may induce a negative feeling
toward one's self. The authors of Work in America
indicate that blue-collar workers experience an

overwhelming sense of inferiority (1973:35). Because of

this, we assume that occupational self—direction will

correlate with self—esteem.

Statement of the Problem
The problem which this study addressed was the
puzzling question of how working conditions and
experiences influence one of the employee's major
psychological functions, namely, selffesteem. In this
research, we proceed from the assumption that employees'

occupational experiences and work conditions tend to

 

is mobeezi one evlp noijotuib-Zusa an duua aoonci'rsqxs

Hiw :1} .anoieloob puma.“ n} n:-r:-;i-n-;r..-r=rui -...-_uom bnrs 2:35."

;-vi::iaoq rim.- \3'-'al-‘.';‘=I|-"ilfil ,.:x..-,.:--=:-. -;: n..- [3.2.91

"6 iII'J I|| (I
-' '1': I i
I‘ .. J i

 

3
affect rather than reflect their psychological
functioning. Moreover, in contrast to Crites (1976) and
others who assume that work necessarily affects
self—esteem, the primary objective of this research is to
build upon the perspectives which require a rejection of
such an assumption, and examine variables that may affect
the relationship between work and self-esteem as evidenced
in Faunce's (1989) work on occupational status-assignment
systems. Accordingly, we aim to assess the actual causal
impact of job conditions and experiences on personality.
We argue that the relationship between socioeconomic
status of family of origin and self-esteem is moderated by
occupational conditions and experiences. Therefore, we
hypothesize that socioeconomic status does not directly
affect the employees' self-esteem; rather, it is proposed
that socioeconomic status is indirectly related to
self-esteem by' the effect it has (N1 the individual's
opportunities for attaining a high level of education and

a higher level of occupational achievement, and the effect

of these on the individual's opportunities to exercise
self-direction at work and having higher possibility for
upward mobility. Career stage can be expected to moderate

most of these relationships.

Significance of the Study

Over the past two decades, research findings about

the relationships betweai work conditions, experiences,

 

jngmnpf?ftl.-F£UJEJ? {arm 'rd ' l.‘“'-v'"'-‘

. I_. . ,

.\.’.'.- l') r-

 

IBFLIEL- [61132.2 mt! -'- P-"--- c-.' "'

 

 

4
social class, educational attainment, and self—esteem are
fraught with contradictions. While some research findings
indicate positive, negative, or conditioning
relationships, others reveal no relationships at all
between the previous variables and self-esteem. These
contradictory findings in the relationships between social
class and self-esteem, and the conflicting results between
work and self—esteem, will be elaborated upon in Chapter
II, the review of related literature. Accordingly, this
research aims to contribute to the areas of social
psychology, and occupational and organizational sociology
by providing more knowledge and explanation with regard to
the previous problematic findings. Furthermore, it has
been conventionally assumed that work is central in the
life of the individual and plays a crucial role in the
formation of self-esteem, as it appears in the work of
Kohn and Schooler (1983), Crites (1976), Harvey (1975),
and the authors of Work in America (1973). Hence this
study will highlight the conditions by which work has an

impact on self-esteem.

Hypotheses to Be Tested

The harsh reality is that our lives are highly

stratified. There are those who are at the bottom, top, or

in-between levels on the stratification ladder. A

corollary is that the three dimensions of status

systems—-wea1th, power, and prestige-—are unequally

(”w

    

Izadqsda at now; Mods-.H'I' 76de II .r- -‘:'."."£’.£ --" has" 2:10.: 8
a 'ai'j .‘x‘fcrfibnosaA .-.-'-:.:.'v:'-.-. "! ':=-J:.'.-' it: :wsivc- e-r'J \ TT.

'5 g f ' i'h..“ , ,. . , . — ‘ [:9

u '.' . - r -. . .

5

distributed among social units such as persons or families.
For those who are in more advantaged segments of society,
their social class position makes a significant
contribution to their achievement and, consequently, to
their children's achievement. Thus differences in
occupational, educational achievement, and type of work or
conditions one would anticipate to have at work, can be
ascribed to some extent to class origin.

Social class plays a major role in the formation of
educational attainment. To a large extent it determines
who goes to college and who will graduate from college and
pursue higher education. A lawyer's sons are more likely
to be attorneys, physicians, or executives. The same
expectations would not be held for the son of a carpenter
because opportunities and resources are not distributed
equally. Blau and Duncan (1967) indicated that social
origin relates to subsequent attainment. Also, Sewell and
Hauser (1975) wrote that, "The process of socioeconomic
achievement is reflected in the differentially persistent
effects of parents' educational, occupational status, and
income on corresponding achievements of sons" (p. 183).

Moreover, socioeconomic status is expected to have a
direct effect on self-direction at work. This expectation
is conceivable for two reasons. First, taking into account
the conditions, responsibility, and requirements which are
assumed by a self-directed job, such a job would require

highly educated or trained personnel. Second, work has

l‘l‘l‘l’ .‘

1H1

 

.nlp37x anti. NJ Jng'xn :wau r: brainzas

ao noinm3c2 QHJ mi of ' uri.: r cytfu ha i; infirm"
pfu I
‘. .

greater salience at high socioeconomic levels; thus,
self-direction at work tends to be a central value for men
in this class level.
According to the discussion above, we hypothesize:
Hla: The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her

educational attainment.

Hlb:The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her
occupational achievement level.

chz The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the more he/she will be
self-directed at work.

In modern industrial society, it is commonly
believed that educational attainment is the mechanism by
which an individual can obtain a higher status and
prestigious job. Education is considered, in most cases,
a prerequisite and main qualification for getting a job.
Thus occupational choices are very limited and constrained
by this prerequisite and qualification. Accordingly, lack
of education is a major deficiency that will prevent the
individual from being recruited into responsible jobs
where he/she can exercise self—direction and perform
substantively complex work. Kohn and Schooler (1983)
argued that “Education provides the intellectual
flexibility and breadth of perspective that are essential
for self-directed values and orientations. Lack of

education must seriously interfere with men's ability to

be self-directed" (p. 30).

 

 

7

Educational attainment plays an important role in
the occupational stratification system. It determines
what kind of job one is supposed to do, and who is better
prepared for upward mobility. In addition, education may
affect self-esteem directly. Therefore, it is expected
that those who have higher educational levels will score

higher on the self-esteem scale than those at lower

education levels.

Accordingly, we hypothesize that:

H2a: The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater will be
his/her occupational achievement level.

H2b: The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the more likely
he/she will be self-directed at work.

H2c: The higher the level of an employee‘s
educational attainment, the greater the
perceived possibility of his/her upward
mobility.

H2d: The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the higher will be
his/her self—esteem.

Nowadays, achievement is very important in our
society. Many people judge and evaluate us according to
our achievement level. At the work setting, achievement
is greatly emphasized because it is the way to compare our
achievements relative to others. Most, if not all,
organizations and corporations have what is called
"employee of the month" or "honored employee," where the

employee's name is listed along with their achievement.

Thus a higrl achievement level indicates success at work

 

 

8
and mastery of one's job; therefore, it is assumed to have
a greater impact on self—esteem. It is also likely that
in higher status occupations there will be more
opportunity for self-direction and higher possibility for
upward mobility. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H3a: The higher the level of an employee's

occupational achievement, the more likely
he/she will be self-directed at work.
H3b The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the higher the
perceived possibilities for his/her upward
mobility.

H3c: The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the higher will be
his/her self-esteem.

In work environments characterized by a rigid
hierarchical authority structure, routinization of
activities will preclude the employee from practicing
self—direction at work, and limit his/her opporhnuties
for upward mobility. Therefore one would argue that such
conditions at work will have a pronounced negative effect

on the employee's self-estemn. On the other hand, work

conditions which facilitate the exercise of occupational

self-direction and have more possibility for upward
mobility and promotion will foster self-esteem because
self—direction will provide opportunities for perceiving
one's self as responsible, competent, and capable of
dealing with challenging circumstances. Likewise, since
upward mobility is often a central life goal and sometimes

very salient, it is assumed that upward mobility will

a

 

 

9
associate with success and downward mobility will
associate with failure. Thus it is also expected that
perceived possibility for promotion and upward mobility
will nurture self-esteem. Thus we hypothesize:

H4a: The more the employee is self-directed at
work, the higher will be his/her self-esteem.

H4b:The higher the employee's perceived
opportunities for upward mobility, the higher
will be his/her self-esteem.

In our previous discussion, we proposed that there
are four' variables which may influence self—esteem:
education, occupational self-direction, possibility for
upward mobility, and occupational achievement. Moreover,
we argue that career stage will moderate the effect of the
above—mentioned variables on self-esteem. At later career
stages, non—work related variables may become increasingly
important as bases for self—esteem. Thus, we assume that
career stage (number of years in the labor force, and age)
might incline the employee to believe that there is no
hope to reach a higher status position at work or that
he/she might have already reached the ultimate career
goal. In such cases, education and occupational
conditions and experience would be less likely to affect
self-esteem. Therefore, we can hypothesize that:

H5a: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
education on self-esteem.

H5b: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of

occupational achievement level on
self—esteem.

 

9-".‘1'! .. _... . - _. . ' . ' '
j Jsflu f-fioc.-., .w Hu,g.: .An. -H: ‘= . 311- fi

:m viii-jinn 'J’L P ‘ r -' -
_ . _ ...
.. -- I s:\

 

10

H50: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of the
perceived possibility for upward mobility on
self-esteem.

H5d The older the employee and the later his/her

career stage, the less the effect of

occupational self-direction on self—esteem.

The relationships posited in the preceding hypotheses may
not be linear. We might expect a sharp drop in the effect
of occupational achievement on self-esteem when a person
approaches retirement. This possibility will be
explored. These hypotheses are illustrated in Figure l,

which summarizes the hypothetical causal structure.

Theoretical Propositions

According to our model (Figure l), and the
previously mentioned hypotheses which were based on
previous research and theory,1 it seems reasonable to
expect that:

l — There is a relationship between the
socioeconomic status of family of origin and the
subsequent educational attainment, occupational

achievement level, and the opportunities of having

self-directed occupation.

 

1These works, among others, are: Blau and Duncan
(1967); Tharenou and Harker (1982); Mortimer and Lorence
(1979a, 1979b); Tharenou (1979); Hall (1971); Luck and
Heiss (1972); authors of Work in America (1973); Bachman
and O'Malley (1977); Kohn and Schooler (1969, 1973,
1978, 1983); Schwalbe (1985); Rosenberg (1979); Faunce
(1989); Kasl and French (1962); and Harvey (1975).

 

an " '
Ll." ‘(4'1' Lug?“ '5': 'I
I .I l'..- L.“I'l-I~ ('15
I - ' '1 _.I
_ I r ' I
. ~ .120.

'.'."-"“’\

 

 
       

"u
a. g.

"-

:“jlifiiilflllll

_-_

lreauuoaaannuaom
_ $033300

   

.Hoooz Humane Hmofiuotooss on» mo ogzpozgumulv otswfim

  

3:30:
“Kazan to.“

suaaananmoa

  
        

 

Ho>wg

233032 E
Hmcoaumnaooo 1“
V” cowumosum

D.

 

 

 

12
2 - There is .3 relationship between educational
attainment and occupational achievement level, possibility

for upward mobility, occupational self—direction, and

self—esteem.

3 — There is a relationship between occupational
achievement level and occupational self-direction,
possibility for upward mobility, and self-esteem.

4 - There is a relationship between occupational
self-direction, possibility for upward mobility, and
self—esteem.

The findings of this study will highlight these

expectations and may either sustain or negate them.

Definitions
The following definitions will be used in this study:

1. Socioeconomic status of origin: the respondent's

family socioeconomic background.

2. Occupational achievement level: the respondent's

present occupational attainment.

3. Possibility for upward mobility: respondent's
perception of the chance to achieve a higher
position than his/her present position in the
occupational hierarchy.

4. Self-direction: A self-directed occupation is a
job which enhances and facilitates the employee's
opportunities to exercise freedom of movement and

autonomy in decision-making at the work setting.

 

bus .vjilirzon- .2715qu 71.21 ' . 5M1: ,-._.- _ .m-H _--. su-" 15:;

 

13
Such a gfifl) is necessarily conditioned by doing
substantively complex, non-routinized work and
being free from close supervisory attention.

These three job conditions were characterized
by Kohn and Schooler (1983:53) as determinative of
occupational self-direction. Kohn and Schooler
(1983) define the substantive complexity of work
as “the degree to which performance of the work
requires thought and independent judgment.
Substantively complex work by its very nature
requires making many decisions that must take into
account ill—defined or apparently conflicting
contingencies" (p. 127).

Moreover, Kohn and Schooler (1983) distinguish
the substantively complex job from non-
substantively complex ones by indicating that, in
the former, work units are composed from complex
entities whereas in the latter work units are
nearly identical. A job that has complex work
entities will permit a variety of approaches in
the work setting, which will embrace initiative
thought and independent judgment. These two
aspects of job conditions (initiative thought and
independent judgment), as they appeared in Kohn

and Schooler's works, are the cornerstone for a

self-directed job.

 

 

 

    
  
 

's self-acceptance,
feelings of self-worth, as defined by Rosenberg

(1979) .

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction
The aim of this review of literature is to furnish
the previous related research as a background for this
study. This related research may go along with the
findings of this study or may contradict it. Moreover,
this chapter is designed to broaden our understanding of
self-concept and self—esteem, and to clarify some of the

confusion between the two concepts as they are related to

this study. This chapter will be presented in the
following order:

1. Literature related to the historical background
of self-phenomena.

2. Literature related to a critique of Cooley's

looking—glass self and Mead‘s reflected appraisal

theories.

3. Literature related to the terms self-concept and
self-esteem.

4. Literature related to factors and theories
contributing to the formation of self-concept and

self-esteem.

15

 

datmmi OJ ai: stmsdil in wolves Lin: mks. an":

rht: :01 bnu0flpfizrd :2 an H:"r-u:w b-_-f . --~. ., :A:

“ih' Hfliw [HHHH- a: ‘fidv r 'u- uh ;- . ' . .j-' . .'?

 

l6
5. Literature related to work and self-esteem.
6. Literature related to social class and
self-esteem.
7. Literature related to the nmderating variables

between social class and self-esteem.

Literature Related to the Historical
Background of Self-Phenomena

The self has been analyzed and examined by a
plethora of studies conducted by psychologists,
sociologists, and philosophers. Calhoun and Morse (1977)
have succinctly documented the long line of scholars who
have been concerned with the self—phenomenon:

The 'self' is a phenomenon that has intrigued man

for centuries. Baldwin (1889) clahns that St.

Augustine (354—430) was among the first to

investigate the 'self.‘ During the early part of

the century, pioneers on self theory included

James (1890), Cooley (1902), Freud (1920), and

Mead (1934), whom many have credited with coining

the term 'self-concept'; Maslow (1954), known for

his contribution on 'self-esteem'; Iecky (1945),

for his contribution on 'self-consistency';

Jersild (1952); and Coopersmith (1959), for his

'self-esteem inventory.‘ (p. 319)

Although study of the self is a major focus of
sociological scholars in social psychology, the works of
the field's most towering figures, such as Charles H.
Cooley (1902) and George H. Mead (1934), drew their basic
principles from psychology itself. Nearly a century ago,

psychologist William James (1896) delineated two ways in

which man experiences self: one is the material aspect of

 

 

s yd benlmsxe bus- besylsns next: car! "1:: on":
.aiaipoiofioysq yd br-Jnufmn') a "h.” : ‘ --.:c-ri-:-.-Iq
(\‘H'H Clint“ on}; r:!h_:|'.-'Ei‘a ..-~ r‘m r 3 _ .r: ;r--. " "j'.'-.§.'.u-.-
E 1' .. ._ .- .'("- )c' 3'. -:-ni" ['IHI’ 1‘ '- '--' i
uf" r
. ' ' '

17
the self, and the other is the social aspect of the self.
As James (1896) concretely summarized,
In its widest possible sense, a man's self is the
sum total of all he can call his, not only his
body and his psychic powers, but his clothes and
his house, his wife and children, his ancestors
and friends, his reputation and work, his land
and horses, and yacht and bank account. All
these things give him the same emotion. If they

wax and prosper, he feels triumphant; if they
dwindle and die away, he feels cast down.

(p. 291)

Since James, one of the most prominent contributions
concerned with the self has come from Freud‘s
psychoanalytic theory, which introduced concepts such as
Id, Ego, and Superego. The Id represents that aspect of
the self which is biologically derived, while the Superego
represents the social. or internalized cultural aspect.
According to Freud, these two aspects of the self are
always antagonistic, in contrast to Mead's "I" and "Me,"
which have a cooperative relationship.

One axiom of social psychology is that the self is
social and develops through ongoing social interaction.
Individuals do not simply respond to stimuli that exist
independently of their ongoing activities; instead stimuli
exist within and develop through the social interaction
process, wherein individuals engage in ongoing activity.
As Stryker puts it,

We come to know who and what we are through
interaction with others. We become objects to
ourselves by attaching to ourselves symbols that
emerge from our interaction with others, symbols
having meanings growing out of that interaction.
As any other symbols, self symbols have action

 

anoijudiudnoo ineninnvq firm. an: 3.. ..n .asnast. mania }

':’:»._-.'.s'-J Inn-1? tit-«.2, .2: 'r'- i . =-" WIN":
:.r~ ”out: :-.-’._E'-'..-r-c.'. ..:.'-_- ' ‘ -- . - .3' '-"-"‘-=‘:

{J .- ' c l

 

l8
implications: they tell us (as well as others)
how we can be expected to behave in our ongoing
activity. (Stryker & Serpe, 1982:202)
To understand the development of the self within the
social context, which has occupied a central place in the
work of symbolic interactionimn, it is essential to

examine the seminal contrflmfljons of Cooley (1902) and

Mead (1934).

Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1920)

Cooley (1902) refers to the self as the
"looking-glass self," the conception of self that is the
most widely used and accepted by the symbolic
interactionist school. Calhoun and Morse (1977) note
that this suggests "that we perceive ourselves as
reflected in a mirror; therefore, we tend to be
interested in our" appearances because they are ours,
pleasing or otherwise" (p. 318). Attendant to this
conception of self, Cooley strongly emphasized the
relationship between self and social environment. Since
the self is social, its development and emergence is
based upon social interaction. The basis for this
social interaction, according to Cooley (1973), is
"face—to-face groups" which contain

groups of the family, the playground, and the

neighborhood. In the essential similarity of

these is to be found the basis, in experience,
for similar ideas and sentiments in the human
mind. In these, everywhere, human nature comes
into existence. Man does not have it at birth;

he cannot acquire it except through fellowship,
and it decays in isolation. (pp. 159—160)

 

."_' II' ._-: . :._ ' , -_ _ ."‘-I

I‘ll

 

19

Cooley's metaphor of the looking—glass self plays an
essential role as mediator between the real self image and
the ideal self. By interacting with others, the
individual learns about himself and gains the ability to
see himself through the reactions of others in the
dominant reference group. The reactions of others are the
mirror wherein the individual views himself and his
behavior. What he sees there will lead the individual to
applaud or to deplore his self-image. In Cooley's (1967)
summary of this process, he emphasizes the individual's
judgment of the perceived looking—glass self:

A self~idea of this sort seems to have three

principal elements: the imagination of our

appearance to the other person; the imagination

of his judgment of that appearance; and some sort

of self feeling, such as pride or mortification.

The comparison with a looking-glass hardly

suggests the second element, the imagined

judgment, which is quite essential. The thing

that moves us to pride or shame is not the more

mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an

imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this

imagination upon another's mind. . . . We always

imagine, and in imagining share the judgments of
other minds. (p. 184).

George Herbert Mead (1863-1931)

Mead's insights and guidelines for the study of the
self remain some of the most cogent contributions in the
field of social psychology. According to Mead (1934), the
self cannot exist out of or apart from society, and it is
through communication with others that the individual
learns about herself or himself.

Social psychology studies the activity or
behavior of the individual as it lies within the

     

>fi§i :7 y g A .— _ . ->

0:! Isubivibni edzl

has} Ifi'v- 2‘ .r': =:' '.': -_.:' ”My! .30 ivsdad

 

($39.” B'YEIIOOU HS . .'.".'_--l!'-3= H.115 -..':'_.-C.-'- :_ "r: (‘eUE'JGQB

:‘2'Emf_'r\.i'-.'- ..r' - .- ~

 

20
social process; the behavior of an individual can
be understood only in terms of the behavior of
the whole social group of which he is a member,
since his individual acts are involved in larger,
social acts which go beyond himself and which

implicate the other members of that group. (Mead,
193426—7)

For Mead, the individual is an active organism in any
social interaction process with others around him; by

virtue of this interaction s/he becomes a compatible and

integrated member of a social group.

Like Cooley, Mead conceived the "self" as a social
product that is shaped like an object, just as other
objects surrounding the individual are shaped.
Consequently, according to Mead, by possessing a self the
individual is capable of communicating with and reacting
toward himself, just as s/he is able to respond and

communicate with other objects around him or her.

A Critigue of Cooley's Looking-Glass Self
and Mead's Reflected Appraisal Theories

According to the brief review of the literature on
self-phenomena, especially that of Cooley, one may
conclude that the individual's attitude toward the self is
highly influenced by his/her social world. This view of
perceiving the self or developing the self as constructed
by Cooley and Mead has been challenged and criticized by
scholars of social psychology, including Felson (1985) and
Gecas (1983). In viewing the self-conception as being
developed out of the autonomous and efficacious action of

the individual, Gecas (1983) criticized the widely held

 

 

[since 6 as "Elsa“ sflJ hevi+Irw Parr .y [nos sNiJ

'LL 0 as daut .i-war= n: v _. log” - I? 35; gaugofiq

. (15.1": 5'55 1:: .--' f : .r-u -, if.
Wk? i-IH. ‘_ , u .

" "' 5:' I I . r.

21

perspective which viewed the development of self-
conception through the "looking-glass self." According to
Gecas, this perspective of self-conception led to an
overly passive and oversocialized view of human beings:
"Taken alone, the looking-glass self—orientation leaves us
with an essentially passive and conformist view of human
beings, one which emphasizes an external source, e.g., the
opinions of others, imagined or real, as the locus of the
content or substance from which we construct our
self—concepts" (p. 78).

Meadian traditions of the role of reflected
appraisal assume that the self is largely shaped by
imagination of the responses of others. This role has
always been evidenced in the work of social psychologists,
especially those who follow Mead's legacy such as
Rosenberg and others. For example, Rosenberg (1979) cites
inlpressive evidence for the importance of the reflected
appraisal principle in the formation of self—conceptions.
(This finding will be explained in the following
section.) Such a finding, which is attested in the work
of, among others, Videbeck (1960), Haas and Maehr (1965),
Manis (1955), Kinch (1963, 1973), and Mannheim (1966), has
been challenged by Felson (1981a, 1981b, 1985), who
indicates that "the importance of the reflected—appraisal
process has been exaggerated by the symbolic
interactionists" (1985:71). In his studies of fourth—

through eighth—grade children and their peers, and college

     

=. * . sumo-Ia as II? ai‘ame ‘s'flw'sno {apij

‘ 11"!

9d: 10 suooI end as .159: no benigswi .Fuhfido i0 anointqo

'.| uo inlmjsmoo nw fisi r'w mo ." -.- r. .' " '1'." :1 c .= .~,,:._4 mrn
. 3 _ l' . : _.'|i' .
g 1'" -"--""- H v' - '3'; r z -- _ i' ‘ 1.3" v
'\ ' ' . . I
, I :jr'j I. I

 

22
football players and their coaches, Felson found that the
relationship between others' appraisal and self-appraisal
was not supported. The cause of the ambiguity in these
relationships, as it occurs in his research, is attributed
to communication barriers, which prevent us from knowing
the actual opinions of others toward ourselves. In an

evaluation of reflected appraisal, Felson (1985) indicates

that
Studies of fourth— througrl eighth-grade children
and their peers, and college football players and
their coaches, suggest that the effects of the
actual appraisals of others on reflected and
self-appraisals are not very strong. This was
attributed to communication barriers that prevent
persons from finding out what others think.
These barriers result in inaccurate reflected

appraisals and idiosyncratic, idealized
self—concepts. (p.76)

Literature Related to the Terms
Self-Concept and Self—Esteem

The literature review (n1 self-phenomena indicates
that the individual's attitude toward the self is highly
influenced by his/her social world. Thus, the
individual's conception of himself is based on his
perception of the way others are responding to him. This
perception consists of two categories: one has a
descriptive aspect, another has a valuative aspect. The

former we call self—concept and the latter self-esteem.

Self-Concept

The long liistory of research about self-phenomena

has created confusion and Inanifold interpretations. In

 

nu‘thit‘l:
but.

Sci-2'.

l'. r I

.I‘.‘ . .I
._ ' '-

V"

 

23
the literature of social psychology, researchers in the
area of self-perception have used the two aspects of
self—perception interchangeably (Beane & Lipka, 1980).
Gecas (1982) indicates that the two aspects of the self
are closely interrelated. Coopersmith (1959) also
indicates that self-esteem needs a clarification, because

the term itself is vague and subject to manifold

interpretation. As Wylie (1961) aptly concludes, "'me
theories are in many ways ambiguous, incomplete, and
overlapping" (p. 3).

Thus, researchers draw attention to the importance
of distinguishing between the two aspects of self, due to
their different implications and meanings. Calhoun and
Morse (1977), two scholars who express concern about the
necessity of clarifying the two concepts, elaborate:

The importance of clarifying these distinctions

becomes clear when we consider the relative

stability of self-concept and self-esteem. The
self-concept can be altered only gradually,
employing intensive stimulation from people with
whom the child has already established strong
relationships (significant others). On the other
hand, self-esteem can and does change from day to
day. Using self—esteem as an indicator of the
child's self-concept could lead to incorrect
assessment in the form of both false positives

and false negatives. (pp. 321-22).

An attendant problem for those dealing with self
phenomena is the lack of differentiation between the self
and self-concept. The literature of social psychology

reveals that some researchers tend to look at them as

equivalent to each other. Yet, in fact, they are not

“I

      

9dr" .anbuinnn': YIi'fii HM") ’11-":1” r" -"""—-'-’-'""'"-‘f‘3"j

_l_;f|_! ‘g.jz'_,!l-.r:(_..-."E \ --. U. . '. .m-l . EW \H... , . _ ,l.._, ." .3“ ..'_'
I 1 F n l ...-1* :F - J. I —:v'\-—'
' . l ' - .- r

 

24
equal, for the self—concept is an aspect of the self.
Chad Gordon (1968) has sketched the difference between the
two:

The self is a complex process of continuing

interpretation-—simultaneously the person's

located subjective stream of consciousness (both
reflexive and nonreflexive, including perceiving,
thinking, planning, evaluating, choosing, etc.)
and the resultant accruing structure of
self-conceptions (the special system of
self-referential meanings available to this

active consciousness). (p. 116)

Gordon proposed that self is a learning process that
occurs through the individual's lifetime of social
experience with himself and with others. This process
results in the development of a structural aspect of the
self that is self-conception.

Many other scholars have advanced definitions of
self-concept. Similar to Gordon's view of how the
self-concept is developed, is the view of Gergen (1971):

The notion of self can be defined first as

process and then as structure. On the former

level we shall be concerned with that process by
which the person conceptualizes (or categorizes)
his behavior--both his external conduct and his
internal states. On a structural level, our

concern is with the system of concepts available

to the person in attempting to define himself.
(pp. 22-23)

Gecas (1982) defined self—concept as "the concept the
individual has of himself as a physical, social, and
spiritual or moral being" (p. 3). Kinch (1963) noted that
"The self—concept is that organization of qualities that
the individual attributes to himself" (p. 481). For Beane

and Idpka (1980), self-concept was "The perception(s) one

I-

    

3111:] 01 sIdinsw: 2..- ni'r-sm» ffiijnfi'i .‘ ---:-2 [as '
(01'r .q) .("azsuamoi_-:.m'z ~.‘.' 23"”;

.‘fli.’ fit-91:01:: .min'w .‘ -' .'_' ”my. jn-Ir‘ -_.--.'.- nubtoD
. L . -

'n LI: 1);!

 

25
has of oneself in terms of personal attributes and the
various roles which are played or fulfilled by the
individual" (p. 2). Videbeck (1960) wrote that
self-conception is "a set of interrelated self-ratings,
usually upon bipolar scales using some personal or
behavioral quality as the referent of the scale" (p. 351).

Rosenberg (1979) has defined self-concept as "the

totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having
reference to himself as an object" (p. 7). Rosenberg‘s
definition indicates that self—concept is not Freud's

"ego,' Horney's "real self," Maslow's "self-actualized

person, Turner's "impulsive self" nor Mead's "I" because
these definitions do not distinguish between self and
self-concept. On the contrary, Rosenberg's definition
treats self—concept as a picture of the self, and not the
"real" self.

In order to clarify the meaning of self—concept,
Rosenberg poses the following question: "What does the
individual see when he looks at himself?" In answering
this question, Rosenberg specifies four areas of
self-concept:

l. The parts (content of the self) is the first
area. This area of self-concept is composed of three
elements. (A) Social identity is the individual's
identification by some particular characteristics, such as

race (black, white, Hispanic); sex (male or female);

nationality (Arab, European); religion (Protestant,

 

  

~ 5;.- fi-Al,

pnivad apnilsel has aJdE-uorij a'Isuf-ivtnni em 30 21115301
a'gvednsaofi .(Y .q) “'99tdo nn :5 l'rrwifl oj ascension

n'busufi don 'fl thnnon-Wir:- ieff :'~!--?w'* nor? nxruh

-... ."?"r-L:J"-. -- _'.-- .' :" '-! - .'- - . - .--.. hrs?
i.-§"' r1." ._ I? I.- .,_, '. l:: - I I ' I. ‘ _:_ C:
‘ I ' r .
-l.‘ _ l‘ 1

 

 

 

 

26

Catholic, Moslem). (B) Disposition, as explained by
Rosenberg, is a characteristic of self—concept which the
individual develops out of social experience. This
characteristic may refer to attitudes (liberalism,
conservatism), traits (bravery, generosity, morality),
abilities (musical skill, athletic prowess, intelligence),
values (belief in democracy, equality), or personality
traits (compulsiveness, extroversion). (C) Physical
characteristics refers to such items as height,
appearance, hair color, health status.

2. The relationships among the parts (structure) is
the second area. of self-concept. Three points hi the

structural area of self-concept are identified by

Rosenberg. (A) Psychological centrality emphasizes that

"the differential importance of self-concept components is
thus critically significant for self-esteem. Some
disposition or social identity elements rank high in our
hierarchy of values—-stand at the center of our feelings
of worth—-whereas others are relegated to the periphery.
One person stakes himself on his intelligence but cares
little about his savoir faire; for another the reverse is
the case. One takes great pride in his social class
position, a second in his ethnic background, a third in
his race, a fourth in his religious affiliation. . . . A
professor may consider himself both intelligent and
well-mannered--both dispositions, in other words, are

elements of his self-concept——but he may stake himself far

   
 

 

   

Seq no . y_ Iupe .yosunombhen

_§3__§_yrlq (D) .(noia'zsvm-uznme- .aesntvielzlqmou) adieu:

(1:191:14 n. raw-3.1.? doL-z- r.1 1916-515!" _'._'._:>f:'r-.Eur-.'r.u~t.:.-do

 

. .. - .-' r. --"-.~'--'-c;qs
(“..:'-:_'E‘ . .'.c_ u.’ [Hr- 39111::3‘. . -"
I' ~.

Jl-i_¢'- ' I r' .

27
more heavily on the former characteristic than on the
latter" (Rosenberg, 1979:18-19).

(B) The relationship between the parts and the whole
of self-concept is the second point in the self-concept
structure. Rosenberg argues that there is no agreement
among researchers about whether one should just focus
attention on the parts of self—concept (dispositions,
social identity, or physical characteristics) or on the
whole global self-attitudes. Therefore, he advances the
idea that "parts and whole are both important, but they
are neither transferable, interchangeable, nor equivalent,
nor can information on the one form the basis for
conclusions about the other" (Rosenberg, 1979:22).

(C) Considering the structure of self-concept, there
are two aspects of the self: one is overt (social
exterior), the other is covert (psychological interior).
The overt aspect of the self represents physical,
demographic, or behavioral characteristics; in short, it
encompasses all social identity and concrete behavior. In
contrast to the overt aspect of the self-concept is the
covert, which is concerned with the private world of
thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and wishes. This aspect of
self-concept remains within the individual's boundary,
thus the world outside is not supposed to have access to
it. Rosenberg argues that the individual does not acquire
the psychological traits at birth, but instead attains

them through the social learning process, which takes

 

    

.anolflsoqelbf Sqesnoo-Blea is 21:; odd no notifies."

 

9113 no no (esijei‘xerlnsmdr- janiamu 'm .yJijnnt-i 15150:

I'I"

.. aem-uvhs curl muck-:19. 'E . . .-rnn.-!;'::.—-'i I; :-~ _:’r.-..-'ofc; -: [011w

-" .'l"' .;'rI.rE.'='-. r=r' '5'H't’ . - . _. . ' an." '
" tun! . -."-. .-'1- -.L ‘ T.‘ ' .‘r '.='r.
f

-—

28
place through communication. Through this process of
social development, the self gets more personal and
sophisticated. It changes gradually from having overt
aspects to covert aspects.

The propensity to think of the self in terms of a
trait psychology is not there at birth but is,
rather, the product of social development. The
self perceived by the young child is largely a
concrete, material reality. With maturation and
learning, however, the individual comes to
conceptualize the self in terms of more abstract
response tendencies or potentials, consisting
largely of dispositions or traits. In short, the
self becomes less and less a pure perceptual
object, and more and more a conceptual trait
system. (Rosenberg, 1979:208-209)

3. The third area of self-concept is the ways of
describing both parts and whole (dimensions). When one
considers self-concept as an attitude, this attitude
varies toward the self in several dimensions, such as
content, direction, intensity, salience, consistency,
stability, clarity, accuracy, and verifiability of
self-attitudes.

We can learml what the individual sees when he
looks at himself (chiefly social identity
elements, dispositions, and physical
characteristics); whether he has a favorable or
unfavorable opinion of himself (direction); how
strongly favorable or unfavorable these feelings
are (intensity); whether the individual is
constantly conscious of what he is saying or
doing or whether he is more involved in tasks or
other objects (salience); whether the elements of
his self-picture are consistent or contradictory
(consistency); whether his self attitude varies
from day to day or moment to moment, or whether,
on the contrary, it is a firm, stable, rocklike
structure (stability). (Rosenberg, 1979:24)

 

I! 19010»qu flex:

.9qu on: usual!
5 VII odd yd bevleousq 3193
bfl-a "an n (H .yzfllseu .[shejsm .eJexsnoo
0:1 éemos Isublvlbni ed: .rsvewor! .Lmin'msi
Josziads 910m "'10 anus: nj Ms;- :on :Eifrldqsanca
cnijaianoo .eIsiJns'fc-q m" {"1517-111 :---:.: CLI.'--"z-:'.'1
an: .d'mdn nT -'r’i..'Li'JJ 1c; ..:oi+"-'e;'n---'-" ‘u yum-us!

  

- - . .

Sanitarium; arm-1 r-. arts-f "u. :- '- --.:-' ..
:i'l.-J.-. 1511.:0131'inl'. r'. [1 9-;, I- '-.. - "_'._';"- f,-.. _. II.-.,.:' [1,.

n!" _I

     

 

29

4. The last area of the extant self-concept is
ego-extension, which was previously referred to iJI James'
definition of the self. The individual's ego-extension may
shrink or stretch, depending (n1 how Inuch importance the
objects have for the individual, and whether the objects
are considered as ea part of the self or not. Rosenberg
demarcates three characteristics of self ego-extension.
(A) The first is the subjective experience of "me" or
"mine." This indicates that the way the individual
incorporates external objects into the self is merely a
matter of subjective experience. (B) The second
characteristic of ego—extension is the presence of the
emotions of pride or shame. (C) The third defining
characteristic is the phenomenon of introjection.
Introjection is defined by webster as "the adoption of
external (persons or objects) into the self, so as to have
a sense of oneness with them and to feel personally
affected by what happens to them" (Rosenberg, 1979:36).

In conclusion, Rosenberg emphasizes that the
individual's self—concept is constituted of all components
as a totality: "The extant self-concept [is] content,
structure, dimensions, and ego—extensions. Together they
constitute most of what the individual sees and feels when
he reflects upon himself at a given point in time"

(Rosenberg, 1979:38).

will '

    

‘10 "em" 30 eenehsqxs evidostdua ed: 31 331i} ed? (A)

.T:.ubiv.'rhnj 911.! V”! and Jeri: as-Jscibn} afin'." ".S—‘-I"i‘fil"

5 vfin"-..-r- 73': 91:! -~=-': CJni .." “if“? '-=n1-::lx.3 :-:’:'"r'n"..r:'.r!i
'1
‘ funny. :.nT.(-'I) .e-:-nsx:--_':=: €‘JJD'.-L-'UE ‘r "HIM-.r.
I f ( I
l '1 l n] I i “ . n . . .-. ‘ .

30
Self-Esteem

As noted before, self-concept and self—esteem are
often used synonymously and interchangeably. Proshansky
and Newton indicate that "various terms have been bandied
about--self, self-concept, self—image, self—esteem,
proprium, ego, ego—identity, identity, and so on.
Sometimes these terms are used precisely, sometimes
indiscriminately, synonymously, or interchangeably“
(Rosenberg & Simmons, l971:9).

A good way of clarifying the term self—esteem is to
consider the picture that Ikmenberg and Simmons (1971)
draw cf a person who suffers from low self-esteem: “Low
self-esteem means that the individual lacks respect for
himself, considers himself unworthy, inadequate, or
otherwise seriously deficient as a person" (p. 9). A
similar definition is given by Coopersmith (1967) when he
writes that self—esteem is:

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 conveys

to others by verbal reports and other overt
expressive behavior. (p. 5)

Calhoun and Morse (1977) defined self-esteem as "the
individual's satisfaction with the self—concept" (p. 321).
This means that one‘s self-esteem is a product of the

comparison of one's real self-concept and one's ideal

 

31
self—concept (which is determined by the judgment of
others and how one compares oneself to others). If this
process leads to a high discrepancy between the real and
the ideal self-conception, one would expect damaged
self-esteem.

Wells and Marwell (1976) identified three aspects of
self—esteem: (1) self-esteem as an attitude which "refers
to a more or less phenomenal process in which the person
perceives characteristics of him/herself and reacts to
those characteristics emotionally or behaviorally"
(p. 64); (2) self-esteem as psychological responses, which
refers to how the individual feels about him/herself, so
that a "high self-esteem individual simply feels that he
is a person of worth, he respects himself for what he is.
. . . Low self-esteem, on the other hand, implies
self—rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self-contempt"
(p. 67); (3) self—esteem as personality function, which
indicates that self—esteem is that component of the
self-system which regulates the extent to which the
self-system is maintained under conditions of strain, such
as during the processing of new information concerning the
self (p. 68).

Brissett (1972) argued that self-esteem encompasses
two very basic social—psychological processes:
self-evaluation and self—worth. Self—evaluation refers
"to the process of making a conscious judgment regarding

the social importance or significance of one's self"

 

 

noazsq and doidw :11: among Ins-many!" 235-“ 'u': won: 5 0:!

03 35:3.“ n-_ i-HF, -' '-’" "'"\_|'n:- "- '- :j- ' - :j I c-. -. if _ flag
"\'_'1' [rs-1c i' l.‘ --:--u'. J 2 .-:- " . LII" '. ' -‘-' r'
E .(-‘_ I I'.\

32
(p. 255). In other words, self-esteem in terms of
self—evaluation refers to a: set of attitudes toward the
self, how the individual perceives him/herself with
respect to some quality or ability. Thus, the
individual's self—esteem is the fit between the
individual's perceptions of his ability of doing a given
task and his real accomplishments. Self-esteem, in this
sense, is summarized by James' famous equation:
success
self-esteem = .
pretenSions

Brissett's (1972) discussion of self-estean as self—worth
refers to "The feeling of self. This self feeling does
not involve rendering a judgment as to the social
acceptability of one's identities or one's performance in
an identity; nor does it involve an evaluation of how well
one is doing with respect to his ideals and aspirations.
It is literally a matter of feeling oneself" (p. 259).

Gecas (1982) distinguishes between two types of
self—esteem: (a) self-esteem based on a sense of
competency, power, or efficacy, and thus related to

effective performance; and (b) self—esteem based on a
sense of virtue or moral worth, and thus concerned with
how adequately the individual measures up to norms and
values in personal and interpersonal conduct (p. 5).
Moreover, Beane and Lipka (1980) stated that» self-esteem
is "the valuative assessment one makes regarding personal

satisfaction with role(s) and/or the quality of

 

yd "'-¢.\.“..=.r-n'.'ma a} .eanea

.‘Ll F-

...a . -....- -..-I. -.---.... .

 

33
performance" (p. 2). Lastly, Rosenberg (1979) indicated
that self-esteenl implies self-acceptance, self-respect,
and feelings of self-worth (p. 31).

From this review, one would conclude that
self—concept is the conscious perception one has of
oneself, and self-esteenl is the evaluation of such
perception. Thus, self-esteem is related to one's
performance and achievements, aspirations, sociability,
confidence, attribution, and general well-being. Since we
are assessing the impact of work environment on
self-esteem, we will. measure self-esteem ix) its global
dimension as a concept which refers to an individual's

self—evaluation or judgment of his/her own worth.

Literature Related to Factors and

Theories Contributing to the Formation
of Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

Rosenberg's research in the sphere of self-concept
and self-esteem enhances our knowledge and understanding
of these complex phenomena by advancing additional
empirical and theoretical reasoning in the field of social
psychology, which commands most of the research on
self-perception. Rosenberg's extensive research on
self-concept and self-esteem has been based primarily upon
two sets of empirical data: one set represents data from a
Chicago urbanized area (adult subjects), the other set
represents data from public school children (grades 3-12)

in Baltimore City (Rosenberg, l979:xii). One of several

 

.x-jjlidni-ooe .anoidsziqes miner-4:91:11: hm. when-whee;

"m. .1” .3..3-.d--Il's'.-: 'F'l'finulj '4' -.-'.-' -'.' PM --'-i Tint-.2
' . _ l. \ r 7 ._ 'J -l ' F ‘ ‘ 1
.' , , .
, r . . ,‘
' r
I
. l | In.‘ _ I -
1
_.|-_ -_ ... _ — - - _ _ .- ..l. - — —- _-—

34
outcomes of this research is Rosenberg's consolidation of
four principles of self-concept formation: reflected
appraisals, social comparisons, self-attribution, and
psychological centrality. Although these principles (or
some of them) are assumed to be in the theoretical legacy
of sociological and psychological theorists such as James
(1896), Cooley (1902), Mead (1934), and Festinger (1954),
Rosenberg advanced our understanding of these theoretical
perspectives through his research. The following is a
review of these four principles and two other theories-—
identity theory and self-investment theory--which also
contribute to our understanding (Hi the formation process

of self-esteem and self-concept.

I. Reflected Appraisals

This principle goes back to Cooley's theory of the
"looking-glass self," where one's ideas of self are a
reflection of the imagined appraisals of others. It is
also found in Mead's "significant others," which was put
forth as an alternative to Cooley's "imagined appraisals
of others." Reflected appraisals imply that an individual
develops a self-concept on the basis of the perceived
attitudes of others, and not necessarily' their actual
attitudes. Communication among individuals is essential
for the individual to experience the reflected appraisals
principle, according to Mead (1934): "The individual

experiences himself as such, not directly, but only

 

   

I“ ‘ 1. '13”!

150159109111 92911:

_, ,, a,é.
\(DEQI) hast-1

 

bfl'B

30 pnibnsaaaebm:

s. 31 pniwc-Ilo'i sn'r .n-y'int-ao: air

""E’E'I‘JO‘JHS '.e.-.r:.:c'

-v

I.

"3.3 Erne- ::: J'_ 31:; :'

JAN-raj.- -. -. _ ' ;-

  

.‘.~:.t‘ LM'.

:‘1’: A, ,7-
003 ‘(BCB )

 
 

  

 

 

   

.(5091)

191'

«no bemuzvhs paradnsaofi

    

35
indirectly, from the particular standpoints of other
individual members of the same social group, or from the
generalized standpoint of the social group as a whole to
which he belongs" (p. 138).

Mead's theorem of self—concept as a reflection of
others' opinions toward the self stimulated considerable
experimental research. Richard Videbeck (1960) was one of
those who experimentally demonstrated that one's view of
self-concept is functionally dependent upon the response
of others. Videbeck (1960) initiated a direct attack on
two postulates, by examining attitudes toward the self
among 30 college students in a speech class. Before the
experiment took place, students were asked to assess their
adequacy in oral communication. Each student was then
asked to read aloud six poems in the presence of an
expert, whom they assumed would appraise their
performance. Subjects were assigned arbitrarily’ by the
expert to two groups, one being praised (approved), the
other being criticized (disapproved). Immediately after
the subjects received the expert evaluation, self-ratings
scales were administered again to the students.
Significant differences in self—ratings before and after
the experiment were documented. Subjects who were praised
by the expert showed a general increment in their feeling
of self—adequacy. On the other hand, subjects who
received a negative evaluation revised their

self-estimates in a negative direction if they had rated

 

 

30 wotv a'sno Jam .'.-:-::r-1.r-m:=x.h 3'1! 39 ads. 920d: ‘
5.1310658st adj "om: 'H‘ISI-JIICQ'J' _. 'mu Eijn- ;.-’. e-i Jqs moo-Ha“.
'-r' '1LE?'- '-.-_‘:I"- .- --""; ' . ' ".- ‘ ' ‘ .r.-3'. -"._

I '. I‘ 'L' . J ' ' . . ' - .

36
themselves high before the experiment. Videbeck (1960)
stated his finding:
This study tends to support the general view that
self—conceptions are learned, and that the
evaluative reactions of others play a significant
part in the learning process. Observed
differential effects of approval and disapproval
treatments were interpreted to 1%: a function of
an interaction between the subject's initially

anchored self-rating and the objective scale
value of the approval or disapproval implied in

the other's reaction. (p. 359)

Another experiment based on Cooley's (1902) and
Mead's (1934) proposition on the modification of
self-concept was conducted by Haas and Maehr (1965). This
study is complementary to Videbeck's researdi. It
advanced the notion that we come to value and view
ourselves, as others have taught us to view and value
ourselves, by raising two questions: First, whether the
"phenomenon of change in self—concept as reflected in
self-ratings is a real and stable one;" second, "whether
the phenomenon is subject to dosage" (whether a greater
amount of approval or disapproval produces greater or more
durable changes in the self—ratings)(Haas & Maehr,
1965:101). Haas and Maehr designed two experiments to
determine: (1) the durability' of experimentally induced
change in self-rating, and (2) the effect of dosage on
such change in self-rating.

As the subjects for these experiments, eighth grade

male students rated themselves CH1 a physical self-test

along a 9-point scale ranging from "extremely adequate" to

    

(Pat .in .r1r~<.l.1:)nu 15-min 9d:

[WW (5091‘- ae'VC-Ic'r" nC- ::-'.'_:' .'-'r'--;'";'*:'1:-: '_‘-'." 'flné't.

.I.
v: " _| f I" I' f I I ‘ "-."L"
.
f I .l l l '
- .: '_ I ' n -'

 

37
"extremely inadequate." This self—test was obtained
before and after the administration of approval and
disapproval treatment by an expert (pretests).

In Experiment I, designed to test the first
hypothesis (changes in self-rating in response to the
reactions of others are durable over time), subjects were
divided into two matched groups based on the total score
of the physical self—test rating. One group consisting of
19 students was given approval treatment; the second group
consisting of 18 students was given disapproval
treatment. Post-treatment measures were obtained at
selected intervals of time--1 day, 6 days, and 6
weeks--after the first treatment (approval and disapproval
treatment). The result of Experiment I supported the
hypothesis and showed that the experimental treatment had
not just an immediate but also a permanent effect on
self—rating. In Experiment II, designed to test the
second hypothesis (changes in self-rating in response to
the reactions of others are subject to dosage), 30
subjects were given approval treatment twice for
performing simple physical tasks, with the second
treatment given within 48 hours of the first one.
Subjects' self-ratings were made immediately, within 1
hour after first and second treatments, 6 days later, and
6 weeks later. This experiment supported the second
hypothesis, that self-ratings are subject to dosage (Haas

& Maehr, 1965:104).

ll

     

0m: #36: a!!! no bc-egfi aquwn had').fr=n- 'i _
30 pniiakenoa qur; ‘11:) .nrha: -Iz:s.-3-H-nr trztiawrkg 9d: 30

(mom; ':.-:.-:-r.= -"' {"s-r' " ' . .-" - '.; :_'.:-.._-'J.".' 9:

 

38

Manis (1955) conducted another empirical study based
upon Cooley and Mead's conception of self as a cognitive
structure of qualities (traits and attitudes) which evolve
through interaction between individuals (social person)
and other social persons in the surrounding environment.
Manis posited six hypotheses to test the assumption that
the individual's self-ratings are significantly correlated
with the ratings made of the individual by friends. The
subjects of this study were 101 male freshman students in
a dormitory. Subjects' self-concepts were measured twice,
at different times nearly six weeks apart, by asking them
to describe themselves on 24 bipolar rating scales. The
outcome of this study, indicating that the individual's
self—concept was actuated by others' opinions of him, was
in accord with symbolic interactionist postulation,
according to Manis (1955): “Generally speaking, the
results of this study support the theories of Cooley and
Mead. The S's self-concepts were significantly influenced
by their friends' opinion of them, particularly when they
were perceived by these friends in a relatively favorable
light" (p. 369).

In one succinct sentence, Kinch (1963) has
delineated the interactionist position on how the
individual forms a self—conception: "The individual's
conception of himself emerges from social interaction and,
in turn, guides or influences the behavior of that

individual" (p. 481). In more detail, Kinch's formalized

 

orl'r .ebanifl w? Iruluvirnj '.u'-'." '30 n‘m "ruiJr-t'. (H: n‘Jtu

ri a.!r:r.-I:e:.':=. rnndrhz-E' rum 1"}! -.'-..--.- vlrz'" 'r'J "o F5514!!! :-

39
theory of self-concept explains the social mechanism
(relationship between self and other) byr which the self
emerges and behavior is guided.

This mechanism operates through the following
circular process: first, an individual's self—concept is
based (Hi how others respond ‘to him/her (S); second, in
turn the self—concept operates to guide the individual's
behavior (B); third, the person's behavior determines
others' responses to him (R)(which are assumed to be
perceived by the individual); and the corollary, the
responses of others in turn influences the individual's
perception of himself (P)(this perception will influence
self-concept). Figure 2 refers to self-concept formation

as constructed by Kinch (1973:81):

 
     
  
 

Perception
P

  
     
   
   

Responses
(of others)
R

Self-Concept

  

Behavior
B

Figure 2--Condensed Process of Self—Conception Theory.

 

 

Ifiinlldvtfinl odd chive 03 895519q07$q99fi09-319& odd nun:

asnimuedeb uoivsded

1w! OJ bamuaan cur

:- \xwrr'cza:

a'noanuq

:3 “J
.71 ,3 .

.htifla

:(8)

.r.-'3: '-
.\ .

:oivsded

I ._
5:41.117.

0
- .' ' ‘.
‘ s .v' 3.2"]

-

40

Mannheim's (1966) study' attempted to concatenate
the symbolic interactionist theory of the individual's
self-concept as a reflection of the view held by others
toward him/her, and the reference group notion that the
individual's self-image is affected by the major
identification reference group. One outcome of this
study that was related to reflected appraisals is that
"individuals tended to change their self-image over time
in the direction represented by' their reference group

self" (Mannheim, 1966:279).

II. Social Comparison

The second principle enunciated by Rosenberg (1979),
Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978), and Rosenberg and Kaplan
(1982), is social comparison, which is counted as one of
the basic generators of self—conception. Originating with
Leon Festinger (1954), this theory started with the
premise that we learn who we are by comparing ourselves
(in terms of traits, abilities, opinions, ego—extensions,
etc.) to others. This tendency toward comparison is a
unique characteristic of the social person, as explained
by Festinger (1954): "There exists, in the human organism,
a drive to evaluate his opinions and his abilities. . . .
To the extent that objective, nonsocial means are not
available, people evaluate their opinions and abilities by
comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of

others" (pp. 117-118).

  
   

   
 

 
 

, A , "_-2.._ - A‘=: ”4.9.
It risaisaqqs 1593391331 (1:; 69.1519: ecu 33d: yhus'a

 

3:
salt: 19vo salami-flint! dis-rt! apnnrlzr -'J Tut-raj airmuf-iuinI'

quoup sons-.1535" 259M (r -'.-:r~r.-::'-1.". rue-1;. :r'~15- sir-”i m

."\I:' .--.-

41

It is an axiom of social comparison theory that
people tend to have an enduring need to evaluate
themselves, by comparing what they have and what they are
able to do with others. The comparison process is
fundamental for the individual to form a sense of
self-worth. Since few standard yardsticks exist for these
comparisons, people tend to harness many objects in their
environment to serve the purpose. However, not all social
objects and components are on an equal footing; some stand
out, whereas others remain in the background.

Inasmuch. as the social comparison principle is an
indispensable variable in many psychological and
sociological theories, it has commanded a great deal of
research attention and evoked substantial empirical study
to establish its validity and generality in various
disciplines of social science. While social comparison
was the anchor principle for early interactionists, like
Cooley and Mead, and their descendants, Rosenberg's work
might be considered one of the most seminal pieces of
research that utilized this principle to present valuable
insights into the self-perception phenomenon.

Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978) conducted empirical
research to study “Social Class and Self-estemn Among
Children and Adults." The data on children came from
2,625 public school children in Baltimore City. The adult
sample consisted of 2,300 people, aged 18—65, who

represented an urbanized area of Chicago. Interviews were

M

 

a

[51:03 Ila Jon .zavswdi .“aurfihq odl svfiiy u: finnmnomixns

. m“. {doc-f" do

 

 

 

bm-Ja smoa :pniqu" “mp-"- rr, r r--.. .=*.1r:e,ancm_r--.'

42

the method used to gather information about the subjects.
The findings indicated that no association exists between
social class and self-esteem among preadolescents, a
modest relationship among adolescents, and a nwderate
relationship among adults. One way to explain the
differences in the results between adults and children is
that social comparison based on status is not a matter of
concern among children, because they perceive their
socioeconomic environments as homogeneous. On the other
hand, the opposite case is demonstrated by adults, whose
socioeconomic environments tend to be sharply
heterogeneous. Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978) explain how
social comparison differs among adults and children:

The general principle of social comparison, of
course, applies equally to children and adults.
The self-esteem of both groups is influenced by

comparing themselves with those around them. But,
given their social roles, the interpersonal
environments of children and adults differ

radically. Schooling is, after all, the main
business of the child's life; working, the Inain
business of adults. In school, children

(especially younger ones), whatever their own SES
levels, tend to be more or less equal to most of
those around them; there is nothing in this to
raise or lower their self—esteem. In the world of
work, on the other hand, the social comparisons
adults make place them above or below others and
may understandably affect their feelings of
self-worth. Both children and adults make social
comparisons, but the differing structures of
interpersonal relations in school and work place
make SES irrelevant to the child's self-esteem,
relevant to the adult's. (pp. 62-63)

Besides the social class and self—esteem study, the
social comparison principle has been used as a variable to

assess the relationship between academic achievement and

 

 

11911:! svis-qu and: summed .na'xblirio pncms mmonoo

T‘EH’UO ..rid r10 ..=:.--_'v-'_-t“.':t'--. .m- . :n-wr'r- --.1r-c-:no'_>-.:-..:i:>ca

.-:-:.'\-‘!.-) \:'.- .U': r- =.;- " ' "'-' .. : - '. t-i‘ ’--'.' -T- '5"="".E‘.(' ”"1" UflE-F!
I
\- .' - u
'I'.'
'II I
,

43

self-concept. Rogers, Smith, and Coleman (1982) based
their study on social comparison theory's assumption that
the importance of academic achievement for self-concept is
not determined by only the academic achievement itself,
but by the way that one compares one's achievement to that
of others. It is this comparison which will influence
(either negatively or positively) self—worth, and not the
academic achievement. The study concluded that "the most
meaningful way to understand the relationship between
academic achievement and self—concept is within the
context of social comparison group or classroom" (Rogers
et al., 1982:334).

These two studies show how the social comparison
process has an implication for the development of
self—conception, by defining self—concept in relation to

others. Another study worth mentioning which documented

the effects of comparison on self-conception was carried
out by Morse and Gergen (1970). The subjects of this
study were 78 undergraduate male students at the
University of Michigan who answered an advertisement for
part-time jobs in the research institute. An experiment
collaborator was presented to each subject as another
applicant applying for the same job. For half of the
subjects the new applicant appeared as Mr. Clean
(possessing socially desirable characteristics); to the
other half of the subjects he appeared as Mr. Dirty

(possessing socially undesirable characteristics). Morse

44
and Gergen (1970) describe the experimental procedure as
follows:

Half of the subjects found themselves confronted
with a person whose personal appearance was
highly desirable. He wore a dark suit and
appeared well—groomed and self—confident. After
he had been seated, he immediately opened an
attache case, pulled out several sharpened
pencils, and began to work on his forms
diligently. For descriptive purposes, this
stimulus person will be called Mr. Clean. . . .
The other half of the subjects were exposed to
Mr. Dirty, an individual whose appearance was in
sharp contrast to Mr. Clearn's. He wore a smelly
sweatshirt, ripped trousers, no socks, and seemed
somewhat dazed by the whole procedure. He placed
his worn paperback edition of "The Carpetbaggers"
on the table in front of him, and after staring
aimlessly around the office for a few seconds,
began searching for a pencil, which he finally
found on the table. (p. 150)

The primary goal of the experiment was to determine
whether exposing the subjects to varying conditions would
have an effect on their self—esteem by assessing the
difference between subject's self-rating before and after
they were exposed to the experiment collaborator. The
results of the experiment indicated that

Casual exposure to another person is sufficient
to produce a marked impact on a person's
momentary concept of self. The presence of
someone with highly desirable characteristics
appears to produce a generalized decrease in
level of self-esteem. Exposure to a, socially
undesirable person produces the opposite effect.
These findings are not only consistent with the
proposition that a person may use others to gauge
his own self-worth, but extend the range of
phenomena to which social comparison theory has
been applied. As a result of others‘
characteristics appearing more desirable or less
desirable than his own, a person's generalized
self—estimate is (displaced downward or upward.
(Morse & Gergen, 1970:154).

   

  

           

   

   

- I-’

oseoqxs 939w 213% due 9d: 30 alsd asdJo sflT
ni 25w sonsuseqqs eaodw [subivibni n5 .yduiu .1!
YIIamn s o~cw 3H .r'nusrit .IM on JELWJHHD queue
bar; ; fins .eflnoa cw \uvmvner bquiw ‘JJE fljbzha

' . . ' - ... - l. . l . . .. ...
..Cr.’ ".1 .r.: .G'Ill-"ILIf-JI; fri-i'.i‘ '-:J -I u -. "-. .:.."r:.:
i‘

"an Pnnfiiscus) :nr" “a noi:rF¢ finsdwncuc LTLL

l d -
[3n " d "' \: r. . . "2
1': '.I "1'. r- l.. 1" 'EL _ ‘ r I - I
z ' ' - - . '5 '= - .-
'. .' -' I' .- l I I

        
   

 

 

 

45

Congruous with Rosenberg and Pearlin's explanation
of the different effect of social class on the self—esteem
of children and adults is Faunce's (1989) assertion of the
importance of having a heterogeneous experience
environment for the utilization of the social comparison
process. A heterogeneous environment demands that we
associate with people who are higher or lower than us in
hierarchical status which will in turn provoke us to think
of our position (status) in comparison to the positions of
others. Accordingly, this comparison will influence our
self-conception. Faunce (1989) refers to this process of
social comparison when he indicates that: "The ways in
which we differ from others are especially likely to
induce social comparison and self-evaluation when the
difference involves a status characteristic relevant to
frequently occurring and continuing interaction"
(p. 383). The point that Faunce advanced in regard to
social comparison is that the individual‘s self—
conception is not affected as much by his knowledge of the
status or position that he holds among others, as by
continually being reminded about his status or position in
the hierarchical system, through a continuing interaction
with other" people who (differ front him. According to
Faunce (1984), "Knowing one's location in a status
hierarchy is less consequential than being reminded of
that location, especially when the reminders come from

persons with whom one regularly associates" (p. 3).

 

  

a gang w i‘s 500-.

said: 03 an exovouq n32: ni Iliw flaidw aujsja [safflouszolfl

'."'

o anozfiiaoq ad: 03 noa.fisqnofi ‘t 'ru'sju) noiyfiacg uuo lo

‘ :- ':'n' in F ‘n.'r rl i\. u!«_);—-' rnr. - 5'. ' _\' -_n'r': .. ;. . a-...r‘_1r:-
l' _ '5'“
" . ‘ ' k ‘
._ ‘-. 'U ' - I - .
-5' ‘ :Ir': ":Ja ‘ ' ’ ‘ 'L“ '
' r .‘I '40 . I . .. - , .y.
H r- ' " ' ‘I I'
. “.-., ... . ‘ -. .
1' 1' , -.

  
     

46
III. Self~Attribution
The third principle of self-concept formation,
according to Rosenberg (1979, 1982), is "self-

attribution,‘ the premise of which is that people make
judgments about themselves by observing their own behavior
and its outcomes. For example, we tend to view ourselves
as academically successful if the outcome of our school
work is highly accepted or praised, and feel flawed if the
case is the reverse. Thus observing our own behavior and
evaluating its outcomes will influence our perception of
self-worth. "A person who ranks high in the status
hierarchy would be expected to have high self-esteem not
only because he compares favorably with those around him
or because he commands their admiration and respect, but
because he himself interprets his success-whether based on
the accumulation of money, prestige, or power—-as evidence
of how good he is" (Rosenberg, 1979:139). Using this
principle to elucidate the discrepancy in the results of
the Chicago and Baltimore study, one might contend that
the children perceived their socioeconomic status,
whatsoever, whether high or low, as an ascribed one, while
the adults consciously acknowledge that their status is
achieved, rather than ascribed. Rosenberg (1979) refers
to this as follows:

One reason social class has so little bearing on

the self-esteem of the child, then, is that the

societal stratification system does not represent

an arena. of personal accomplishment. What the

child himself has wrought appears to bear on his
self—esteem; his father's achievements, on the

 

9:111 ii h'wsl'.‘ I954? has .r.-5mm;- 'w.‘- "-- :0. --:. "Inch"; aft Anon

'r '- J'--I£.i.'t' ;:.-i' "I . '.' ' '-: ." .- " -,..._' :,_-_"_ 436:3-
I"-I \_ . _ H '_': 'p. r I . : I

47
other hand, are not his own. The identical
principle applies to adults. What the adult has
achieved may affect his feeling of self—worth but

what his father has achieved is largely
irrelevant. (p. 140)

IV. PSychological Centrality

The fourth. principle Ci self-concept formation is
psychological centrality. The implication of this
principle is that the best vantage for understanding how
four areas of the self-concept extant influence one's
self—conception, is by viewing self-concept as an
hierarchical organization of parts, pieces, and
components. Not all dispositions and attributes of
self-concept are perceived at the same level of
importance; some of them are salient while others remain
in the background cm: are a trivial matter. Rosenberg
(1979) refers to the mechanism of this principle as

follows:

Psychological centrality holds that the self-
concept is rum: a collection in“: an organization
of parts, pieces, and components and that these
are hierarchically organized and interrelated in
complex ways. Not only are certain
dispositions--intelligence, morality, honesty,
courtesy-~differentially central to our concerns,
but so are certain social identity elements (such
as black, Protestant, father, machinist) and
ego—extensions. (p. 73)

Knowing that psychological centrality plays a major
role in self-concept formation would explain why social
class has an effect on adult's self-esteem rather than on

that of children.

The impact of social class or status on global
self-esteem, then, depends in part on its

 

'.'.r1 inn-"3:" '. J5!" “fl"? - '.fl ' '. '. :t.--';-- 1110"!
r. - , . . . E)"

48
psychological centrality for the individual. The
relevance of this point in the present context is
that social status affects adults' more than
children's self-esteem simply because social
status is more psychologically central to the
adult than to the child. Adults are more aware

of, attuned to, concerned with social status than
children. (Rosenberg, 1979:144)

V. Identity Theory

Similar to the psychological centrality principle is
Stryker's (1968, 1973, 1980, 1982, 1989) identity salience
concept. According to Stryker's identity theory, the self
consists of a collection of identities-—one may view one‘s
self as doctor, father, musician, black or white, a member
of a certain club, tennis player, liberal, brave,
friendly, woman, democrat or republican, etc., because all
these dispositions and social identities make up the
self. Hence, Stryker (1989) defined identities as
"internalized sets of role expectations, with the person
having as Inany identities as she or he plays roles in
diStlJlCt sets of social. relatxionships" (p. 46).
Nevertheless, the concept of identity salience, as
advanced by Stryker and Serpe (1982), proposed that these
dispositions and social identities do not compose the self
arbitrarily, but rather take place within the self in a
hierarchical manner. As noted by Stryker and Serpe
(1982):

Identity salience represents one of the ways, and

a theoretically most important way, that the

identities making up the self can be organized.

Identities, that is, are conceived as being

organized into a salience hierarchy. This
hierarchical organization of identities is

 

'0

oneiisa vikinebt (9891 .SH’E .0801" (EVQI .3091) a'uexyzie

Isa adj .Y‘JO'JIIJ vi'rdrnshi -' '19?‘.-":J-"' oj [r-E:---<-n:--". .quonoo

.I . .-:.. ... a . ' ' ' . - I ' ' '
.- DHO .- . . n -..:2- ----..- - .- - ... . -- . '-::! 33:10::-
:
' . 'l c . ' 1 ".r..' I . L « “rm.-
1' ,
‘.': I 'l'

49

defined by the probabilities of each of the

various identities, with it being brought into

play in a given situation. (p. 206)

Thus, according to the identity theory, the self
consists of organized identities which have different
effects on the self-conception, depending upon the
salience of the identity in the self's hierarchical
structure. Stryker (1989) indicates that the central
proposition of the identity theory argues that commitment
affects identity salience (p. 46). Thus the higher the
commitment to the identity, the more the salience of this
identity in the person‘s hierarchical structure, and the
more the effect of that identity on the self-conception,
because this identity(ies) will be evoked several times,
and in several situations. "The greater the commitment
premised on an identity, the more salient will be that
identity, and the more general self—esteem will be based
on that identity" (Stryker & Serpe, 1982:207).

Identity' theory is developed as a response to the
dispute over the nature of the self. The literature of
social psychology is fraught with two totally different
views of the self. One advocates the multiplicity of
types of self, as may be found in the work of many
interactionists. For' example, Kinch (1973) indicates
that:

. . . to think exclusively of a single self-

concept is misleading. Although it is true that

when an individual moves into a new group he
brings with him a conception of himself based on

earlier encounters and some dimensions of the old
self are reinforced, at the same time many

   
 

“u 0": no I:

   

Inst-dots: 53' act-:1 n! 131111.!” .113 50 09-011.)".

r

latrines add dad: 39.1533:an (9381) ‘.IOElY'IJa .ouuiouzfil
insmdimmoo 33d: sang-us vaoed: ydtdnebi :‘HI'J 30 noiJlaoqozq

on: ncdgin ens anflr .(Et .2? sonoi'cr gjijnnbj $539335

cifj 30 consiitt ufiJ unom “J: .vjijnst; mun cfl inomjimmoo

." r-. ._r'_:-.... :1" -z -" f ' : .1 'r '-: ' . _:,'?;!r19_n’;:_i
" u ,- . , . .‘ _
' :"_-' "-’-"-"--: 1.- .-' - ‘ -.i ' ..x Tim's. .Lt . - ' .' Cu

 

 

50
dimensions of the self may not be relevant in the
new setting. As you move from your work to
school, to a date, the image you have of your
self naturally changes because the same type of

expectations do not carry over to the new
settings. (pp. 89—90)

An opposite view of Kinch's notion of self is held
by those who view self in singular dimensions, as

demonstrated in Cohen's (1989) definition of self-concept.
Cohen argues that "the self—concept is regarded as an
enduring feature of a person's personality that operates
in all situations to affect that person's behavior"
(1989:321). Unlike these two perspectives, identity
theory is constructed to offer a conceptualization of self
that incorporates both multiplicity and singularity
dimensions. Stryker (1989) refers to this process in the
following:
This conceptualization incorporates the idea of a
multiplicity of selves through the postulate that
self comprises as many identities as positions
occupied and roles played by the person in
organized networks of social relationships. It
incorporates the idea of the singularity of self

via the postulate that these identities are
organized in a salience hierarchy. (p. 47)

VI. Self-Investment Theory
The psychological centrality principle proposed by

Rosenberg (1979) and the identity theory as advanced 13y
Stryker and Serpe (1982) and Stryker (1989) indicate that,
since the self is constituted by dispositions, attributes,
and identities, the effect of these characteristics on

one's self—conception depends on how central or salient

    

‘ ‘ ,3 q . xi- ,7

:!.-).-. at!“ .‘M‘j sauna neflot)

v.95: ;!.-.".: Kilian-1.1.4: ._'-r.:r, n. . '.'-‘JLIJfiSvR phi-imbue i

'- ' .-.--- -...--.. -- .., — - - - :.- -':_':
.. . ~-. ... . o .- r. -' -(r: 2 ‘
l ’- r

51
one or all of these characteristics is (are) to the
individual. Similar to these two perspectives of
self-conception formation is self—investment theory, as
developed by Faunce (1975, 1982, 1984, 1989). Faunce
(1989) defined selfeinvestment as:

a commitment to achievement with regard to an
activity or attribute based on the relevance of
that activity or attribute for self-esteem. High
self—investment in work, for example, means that

occupational achievement in some form is

necessary to maintain self-esteem; those with low

self-investment can fail in this area with

impunity. (pp. 381—382)

Self-investment theory is distinguished from the two
related previous theories by two central concepts,
knowledge and reminders. Unlike the psychological
centrality principle and identity theory, self-investment
proposes that knowing one's location in a status hierarchy
(as central characteristics, attributes, or identities)
would not have an important effect on one's self—conception
unless social experience reminds him/her of that location.
This reminding concept entails a frequency of evaluation
process because "the greater the frequency of evaluation by
others of an attribute or activity, the higher will be the

self-investment in that activity or attribute" (Faunce,

1989:383).

Literature Related to Work and Self—Esteem
Although we adopt the theoretical perspective which
considers work conditions as prior variables to

self—esteem, the fact is that the literature in work and

 

52
self-esteem is conflicting. Researchers provide us with a
voluminous literature to attest to the effects of work
conditions on self-esteem, and vice—versa.

Regarding the assumption that self-esteem influences
work, some scholars have emphasized the role of
self—esteem in work outcomes and occupational achievement
(Korman, 1970); in high occupational aspirations (Douvan &
Adelson, 1966; Bedeian, 1977); in expectations of success
in attaining one's goals (Rosenberg, 1965); in educational
and occupational attainment (Bachman & O'Malley, 1977);
and in seeing oneself as competent in dealing with the
world (Fitch, 1970). Bachman and O'Malley (1977),
however, indicate that "the fairly strong correlations
between self-esteem during high school and later
educational and occupational attainment reflect very
little direct impact of self-esteem on later success"
(p. 377). Reporting additional qualifications of this
relationship, Greenhaus and Badin (1974), in their study
of the relationship between three sources of self-esteem
and task performance for 144 undergraduate students,
conclude that "task—specific self-esteem predicted
performance for total sample; socially influenced
self-esteem predicted performance for high authoritarian

subjects" (p. 722).

Literature Related to Social Class and Self-Esteem
With regard to the alternative assumption, i.e.,

that work influences self—esteem, most research has dealt

Irv-I1! IIIIIIaI IIoI g

 

Jnomavome-I." isnohsquoao bus aemoosuc also: at

a nsvuoa) anoifisfiiqaa Isnoidsquuoo dplfl n1 :(OTQI .naflloll '“

:'.:-.:--'.-oua ‘m (anal-11151.33“ 1.} -:(\'\‘91 .rwi.i-‘. :Cséflf .rmzlabA

I .1 " 1.".i- . .'.' II .- '-:-'I'_- . 'I ".h'r: -JJI".‘- "i
1.. ‘3' 15-i' "'- . - I ' ' . . " '.."-C"'--L '- “fif-
. - ' .r-'

 

53
broadly with effects of social class generally rather than
specific aspects of work. Literature on the relationship
between social class and self-esteem, however, is fraught
with contradictions. Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978) refer
to this problematic situation as "after decades of
research on both social class and self-esteem, it is
somewhat surprising to find so little knowledge about
their relationship“ (p. 53). In a prior work, Rosenberg
(1965) reported ea weak relationship between indices of
self-esteem and social class. Luck and Heiss (1972)
investigated the social influence upon adult males'
self-esteem, and found that "self—esteem was not
positively related to socioeconomic status; the proportion
of cases with high self-esteem is greater among those with
low—status fathers (63 percent) than it. is among those
with high-status fathers (35 percent)“ (pp. 69, 76).
Kaplan (1971) failed to observe 23 relationship between
social class and self—degradation. Moreover, Mortimer and
Lorence (l979b), in their examination of the socialization
affect of work experience on self-concept during the early

work career, indicate that there is no direct relationship
between the measures of socioeconomic background and the
1976 self-concept data. Coopersmith's (1967) study
indicated that "there is no clear and definite pattern of
relationship between social class and positive and

negative attitudes toward the self" (p. 83).

 

gusdneaofi .Jl'xau 'xohq 5 M .(E: .q) 'aidanofisla: fled:

Elc- aosif-nf neowIad qiflz-rur.r'--='-. 23,-. r-: Educ-at". (8801)

-.

(SUM) aafie-H Ems firs-v ' _. . -:---.-::a:-:--—3lea

if. :"’!if.' f-gffil '. ' a '_ ,. I.::-..‘n1
2'15: !' 3., " _ 1..
‘ '. l

i .

w

l

l

. ..

54

Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978), as noted above,
conducted empirical research to study social class and
self-esteem among children and adults. The findings
indicated that no association exists between social class
and self-esteem among preadolescents, a modest
relationship among adolescents, and a moderate
relationship among adults. One way they explained the
differences in the results between adults and children is
that social comparison based on status is not a matter of
concern among children because they perceive their
socioeconomic environments as homogeneous. On the other
hand, the opposite case is demonstrated by adults, whose
socioeconomic environments tend to be sharply
heterogeneous.

Although Rosenberg (1965) and Rosenberg and Pearlin
(1978) are considered cornerstone studies on social class
and self-esteem, their researches do not provide us with
complete knowledge of how social class influences adult
self—esteem, especially in a work setting, which will be

explained in this research.

Literature Review on Studies of the Mediating

Variables between SES and Self-Esteem

Educational Attainment
We propose that the occupational experience of being
self-directed, having the possibility for upward mobility,

and occupational achievement are limited by educational

 

  

'I

sjnwebom g bns .ejnsoasloba pnonn qkdanaf

adj-banisqus ysfid

;? noWhIido h"fi P-'-Z

.'._'!l_§:"- ¢ ;:.~n '-'I

.5"

9:10

u‘onI 50530.4!

.vflluts pncm. qidanoldsfii

-'Iv:n~ ' .I‘ :.fine1“3alb-

.;.:( nwri=-_Hr: [afoot dad:

‘1
n
l

 

(I

 

55
qualifications which are greatly affected by family
socioeconomic background. Blau and [Mncan (1967) and
Duncan, Featherman and Duncan (1972) used 1962 OCG
(Occupational Change in a Generation) data and a 1966 DAS
(Detroit Area Study), respectively, for their research.
The 1962 data resulted from a national survey of males, 35

to 44 years old; the 1966 study dealt with males 21 to 64

years old. The results of these two studies attested to
the effect of socioeconomic origins on educational
attainment and occupational achievement. For example, the
model they used tested the effect of three family
background factors, father's education, father's
occupation, and number of siblings, on the subsequent
educational attainment using OCG data. The causal diagram
for the OCG data set indicated that the path coefficients
from father's occupations to son's education (PUX) was
0.28, which was the highest among the three family
background factors, as indicated in the following

statements:

Each of the three family background factors
directly influences education in an appreciable
degree. Results for all four cohorts suggest
that father's occupation is a slightly more
weighty factor in educational attainment than
either father's education (n: number of siblings
when all three variables are considered
simultaneously. The effect of number of siblings
is negative, implying that an increase in family
size lowers the number of grades of school
completed. (Duncan et al., 1972:41)

Moreover, Sewell and Hauser (1975), in their study

of the effect of socioeconomic origins on educational

 

0.9 hsjas-st asthma cw Ham-H lo aJIua-n 3r: .blo 81.9!

=":'.'j.'"-‘\'.2'H:"E 5'0 awn“: sin-(fuzz-.-'.-.-'.--'m ":r. :l'-'-'I"--: 911:!
.... ..:x--- '!‘_'-- .j n-.' E:::\:.- ::~:'-:.i-|E--_:-'.-".'---.~. f:-r .:n:-':1--.lr~:l:lr-

'-"." I " " '.' 2'. :. . 5.0-:

56
attainment, indicate that "for each sex, socioeconomic
status is an important determinant at each level of
attainment in the process of higher education—~even when
intelligence is controlled" (p. 9). They also argue that:
Those with higher status origins, as indicated by
numerous studies, on the average score higher on
ability and achievement tests, earn better grades

in school, have higher educational and
occupational aspirations, are more likely to

obtain the education that will qualify them for

the more demanding and high prestige occupations

and consequently tend to earn more money. (p. 2)

Educational attainment has an increasingly important
role in one's occupational attainment, which subsequently
results in differences in wealth, power, and prestige.
Nachmias (1977) indicated that "there is ample evidence
that in the United States, higher education increases the
chances for higher income and more power and prestige"
(p. 589). The aims in including this variable are
two-fold: one is to determine the effects of educational
attainment on self—esteem independently; second, to
determine the effects of educational attainment on
self-esteem in combination with variables related to
occupational experience, such as self—direction,
possibility for upward mobility, and occupational
achievement at work.

Research on the effects of education on self-esteem
are conflicting. The studies range from showing no

relation at all, negative relation, positive relation, or

a relation through a mediating variable, which is the case

   

    

   

." " . I ~'_3

 

. . -. ,-|
1, ,LL .. - 7

:0} mad: 2311515: I]? *l‘L’. o;:.-.-.u‘hs or” nlsido
anoinquooo option-:1; rim-f hm.- L-an'l-m-erxnf; mum odd
(3 .q) .ysnom t-‘icm u'mu --J f'riz'J v1.31“: 115.. 2.10:) hm.

t~LJ3vqni Yfflniafifijuni FL 'T! H-.. ' Tanri' waij
‘- i_:(‘l‘.'_-!_li'-’..’( 'I_; |".' "1 . I-_ _. Irfia I '51: .1"! ..r‘. g. '95-: "
' I
J
r
I h

—I

57
we propose for this study. Mortimer and Lorence (1979b),
in a longitudinal study' of occupational experience and
self-concept, examined 435 males who were 1966-67 college
graduates. They were the subjects for the research during
their undergraduate years and during a follow-up study 10
years later. The finding of the study was that there was
no significant direct effect of educational attainment on
the 1976 self-concept. The study showed that graduate
educational attainment exerts its psychological influence
more indirectly through work autonomy and income. This
finding is congruent with a previous study by Bachman and
O'Malley (1977), who found no direct impact of higher
educational attainment on self—esteem. They found that
the only impact is through occupational achievement:
"educational attainment contributes to job status which,
in turn, has a modest impact on self-esteem" (p. 337).
Similar results were reported by Kohn and Schooler (1983):
"The psychological effects of education are in varying
degree attributable to occupational self—direction“ (p.

169).

There are some studies which show a general
relationship between educational attainment and individual
self—esteem. For instance, Jacques and Chason (1977), in
their study of self-esteem and status using 972 subjects,
"observed significant differences in the samples of
service—oriented professionals, married black residents,

prisoners, and white university students. In general,

 

 

‘ :lrsuhl-‘a'np Isfl: L-JWL-dé: \[r'lIJT' -. rI'J‘ . .14';:'"Ir'n;-' } I '.'b '3 V0! 9113 '

— r -. - ... .- _ . . .
'-.--'-.IJ- -'.. .I'.-Z.‘J'{_-l-_-u..n-.vv, - '-v'. I :---j,?:'.;_-Lf'a

. 7'"- '|- 31' . ' ‘ - . 'I! I

I l _l"

58

persons with fewer years of education scored significantly
lower on Rosenberg's self-esteem scale than did more
educated persons" (p. 410). likewise, in studying the
influence of educational attainment on self-evaluations of
competence, Weidman, Phelan and Sullivan (1972) found that
educational attainment has a strong, positive association
with self—evaluations of competence.

The basic themes of this study are the reverse of
that proposed by Korman (1970), who assumed that a
positive self—image will promote occupational
achievement. we have emphasized the theoretical trend
which asserts that occupational conditions and experiences
tend to affect adult self-esteem, as is revealed le the
works of Tharenou and Barker (1982); Tharenou, 1979);
authors of Work. in America (1973); Mortimer and Lorence
(1979a, l979b); Bachman and O'Malley (1977); Luck and
Heiss (1972); Hall (1971); Kohn and Schooler (1969, 1973,

1978, 1983); Schwalbe (1985); Rosenberg (1979); Faunce

(1989); Kasl and French (1962); and Harvey (1975). For
example, the authors of Work in America (1973) indicate
that "work plays a crucial and perhaps unparalleled
psychological role in the formation of self-esteem,
identity, and a sense of order" (p. 4). Moreover, Harvey
(1975) wrote that "a man's whole self-worth, feeling of
self—esteem and self—approval appear to have become
largely embodied in his occupation" (p. 221). While this

may overstate the case in terms of the extent of effect,

 

in sawsvotv add 915 '{ana airEJ lo asmsfl: olesd orfr

r: 's;." E':-.-.n:u.'.>as Of'h .(C‘VL‘L) -.'5-.!:'.O;'l yr" horaoqrnq Ind:
v: .":'-r.rJI ' .-:. ':;-' ;. .-'- i1". outfit-V l.“ '. ~.‘ .‘szanq

' ' — .. I .
'I. ' .‘IE'-" :.- - ._' l-:' -/'..-..'€’.I

59
the causal direction is the one we are proposing.
Tharenou (1979), reviewing the literature on employee
self-esteem, concluded that "intrinsic characteristics of
the job (skill, variety, challenge, interest, autonomy)
affect the employee's global self-esteem level more than
self-esteem level affects job characteristics" (p. 339). A
similar conclusion was reported by Mortimer and Lorence
(1979b), who indicated that "several recent studies
provide that work experiences do influence the
personality" (p. 307). Kohn and Schooler (1983) found
that the relationship between occupational experience and
self—concept is based primarily on the effect of the
former on the latter. The following is a literature

review of the two main occupational condition variables.

Self-Direction

In the path diagram (Figure l), which describes the
assumptions and hypotheses guiding our theoretical work,
we postulated that since socioeconomic background produces
differences in occupational values and experiences,
employees from higher socioeconomic statuses are more
likely to be concerned about having a job where they can
exercise self-direction at work. This proposition has its
foundation in the work of Kohn and Schooler (1969, 1973,
1978, 1983). They argue that:

The higher their social-stratification positions,

the more value men place on self-direction and

the more confident they are that self-direction

is both possible and efficacious. The lower their
social-stratification positions, the more value

 

asihufla Insae: Jezevoa" 55H: bsdsaihni odw .(dQYQI)

HI consuflrl 03 9::wu'fi'Qr" th‘ Jr 9 oijowq

Jth' (555?; :chuu"fi .-K v'-- ..iw .-‘ "13} rnnrwov

60

men place on conformity to external authority and

the more certain they are that conformity is all

that their own capacities and the exigencies of

the world allow" (1983:32).

Furthermore, Mortimer and Iorence's (l979b) research on
"Occupational Experience and the Self-Concept"
demonstrates a direct path from family income to 1976 work
autonomy.

Kohn and Schooler (1973:103) examined the
relationship between three variables indicative of
self-direction: closeness of supervision; routinization of
work; and substantive complexity. Their results showed
that self-direction is significantly related to
self-esteem. Also, they indicate that:

Occupational self—direction leads to self-directed

orientations to self and society: Men who are

self-directed in their work are consistently more
likely to become nonauthoritarian, to develop
personally more responsible standards of morality,
to become more trustful, more self-confident, less
self-deprecatory, less fatalistic, less anxious,

and less conformist in their ideals. (1983:142)

In addition to the findings of Kohn and Schooler,
research has consistently documented the importance of

self-direction at work for self-esteem. Such research has

been conducted by Hall (1971), Mortimer and Lorence

(l979a, l979b), and Tharenou (1979).

Upward Mobility

Two other variables related to occupational
experiences and conditions, which we assume influence

self-esteem, are perceived possibility for promotion and

 

9d: bonimsxs (EOI:€VEI) noloodoa bnn ndox

5

Lo vuijsoibnl asldsjusx :oudj r-.w39d qfdanoiIrIs:

: -.

To noljsxintdu0? :PO.“1V?.QU? .0 u:wn:?o" :uajluuzib—Floa

1.. ,‘.'!I._‘__ :'-'.'I .‘;"i‘ '_ '- - ' r'"': ', ' -_".'J
I ' u_' I. ii"

61
upward mobility at work. Upward mobility is very salient
in many people's lives; it is a central theme in our
socialization process. It is pivotal in the education
system, in job training, and in the mass media. While
upward mobility is a very pervasive goal, i1: is not
possible for everyone. Luckmann and Berger refer to this:
"While practically everybody feels committed to upward
mobility as a central life-goal, a majority fail to
achieve it" (1964:340). For this reason and many others,
one would assume that mobility has crucial consequences
for the psychological functioning of the individual. Many
researchers have emphasized the importance of upward
mobility for self-esteem. Luck and Heiss write that
"upward mobility is more likely than stability to be
associated with self—esteem for those with a college
education" (1972:71). Luck and Heiss indicated that
upward mobility is more conspicuous and highly related to
self-esteem among those with college degrees than those
with higll school diplomas. Faunce's (1989) recent
contribution to the literature on work and self-estemn
challenges the commonly assumed idea that work necessarily
affects self-esteem. He argued that attention should be
directed to variables which. influence this relationship.
He, for example, indicated that opportunity for upward
mobility (one characteristic of occupational status

assignment systems) would influence the salience of

occupational achievement, which, in turn, would influence

 

0:1 [is] :Ihoi'nm s .Ison-nlil 1:. '.'-rm: 1% as 'JEHdol
. 'x

. '.'-r'Jn .Ir. ‘nr .3: a r'.:J ‘u'! .( ' " - a-‘JJ‘I'JI'
. :III- "I -j -‘\ _.I"_r
l _

62
the relationship between work and self—esteem. likewise,
we propose in our causal diagram (Figure 1) that
occupational achievement will influence self-esteem
indirectly through occupational conditions (self-direction

and upward mobility).

Occupational Achievement Level

Another variable which may mediate between
socioeconomic status and self-esteem is occupational
achievement level. By depicting a direct path from
socioeconomic background to occupational achievement, we
assume that, to some extent at least, the latter is a
consequence of the former. The theoretical background of
this assumption is based (Hi the work, anong others, of
Blau and Duncan (1967) and Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan
(1972), who argue the importance of father's occupation
and education with regard to both respondents' educational
attainment and occupational attainment. Direct effects of
SES on occupational achievement have been reported by
Eckland (1965) and Nachmias (1977). Eckland concluded

that "apparently, social class makes a significant

contribution to occupational achievement independent of
its effect on the student's college career" (p. 742).
Also, Nachmias notes that "social class has significant
direct and indirect effect on the formation of educational

and occupational goals and on occupational attainment"

(p. 589).

. «film-

Isva] idoA Is

 

hfiekflod sdslbem Saw ”III. nldrlnsv andjonA

. v

I”-u-.i..:-.Ij..-'._.-m :-..' ' .. i '.- fl". v'I.'-.i-' .In'cIEIJ'f-LHJIDUB
I: . “I- 1uu:-L u3:J=uL~ Y” -:= '1 nbnsvalflas
i'

 

63

Research on the relationship between occupational
achievement and self-esteem is conflicting. Some studies
show ea positive relationship even while controlling for
education as an antecedent variable to occupational
achievement. Others show no relationship, or some
relationship as a result of the influence of variables
such as education or occupational conditions. Kohn and
Schooler's (1973) study demonstrates two points: when pay
was controlled (indicator of occupational achievement),
the relationship between self—esteem and a composite index
of 12 occupational conditions was not reduced. There were
no independent effects of job level on global self—esteem
after removing intrinsic job conditions. On the other
hand, a relationship has been found between occupational
achievement or job level (as indicator of occupational
achievement) and self—esteem. This relationship surfaced
in the research of Kasl and French (1962), Jacques and
Chason (1977), Luck and Heiss (1972), Bachman and O'Malley
(1977), and 'Iharenou and Harker (1982). Tharenou and
Harker found that "global self-esteem and sense of
competence are significantly and positively related to the
employee's job level, complexity, performance, and
satisfaction. Job level has the highest beta weight for
global self-esteem" (p. 800). Based on the assumption
that success has a positive effect on self-esteem, Bachman
and O'Malley (1977) found a direct positive impact of the

subjects' 1974 occupational status on 1974 self-esteem.

 

-:r.c_ nr-.iw :ajnloq m.“ PLJfi'lfi‘flcm'f' ybuJ" (TIL-I) a'uefoofloe

,(‘M ""'-l":!i:I:"-I Ir..'a-:-":H.:~n:mn '. u‘.-_‘.--:-iI')rI£) faE-_u.'IL‘.':I'-'n0'.‘: asw

 

.r-u

64

Since research on the effect of occupational
conditions and experiences on self-esteem are
contradictory, the aim of this study is not to test only
one possibility; our‘ path analysis will initially cover
all possible paths. Still, the basic premise of this
study is that the higher one's socioeconomic origin, the
higher will be educational attainment; the higher the
educational attainment, the higher will be occupational
achievement and the more likely one is to be self-directed
and upwardly mobile at work which, in turn, will result in

high self-esteem.

 

9d: why-1.16

a'ono Ibdytfl Id: 3513 It.

 

add :adgifl 9d: :Jnemnlsiis lanoldsaubo Id IIII 3

Isnoijsquuao

nu IIlw ISIpif ufld .jncmn191;e Isnoidloub.

tfijncxib-Jloa 9d 01 31 an» yiuflil fimr on: has Inemsvaidos

n. 'ffiffl? II

r'-.' .I'"-"'! P" .r‘nr" '- :_'.-'_:." ' ""

l ..t'Qh bnfi

'9 - 251,-- I .' - '1!“ f_ .

 

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS, INSTRUMENTATION, AND PROCEDURES

The primary purpose of this research was to explore

causal relationships between self—esteem and job
conditions and experiences; specifically, self-direction,
occupational achievement level, and upward mobility, and
to determine how these conditions moderate the effect of
socioeconomic status of family of origin and educational
attainment on self-esteem. It represents one segment of a
long line of research on work and self-esteem.
Furthermore, this research particularly aims to highlight
the effect of occupational self—direction on self—esteem.
This chapter will focus on descriptions of the population,
the instruments used, and the methods used for collecting

and analyzing the data.

Description of the Population

The population of this study was drawn randomly from
two census tracts in Lansing, Michigan. Forty-five
persons were selected from each tract. One represents a
stable upper-middle class residential area, the other
represents a stable working—class residential area. The

head of each household was interviewed. Forty-five blocks

65

 

-.of' has monies—3192 nec-st-c! FOINEHOXJEI‘JJ IIIUI:

...c-.i;Iuo:I.L..--l.[oa .\;1.Exsoil'tusqe Han-neiqus- bnr. anoidlbnoo

-..--., {-.. -.:.¢:_z:n .'.r.:- ...‘n .~r -'.- . Irv-..r I.— ..-. 5'an Esnoljfiquaoo

66
were selected randomly from each census tract. Two
procedures were applied in selecting the households from
each block for interview purposes:

1. The interviewer started with the third house
from the corner on the east side. If any obstacles
occurred in interviewing the household, the house on
either side was selected.

2. After finishing with the first interviewee, the
interviewer was instructed to move to the third house from
the northwest corner on the west side in the next randomly
selected block. Again, if any problem occurs in making
the interview, the house on either side was selected.

Table 1 gives a breakdown of the number of males and

females represented in the research data.

Table l~—Distribution of Total Population by Gender.

Total Females Total Males Total Population

28 62 90

Table 2 gives a frequency distribution of the
socioeconomic status of family of the research population.
The value rank for this socioeconomic status is given
according to Duncan's socioeconomic index. The rating is
based on occupation of head of household in the

respondent's family of origin.

ed: .ocaoivus1n1
i H'.' L .'_:L=(_u. I-'.'=i:‘ll
_' .I II I -5} '.l.

Jali”

9d:

[11.5w [muzninlf

-'.\..-. .1". cri [ J"'I'.I.

19315

T:

.S

'l'lIJ-J'n’l:

 

.usl.:33ni

an:

67

Table 2—-Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Family Socioeconomic Status.

 

Value Frequency Percent Value Frequency Percent
3 1 1.1 39 2 2.2
6 2 2.2 40 3 3.3
7 l 1.1 43 l 1.1
8 1 1.1 49 1 1.1
9 2 2.2 50 5 5.6

10 4 4.4 51 1 1.1
11 1 1.1 52 2 2.2
13 l 1.1 53 1 1.1
14 4 4.4 54 1 1.1
15 3 3.3 56 l 1.1
16 2 2.2 59 2 2.2
17 3 3.3 61 3 3.3
18 1 1.1 62 2 2.2
19 2 2.2 65 2 2.2
21 1 1.1 66 2 2.2
22 2 2.2 67 1 1.1
23 1 1.1 70 l 1.1
24 6 6.7 71 1 1.1
25 2 2.2 72 1 1.1
27 3 3.3 82 1 1.1
31 2 2.2 84 2 2.2
32 1 1.1 85 1 1.1
33 3 3.3 93 l 1.1
36 1 1.1 96 l 1.1
37 1 1.1 —-—

Total 90 100.0

Table 3 shows a frequency distribution of the target
population's educational attainment.

Table 4 presents a frequency distribution of the
occupational achievement level of the research
population. The value for this status attainment is

ranked according to Duncan's socioeconomic index.

 

68

Table 3--Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Educational Attainment.

Value Value Label Frequency Percent
6 years of schooling 1 1.1
9 years of schooling 2 2.2

10 years of schooling 5 5.6
11 years of schooling 4 4.4
12 years of schooling 22 24.4
13 1 year of college 6 6.7
14 2 years of college 9 10.0
15 3 years of college 4 4.4
16 4 years of college 21 23.3
17 M.A./M.S. degree 10 11.1
18 Ph.D. degree 6 6.7

Total 90 100.0

Table 4-—Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Occupational Achievement Level.

value Frequency Percent value Frequency Percent

 

6 l 1.1 50 3 3.3
9 2 2.2 51 3 3.3
11 l 1.1 53 2 2.2
13 2 2.2 54 l 1.1
15 3 3.3 61 5 5.6
16 1 1.1 62 3 3.3
21 7 7.8 65 3 3.3
23 l 1.1 66 9 10.0
26 2 2.2 68 l 1.1
27 2 2.2 69 l 1.1
32 2 2.2 70 1 1.1
33 1 1.1 72 4 4.4
38 2 2.2 78 3 3.3
39 1 1.1 80 1 1.1
41 1 2.2 84 5 5.6
44 7 7.8 85 l 1.1
46 3 3.3 86 2 2.2
49 1 1.1 93 l 1.1
25 2 2.2 72 1 1.1
27 3 3.3 82 1 1.1
31 2 2.2 84 2 2.2
32 1 1.1 85 l 1.1
33 3 3.3 93 l 1.1
36 l 1.1 96 1 1.1
37 1 1.1 -——

LO
C

Total 100.0

     

'.- S,
I

   

Mb I- "'QSIJ'“) 3c 2:592 E 21

.15‘. s[;.¢.f.-'.--J lo fit-5%: b at
I.r' - ”I .~ T .'.'..?"..'=..."! TI
:l-¢| -. ._ -‘ .' -'_. {q 8'.

69

Instrumentation

Socioeconomic Status of Family of Origin and
Occupational Achievement level of Target Population

These two variables were measured by using Duncan's
(1961) socioeconomic index. The socioeconomic index is
used as ea measure to stratify the individuals in our
target population as well as to rank and classify their
occupation (see Appendix B). Duncan indicates that "The
greatest interest in the index will be in its potential
use for stratifying a population of individuals. No less
important, however, are its possibilities as a research
instrument in investigations of occupation structura'
(1961:140). The virtue of Duncan's socioeconomic index
compared to other occupational scales, such as the
National Opinion Research Center's (NORC) Scale of
Occupational Prestige and Edwards' Measurement of
Occupational Status, is that "The socioeconomic index

. . . is one that combines the available information on

educational and income levels of persons engaged in
several occupations" (Duncan, 1961:117). In contrast to
the Edwards scale, it contains information about specific
occupations and it is not limited to the 90 occupations
included in the original NORC scale.

After explaining the limitation in Edwards'
measurement scale, Pavalko (1988) writes:

The desire for more refined scales for measuring

occupational status has led to the creation of

'indexes' that order occupations on the basis of

the average educational attainment and income of
people in those occupations, as reported in the

 

 

70

national decennial censuses. The best known and

most widely used scale of this kind was developed

by Otis Dudley Duncan* using 1950 census data.
. . . It is commonly referred to as the Duncan

socioeconomic index (SEI). The scale includes
nearly 500 occupations. (p. 127)

Duncan (1961) describes the objectives of the SET as
follows:

. . . obtaining a socioeconomic index for each of
the occupations in the detailed classification of
the 1950 census of population. This index is to
have both face validity, in terms of its
constituent variables, and sufficient predictive
efficiency with respect to the NORC occupational
prestige ratings that it can serve as an
acceptable substitute for them in any research
where it is necessary to grade or rank
occupations in the way that the NORC score does

but where some of the occupations are not on the
NORC list. (p. 115)

Occupational Self—Direction

A four-item scale was used as an indicator of
self—direction (adopted from Kohn & Schooler, 1983). The
scale assesses freedom from close supervision and engaging
in non-routinized and complex tasks. Indicators for the
self-direction scale are:

The frequency of talking to the immediate
supervisor.

The frequency of talking to the supervisor, who is
above the immediate supervisor.

The number of times the employee is evaluated by his
supervisor.

Job complexity.
The reliability measure used for the self-direction

scale was Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which is a measure

*Highlighted by the author.

    

U

a}! To amuuj NJ .yaibflbu I F.: chd ovsd

ovlme-suq Ins is 1:1 Im- hm: . a-‘~'=..’-:.!£ 1". av 3091131131109
{,---u-i;i:-r;:-"1vt '.‘."1'" . " .'-.: '3'11 -..- t' :73"
r" 1....” ' -. -' :.' “I;-'.§'_'c.--‘.'q
{ha h In« f 11;? "3 sin: _ ! - 1dr . TDE
1 :5: H..- L 'I. ' l v I. : i.
( uF-l - ‘ ‘ 4
l I

71
of internal consistency (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The
overall alpha for the self-direction scale was 0.7004.
Table 5 shows a frequently distribution of the target

population's occupational self-direction scores.

Upward Mobility

Upward mobility was measured as the perceived
possibility for upward mobility. The respondents were
asked, "How certain do you feel about your chances of
moving up?", using a five—point response format. The five
response categories are: (5) very certain; (4) certain;
(3) somewhat certain; (2) uncertain; and (1) very
uncertain. Table 6 shows a frequency distribution of the

target population's perceived upward mobility.

Self-Esteem

The lO-item scale developed by Rosenberg (1965) was
used to measure the target population's self-esteem. This
self—esteenl measure deals generally with favorable and
unfavorable attitudes toward the self. The scale is
balanced, with five positive items and five negative items
(see Appendix A, Item 34 1—10). Respondents were asked to
indicate (n1 a five—point, Likert scale how strongly they
disagree or agree that each item was true of them. The
five response categories are: (1) strongly agree;
(2) agree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) disagree;
and (5) strongly disagree. The higher the value on the

scale, the higher the self—esteem.

    

.\

. raj-1w r1! ' .:-.-.-..c.—. . ‘ . ' " - '2 7 2 T -
.r" ((3... h. . =I'- .:"I 'I-"ffiurlil 'I-LII YJtJldlaaofl

'- :.IIIE-I". 'I-I ‘. I "-" '-I' ' ' '
_ . ~. L ! -:_ ." . Hui!" gin-'35?!» 1

72

Table 5——Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Occupational Self—Direction

 

Scores.
value Label value Frequency Percentage
Low Self-Directed 4 l 1.1
occupation 5 2 2.2
6 3 3.3
7 3 3.3
8 8 8.9
9 6 6.7
10 9 10.0
11 10 11.1
12 12 13.3
l3 13 14.4
l4 17 18.9
High Self—Directed 15 4 4.4
occupation l7 2 2.2
Total 90 100.0

Table 6--Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Perceived Upward Mobility.

Value Lable Value Frequency Percentage
Very uncertain 1 18 20.0
Uncertain 2 16 17.8
Somewhat uncertain 3 24 26.7
Certain 4 14 15.6
Very certain 5 18 20.0

Total 90 100.0

 

 

73

A number of studies suggest the reliability and
construct validity of this scale. For instance, Crandell
(1973) evaluated Rosenberg's (1965) scale as one of the
best scales to measure self—esteem. Furthermore, Hensley
and Roberts (1976) indicated that Rosenberg's scale is one
of the most well-known scales for measuring self-esteem.
The reliability measure used in this study for the
self-esteem scale was Cronbach's alphg coefficient, which
is a measure of internal consistency (Carmines & Zeller,
1979). The .alpha_ for the self-esteem scale as used in
this study was .8355. Table 7 shows a frequency
distribution (of the target population's self—esteem

scores 0

Career Stage

A two—item scale was used as an indicator of career
stage. This scale was a composite of two variables:
(1) number of years in the labor force; and (2) age.
Since these two variables have different distributions,

the original raw scores of the two variables were
converted to standardized ones. Career stage was used to
measure the influence that number of years in the labor
force and age had on the effect of educational attainment,
occupational achievement level, occupational self-
direction, and upward mobility on self-esteem. The
reliability measure used for the career stage scale was
Cronbach's glpha coefficient. The overall alpha for the

career stage scale was 0.76.

 

--i-r".' .:In-...2:-j:.IE.-:-o':- '..'!.:'.'§ a'rf"!£I'7rI¢.\':I'.'.' .‘-'I'-\' -.-.!'r'-'.'.£: Inmates-3103

74

Table 7--Frequency Distribution of the Target
Population's Self-Esteem Scores.

Value Label Value Frequency Percentage

Low Self—Esteem 10
score 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
High Self-Esteem 32
score 38

HHNI—‘mbdkaHkOI—‘whma‘mI—‘bp

I—‘
OGDOUObUlU’lflI-‘sbb

H
I—‘I—‘NHmquDP-‘CDI—‘wnmeIQI-‘Ah

[—1
H

li—‘l—‘Nt—‘U‘lhflm

 

Total

0
O
|.—-l
O
O
O

 

Research Questionnaire

The research questionnaire (see Appendix A) was
developed by Professor William Faunce (Michigan State
University, Department of Sociology). The original
objective of the questionnaire as designed by Ikofessor
Faunce was to test a detailed theory of "self-investment,"
which attempts "to explain why level of occupational
achievement is an important determinant of the self-esteem
of some persons and has very little effect upon the

self-esteem of others" (Faunce, l980:ii).

 

75

The method used to gather the research information
from the target population was a face-to-face interview.
The questionnaire contains: a detailed work history;
personal experience of occupational status differences
both at work and off the job; an indication of
self-investment in work at the present time; how often the
interviewee communicates with his/her immediate supervisor
and the person above the immediate supervisor; the
interviewee's perception of the possibility for upward
mobility; and Rosenberg's ten-item self-esteem scale.
Moreover, the questionnaire sought demographic information
such as gender, age, race, level of education, individual
gross income, total family income, and occupation and

education of parents.

Analysis of Data

Data collected from the research questionnaire were
entered into a computer file. The computer program used
for statistical applications was Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS—PC+).

The statistical technique used to examine the
hypothetical causal structure, which is summarized in
Figure l, is path analysis. This statistical technique is
not constructed to prove the validity of the causal
assumptions as depicted in any given model. It is simply
designed to estimate the strengths of the different causal

connections in the model. Blau and Duncan (1967) explain

 

'_.' ‘- :EI'VLJ-IH‘ .I I - r ' * r A ‘7
_ -. In. suods rFIu'
-- -:— bf: 9“: b“
\I. -L ' 1.2 .
I". 'r '

eshalvaajnl

l :"

ailjdnn

76
the purpose of using. path analysis by indicating that,
"Path analysis is not a method for discovering causal laws
but a procedure for giving a quantitative interpretation
to the manifestations of a known or assumed causal system
as it operates in a particular population" (p. 172) .

Based on the previous review of literature on
self-esteem and family socioeconomic background, as well
as on the literature review on educational and
occupational attainment, we selected four variables for
data analysis which are treated as prior causes of self-
esteem (X6). These variables, stated in causal order,
are: 1. educational attainment (X2); 2. occupational
achievement level (X3); 3. occupational self-direction
(X4); and 4. possibility for upward mobility (X5). We
also consider the first three variables as mediating
variables between socioeconomic status of origin (X1)
and self-esteem (X6). In order to acquire the general
information of how these previous variables are related, a
zero-order correlation matrix and some descriptive
statistics for all variables in the causal model are
presented in Table 8 in the next chapter. The level of
rejection for the hypotheses, as stated, was set at 0.05.

The standardized regression coefficient (beta
weight) for the variables in the model were estimated by
the previously mentioned computer program, Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-PC+). Since this

computer program converts the variables in the equation

 

- - . -.'=..r'- i‘:'I:(ILI:.IDO

77
into standardized form, the path coefficients are simply
equal to the beta weights (Bohrnstedt & Knoke, 1982:420).
Thus the finding of path coefficients from the computer
program mentioned above will be used as a tool to show how
strong the causal relationship is among variables in the

causal model. These strengths of the causal relationships

between the variables as revealed in the path coefficients

will also be used to test the following twelve hypotheses,
so as to sustain or negate them within the limits of this
study:

Hla: The higher‘ the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her
educational attainment.

Hlb: The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her
occupational achievement level.

H1c:The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the more he/she will be
self-directed at work.

Hku The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater will be
his/her occupational achievement level.

H2bzfflie higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the more he/she will
be self—directed at work.

H2c:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater the
perceived possibility for his/her upward
mobility.

H2d The higher the level of an employee's

educational attainment, the higher will be

his/her self-esteem.

H3a:The higher the level of an employee‘s
occupational achievement, the more he/she
will be self-directed at work.

    

 

..:-:-ne:u'.'.=ucf'ar3 e:- ".1. z 5'."'- r.--= F-ssau 9d 0313 I“!

- , - ‘ I! l ":_:'e‘-::?. (:11 as 08
:thda
i
I ' : l- 5

78

H3b:The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the higher the
perceived possibilities for his/her upward
mobility.

H3c:The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the higher will be
his/her self-esteem.

H4a: The more the employee is self—directed at
work, the higher will be his/her self—esteem.

H4b: The higher the employee's opportunities for
upward mobility, the higher will be his/her
self-esteem.

Based upon the assumption that nonwork-related
variables, such as age and career stage, may influence the
relationship hypothesized above, the interaction of age and
career stage with the independent variables above was
analyzed using multiple regression.

Multiple regressions were used to test the following
four hypotheses within the limits of this study:

H5a: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
educational attainment on self-esteem.

H5b: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
occupational achievement level on self-esteem.

H5c: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of the
perceived possibility for upward mobility on

self—esteem.

H5d: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
occupational self—direction on self-esteem.

 

 

' '1}! 1: I63

.:.l'
.I.-.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This chapter will provide an overview of the

statistical procedures used to analyze the data. In
addition, this chapter will summarize the study results
from the survey questionnaire.

The main premise of this quantitative research was
that socioeconomic status of family of origin does not
directly affect employees' self-esteem; rather, it is
proposed that socioeconomic status is 'indirectly' related
to self-esteem by the effect it has on the individual's
opportunities for attaining a high level of education, the
effect of these <on the individual's occupational
achievement level, the effect of these on exercising
self-direction at work, and the perceived possibility for
upward mobility. This premise is expected to demonstrate
the following order' of relationships: the higher one's
socioeconomic status of family of origin, the higher the
educational attainment; the higher the educational
attainment, the higher the occupational achievement, then
the more likely one is self-directed and to perceive
opportunity for upward mobility at work, which, in turn,

will result in higher self-esteem.

79

 

80

Statistical Analysis and Procedures
for Testing the Hypotheses

Path analysis was used to test the strength of the
causal relationship among variables, as proposed in the
following twelve hypotheses:

HlazThe higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her
educational attainment.

HR) The higher the employee's socioeconomic

background, the higher will be his/her

occupational achievement level.

H1c:TU1e higher' the employee's socioeconomic
background, the more he/she will be
self-directed at work.

H2a:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater will be
his/her occupational achievement level.

Hun The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the more he/she will be
self—directed at work.

H2m The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater the
perceived possibility of his/her upward
mobility.

H2d:The higher the level of an employee‘s
educational attainment, the higher will be

his/her self—esteem.

H3a:The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the more he/she will
be self—directed at work.

Hun The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the higher the
perceived possibilities for his/her upward
mobility.

H3c:The higher the level of an employee‘s

occupational achievement, the higher will be
his/her self-esteem.

H4a: The more the employee is self-directed at work,
the higher will be his/her self-esteem.

 

 

8l
H4b: The higher the employee's perceived
opportunities for upward mobility, the higher
will be his/her self-esteem.

Path coefficients were used to test the strength of‘
the causal relationship in these hypotheses, so as to
sustain or negate them. The standardized regression
coefficients (beta weights) for the variables in the
model, estimated using SPSSPC+ (Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences) computer software, were used to
estimate the path coefficients. Walsh (1990) indicates
that "The path coefficients are the standardized betas
(85) obtained from multiple regression equations"
(p. 319).

Furthermore, we used regression analysis to test the
interaction effect on self-esteem of each of the
independent variables (educational attainment,
occupational achievement, self-direction, and perceived
chances for upward mobility) with a career stage variable
composed of age and number of years in the labor force.
For the purposes of determining interaction, we created a
new variable that is a composite of two variables using
each independent variable. For example, we created an
interaction term (variable) by multiplying educational
attainment by career stage. In the regression analysis,
the interaction term was entered into the regression
equation in addition to its composite variables.

With regard to the interaction analysis, our goal

was to test the interaction effect as proposed in the

 

 

 

 

 

82
following four hypotheses. For each of these hypotheses,
a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that the
interaction effects were not significant, so that the null
hypothesis could be accepted or rejected within the limits
of the study. These four hypotheses were:

H5a: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of

education on self-esteem.

H5b: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
occupational achievement level on
self-esteem.

H5c: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of the
perceived possibility for upward mobility on
self—esteem.

H5d The older the employee and the later his/her

career stage, the less the effect of

occupational self-direction on self—esteem.

Results of Path Analysis

An examination of the path coefficients in Figure 3
reveals that the direct impact of SES upon educational
attainment (p21) was .410, the same as the product-
moment correlation, .410, in Table 8. The direct path
between SES and occupational achievement (p31) was very
small, only .079. The much larger product-moment
correlation between these two variables (.346), shown in
Table 8, suggests that SES influenced occupational
achievement indirectly via educational attainment. We can
estimate the amount of indirect causal impact of SES on

occupational achievement by multiplying the two causal

    

marina-319a no noldnzvubs

"_[v r . In ‘. I '9!’_' '_-:L"I' 'JdT :(rh
' I .~' .’ _ ' _ 1" .‘fi':
h} "
.I

83

Table 8--Zero-Order Correlation Matrix for All Variables
in the Causal Model.

 

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
X1 1.00
X2 .410** 1.00
X3 .346** .684** 1.00
X4 .015 .126 .210 1.00
X5 .016 -.056 .020 .005 1.00
X6 -.20 —.075 —.033 .488** .002 1.00
Mean 37.00 14.00 50.10 11.29 2.98 18.51
Std Dev. 23.56 2.59 22.93 2.79 1.40 4.95
Max 96 18 93 17 5 38
Min 3 6 6 4 1 10
Range 93 12 87 13 4 28
*p < .05 **p < .001
paths: p21 X p32 = .410 X .652 = .267, which is much

larger than the direct effect. These positive effects of
SES on educational attainment, and of educational
attainment on occupational achievement, were anticipated
on the basis of previous related research (Blau & Duncan,
1967; Sewell & Hauser, 1975; Sewell & Shah, 1967; Haller &
Portes, 1973; Eckland, 1965; Nachmias, 1977; Bachman &
O'Malley, 1977; Mortimer & Lorence, 1979b). Our path
model, indicates, as did most of these prior researches,
that the direct effects of SES on occupational achievement
were much smaller than the indirect effects, which were

mediated in! educational attainment. This would explain

 

$00.

I'

.F.’ .

€00.

. ('
r-

".'\ .

     

 

 

FED.“

01.03

3800-

lava.—

84

p.410**

   
 

/X3 p-.062
x 079 ‘

p.110

p "o X

1 P '
131

 

5

*statistically significant at < .05
**statistically significant at < .001

socioeconomic status of family of origin
educational attainment

occupational achievement level
occupational self-direction

possibility for upward mobility
self-esteem

><><><><><><
mmpwmr—I
II II II II II n

Figure 3--Path model.

 

85
the product-moment correlation of .346 between SES and
occupational achievement level, as being caused by this
mediating variable.

Path coefficients for the direct paths from SES and
educational attainment to self-direction (X4) were
negative and very small, p41 = -.0633 and p42 =
—.0136. Thus it is apparent that socioeconomic status and
education did not directly influence self—direction, but
indirectly influenced self-direction through occupational
achievement level, which had a direct path to self-
direction (p43 '= .241). This indirect relation would
also explain the product-moment correlation of .126
between educational attainment and self-direction as:
T education———9 T occupational achievement——-> T self-
direction.

It is also quite obvious that the direct path from
educational attainment to self-esteem was very small and
negative, p62 = '—.0245, and statistically insignificant
(t = —.484). The only effect that educational attainment
may exert upon self—esteem was indirectly through
occupational achievement which contributed to
self-direction, which in turn influenced self-esteem. Tb
estimate the amount of indirect causal impact of education

attainment on self-esteem, we nmltiply the three causal

paths, p32 X p43 x p64 = .652 x .241 x .507 = .08.
This indirect effect was indeed very small but positive.

Our finding goes along with previous findings by Bachman

,,_.¥-45 _

      

" I- ‘1‘“. §.r_‘ -:. , ,

 

.-- 4.

Jud \nri.|'.'s.ib-'-}I-..2 urneulinr -_-I.:~.s-~'.'_. .-.'on Mb noiisaub.

     

‘ _‘

, . I

_. 'l' ": :-. -'I:"_ "'[E':' ' , l- ' "_- ' II 'I I. l l.'-”inl Vi.:.)"'.li'bfl1

86

and O'Malley (1977:373), Mortimer and Lorence (1979bz318),
Kohn and Schooler (1983:169). It is quite noteworthy that
when we regress self-esteem on SES, it shows the effect of
SES on self-esteem was weak (p61 = -.174) and the
t-value (—1.71) was not significant at the .05 level.
This result supports our previously proposed theoretical
expectation, that SES influences self—esteem indirectly
through mediating variables. The absence of direct
significant effects between SES and self-esteem was
consistent with prior research. For example, Kohn and
Schooler (1983:186) indicated that social—class position
affects men's psychological functioning indirectly,
through their opportunities to exercise occupational
self-direction. Moreover, our finding supports research
by Bachman and O'Malley (1977) and Luck and Heiss (1972)
in which a negative relationship between socioeconomic
status and self-esteem was found.

Our path diagram indicates a negative effect of
educational attainment on possibility for upward mobility
(p52 = -.131). The absence of a relationship between
these two variables may be due to the subjective nature of
our measurement of upward mobility, or it could be that
the impact of educational attainment on upward mobility
was indirect, through the opportunities that it allowed
for someone to have a job where the occupational hierarchy
was not limited or restricted. While occupational

achievement level as a causal variable for self—esteem

 

‘eirnoa

r!-

Jnr~iflinptc

: I“

 

87
showed a very small, negative coefficient (p -.062) in our
case, some previous researchers have substantiated, to the
contrary, a positive relationship between occupational
level and self-esteem (Luck & Heiss, 1972; Bachman &
O'Malley, 1977; Tharenou & Harker, 1982; Kasl & French,
1962; Jacques & Chason, 1977). Also the path from

perceived upward mobility to self-esteem was insignificant

(p65 = .002).

It is important to consider Faunce's (1982) critique
that "it is often assumed the differences in occupational
status are necessarily associated with differences in
self-esteem without any specification of the mechanisms
which condition the extent of this association" (p. 166).
Thus, in contrast to the above researchers, who concluded
that there is a positive relationship between occupational
achievement and self—esteem, without any specification
about the nature of this relationship, our research shows
that occupational achievement level affects self—esteem
indirectly via a self-direction mechanism. This finding
supports Kohn and Schooler's (1983) view that "The
psychological impact of social-stratification position
(and its components, education and occupational position)
is attributable, in very substantial degree, to

occupational self—direction" (p. 187). Thus, Figure 3

reveals a strong path coefficient from self-direction to

self-esteem (p64 = .510), which is consistent with

previous research conducted by Kohn and Schooler.

 

 

.(Soo. - aaq)

' ~' ‘~ WW ' '»""n‘ i .' I
t-upijhz; (£391) aha-11.51 .--.! .-.m. o.) .Ier. an PI .1
. - .. — ,5 . - ...:- I, .- -- :2?" 35d:
lino: -}'.L -H . ' -; . - -

"' “ N - w - in HP '5 aujnju
a'wn.. i in r . - . . .

88
Since the path in Figure 3 did not evidence a direct
effect of occupational achievement level on self—esteem,
we calculated the indirect effect through occupational
self-direction by multiplying the two causal paths, p43
X p64 == .241 X .510 = .123. This showed that the
indirect effect of occupational attainment level on

self-esteem was much larger than the direct effect.

Moreover, the results of the regression analysis, which
have been mentioned previously, indicate a small and
negative direct relationship between socioeconomic status

of family of origin and self—esteem = -.174). This

(1361
result sustained the basic premise of this research,
namely, that socioeconomic status of family of origin did
not directly affect the employees' self-esteem but did
affect self—esteem through indirect effects. The path
coefficients in Figure 3 indicate that the direction of
the effect was as follows: SES ————————9 T educational
attainment -———————9 ‘Toccupational achievement level
———————-9‘Thigher opportunities for having a self-directed
job —-—————9 fthe higher the self—esteem.

Considering the size of the path coefficient as an
indicator for sustaining or negating the previously
mentioned hypotheses, path coefficients p21, p32,
p43, and p64 in Figure 3 would sustain only the
following hypotheses:

Hla: The liigher the employee's socioeconomic

status, the higher will be his/her
educational attainment.

 

flaidw (aiaulfns noiaaougo~ odd 1o :flfuaeu adj .19voasol

bns Tram: n qufllbni (Llauoivw=c “-nofflnnm need svsfl

awn-.5 DEr'o --'-r-.-1"_\r-:4 nu .' ' -- H ovtjfiuesn

_ -_ a r, .- - ,,.-. _ - - . _ . :.. _; '1":'.! :30
- ' _ Ii' "’.'.
I re . - . " . .
‘ r_|

 

89

H2a: The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater will be
his/her occupational achievement level.

H3a: The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the more likely
he/she will be self-directed at work.

H4a: The more the employee is self—directed at
work, the higher will be his/her self-
esteem.

The final model is represented in Figure 4.

-dm tional -ccupational
-ttainment -elf- Direction
p.410 p. 507
p.241
Occupational
Xl Achievement -elf-
level .steem
X6

 

Figure 4——Final model.

Findin s of the Interaction Effect Model

 

Figure 5 portrays an interaction effect between
career stage and variables in the model. Tables 9, 10,
11, and 12 report findings regarding interaction of the
four variables with career stage in their effect on
self-esteem. T-tests for the four interaction variables

in Tables 9—12 were found to be as follows: interaction
between educational attainment and career stage

(INTRX2CS)(-.848); interaction between occupational

 

90

   

Edmnthxml
Attainment

X2

    
        
       
 
 
   
   
     
 
 
   
      

  

Occupational
self-direction

x4

  

Cbcupational
Achievement
Level

X3

 
 

Possibility
for Upward
Mobility

X5

Figure 5--1he Interaction Effect Mode1.*

 

*Although the model in Figure 5 shows all of the
relevant variables in the same model, because of the small
sample size, the interaction of career stage and each of
the other independent variables was assessed separately.
These are the analyses shown in Tables 9-12.

 

 

 

91

Table 9—-Interaction Effect of Educational Attainment with
Career Stage on Self-Esteem.

Variable E SE B Beta T Sig T
INTRX2CS -.10164 .11989 —.51010 -.848 .3989
RESPNDED —.14266 .20306 —.07468 -.703 .4842
CAREERST 1.74971 1.66125 .63359 1.053 .2952
(Constant) 20.52086 2.88989 7.101 .0000

Table 10--Interaction Effect of Occupational Achievement
Level with Career Stage on Self-Esteem.

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
INTRX3CS 3.729450E—03 .01571 .07345 .237 .8129
OCCACHE -.01101 .02495 -.05098 —.441 .6601
CAREERST .19591 .86915 .07094 .225 .8222
(Constant) 19.03361 1.39868 13.608 .0000

Table ll--Interaction Effect of Self-Direction with Career
Stage on Self-Esteem.

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
INTRX4CS 4.047640E—03 .11663 .01783 .035 .9724
SELFDIR .85352 .17700 .48147 4.822 .0000
CAREERST .06151 1.43186 .02227 .043 .9658
(Constant) 8.87212 2.08359 4.258 .0001

Table 12--Interaction Effect of Upward Mobility with
Career Stage on Self-Esteem.

 

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T
INTRXSCS —.23928 .20150 —.26317 —1.l87 .2383
MOVINGUP .11164 .38185 .03152 .292 .7707
CAREERST 1.01071 .61636 .36599 1.640 .1047

(Cbnstant) 18.07575 1.25827 14.366 .0000

 

     

——01 aids! 1

mice-1%-! 119: .v- -'vrr.~.-Ii‘. "'1 Nah: IDVbJ ‘

 

 

' ' rdfii 'lfi‘h'

. I\r1’-'u- 1-
.' K ,-_"- I”

92
achievement level and career stage (INTRX3CS)(.237);
interaction between self-direction and career stage
(INTRX4CS)(.O35); and interaction between upward mobility
and career stage (INTRX5C8)(—l.187). All of these t-test
values are below the critical value, so we fail to reject
the null hypotheses for the interaction effect of the four

variables, and we conclude that there was no significant

effect of composite interaction variables on self-esteem.
Thus, career stage, which was a composite of the two
variables age and number of years in the labor force, did
not moderate or influence the effect of educational
attainment, occupational achievement level,
self-direction, or possibility for upward nmbility on
self-esteem, as was proposed in the following hypotheses,

all of which are rejected:

H5a: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
education on self-esteem.

H5b: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of the
occupational achievement level on
self—esteem.

H5c: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of the
possibility for upward mobility on
self-esteem.

H5d: The older the employee and the later his/her
career stage, the less the effect of
occupational self-direction on self—esteem.

Education, occupational achievement, and perceived

possibility for upward mobility were not directly related

to self-esteem in any case and taking career stage into

' ‘ 1..

 

.mos-Jas-i for: no solder-“av noiJssas-lnj' '.'i-rmuumco 30 109330

(“VJ '.n:i -c 941mm»: 13 asw -'-.-1'r-'-.- ..--:-...-'p. 12:11:12.3 .eud'l'

 

'-"'J"k-' 'JOtiE-J' '.H'J "1". ='=..--- -. 23.5.). :m': artisi'asv

~ _ . ,
.: _ "I . ._-.|'- 3“."

    

suntan. concwsxous. Marvin“.
. fl.- . :.er ncmnsumrzaus _ :.-

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The primary purpose of this research was to
determine if a significant causal relationship existed
between. self-esteenl and job conditions and experience;
specifically, occupational achievement level,
self-direction, and perceived opportunity for upward
mobility, and how these conditions moderated the effect of
socioeconomic status of family of origin and educational
attainment on self—esteem. Based on the assumption that
career stage (age and number of years in the labor force)
may incline the employee to believe that there is no hope
to reach a higher status position at work or that he/she
might have already reached the ultimate career goal, where

education and occupational conditions and experiences
would be less likely to affect self—esteem, we were also
interested in testing if career stage variables influenced
or moderated the effect of educational attainment,
occupational achievement level, occupational
self-direction, or upward mobility on self-esteem.

94

 

95

These hypothetical propositions were tested using a
random sample from a population in two census tracts in
Lansing, Michigan. Forty-five persons were selected from
each tract. One tract represented a stable upper-middle
class residential area, the other represented a stable
working-class residential area. The head of each household
was interviewed. In the interview, each subject in the
target population was asked to answer questions in the
questionnaire which elicited information about the
following: a detailed work history; personal experience of
occupational status differences, both at work and off the
job; an indication of self-investment in work; how often
the interviewee communicated with his/her immediate
supervisor and the person above the immediate supervisor;
and the interviewee's perception of the possibility for
upward nmbility. Rosenberg's ten-item self-esteem scale
was also used to establish the interviewee's level of
self-esteem.

Data gathered from the research questionnaire were

analyzed statistically using the computer program,

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-PC+).

Based on the review of literature on self-esteem and
family socioeconomic background, as well as on the
literature review on educational and occupational

attainment, which were both presented in Chapter II, we

selected seven variables for the hypothetical causal

    

ofl! n1 anoiiaorp wvwnnh o. f-‘Hw out ncijsluqoq 1991-1

.«iunnoidnsup

\
"|
...
..
D
’J
u
».
q
.-
IN
I-
’

gvnn; u1g 5" - w ' .- .- . :Lriwclloi

"(2 - .- . - . - - . _:-__: .. '-_ ‘.‘-i5 "r.“—

96

structure (see Figures 3 and 5). To examine the
hypothetical causal structure, we considered variables to
be treated as prior causes of self—esteem (X6). These
variables, stated in causal order, are: educational
attainment (X2); occupational achievement level (X3);
occupational self-direction (X4); and possibility for
upward mobility (X5). We also considered the first
three variables as mediating variables between
socioeconomic status of origin (X1) and self-esteem
(X6). In addition, we hypothesized that career stage
(X7)(see Figure 5) might influence and moderate the
effect that educational attainment, occupational
achievement level, self-direction, and upward mobility had
on self—esteem.

The path analysis technique was used to estimate the
strength of the different causal connections in the model,
and to sustain or negate the following hypotheses:

Hla: The higher the employee's socioeconomic

background, the higher will be his/her
educational attainment.

Hlb The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her

occupational achievement level.

ch: The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the more he/she will be
self—directed at work.

H2a:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater will be
his/her occupational achievement level.

H2b:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the more he/she will
be self—directed at work.

 

  

_ _ _ ‘7 ._L - _ A l ‘7‘ =

neowied aeldsiusv pnijsihsm 5h aoldslusv 001d!

 

meojae-ilea bns ([X) nipiuo 10 an ad? oimononeoiooa
20532 39915: jnrn besiennJoqyfl -2! .n-iiibbe .fi .(ax)
cart! stnr-F-on firm z.‘un:.'-u.f=-n." "i.“ifl" '.-' "ii-'1‘ 1'"? 9: i' ) (r!)

Trnoi;ir-::-:'-cu ..r' .-.-.'.. I .-'5 .." .'.-:-".'_:

.l ' r' ' r... .
'.'l' ‘-:-Ir ."JL'i-I L“:-‘ ' ‘ ' - I - | I V “I
'I
' ’.'- Ilfl
'l‘.[
1 I l ‘ I v
"4 \ Ill \ 5
l l '
1
\
'I'
1'
, .

     

97

H2c:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater the
perceived possibility of his/her upward
mobility.

H2d:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the higher will be
his/her self-esteem.

H3a:The higher the level of an employee‘s
occupational achievement, the more he/she
will be self-directed at work.

H3b The higher the level of an employee's

occupational achievement, the higher the

perceived possibilities for his/her upward
mobility.

H3m The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the higher will be
his/her self-esteem.

H4a: The more the employee is self-directed at
work, the higher will be his/her self-esteem.

H4b

The higher the employee's perceived
opportunities for upward mobility, the higher
will be his/her self-esteem.

The regression equation used to estimate the path

coefficient was simply an additive one, as indicated by

the following equation:

y' a + blxl + b2X2 + b3X3 . . .
Because we were interested in testing the interaction of
career stage (number of years in labor force and age) with
educational attainment, occupational achievement level,
self—direction, and perceived possibility for upward
mobility as a causal effect on self-esteem, a different
equation was required. The equation testing for

interaction effects in the multiple regression analysis

assumed the following form:

 

98
y' = a + blx1 + b2X2 + b3X1X2
where b3X1X3 refers to the interaction term.
Twelve path coefficients were calculated to
ascertain the causal influence of the independent
(exogenous) variables on the dependent (endogenous)

variables in the model. The endogenous variable could be

an exogenous variable at the same time for one or more

other variables, as can be seen in Figure 3. For example,
educational attainment was an endogenous variable to
socioeconomic status, and also an exogenous variable for
occupational achievement level, self-direction, upward
mobility, and self-esteem. The ten path coefficients in
the model are: P21, P31, P41, P52, P62’ P43,

and P "P" is the symbol for the

P53' P63' P64' 65'
path coefficient, and the two subscripts refer to the
effect (or the independent variable) in the first one and
to the cause (or the dependent variable) in the second.
The only paths with a strong additive path coefficient at
the 0.05 level of significance were P21, P32, P43,
and P64' The other path coefficients were too small to
be statistically significant. The above mentioned four
path coefficients sustained the following hypotheses, and
indicated a direct effect among the variables in each of

them:

Hla:The higher the employee's socioeconomic
background, the higher will be his/her
educational attainment.

    

i 7 7 [éIémsxe 10? if 9609}? a

mi aldsftsv anon:pchn- rs azu

'10" -' .T-'"r.i . ' £5.11: I-t'!‘ .. n . L" '. .u .eI-J!~.i? . -.':OI'IO'.:C-O i503
. I r -J I l ' "'.‘-I
I'll ' 'I r._ I l _ ~ :' l j. . 1'
h ‘. " I I \
\

99
H2a:The higher the level of an employee's
educational attainment, the greater will be
his/her occupational achievement level.
Hku The higher the level of an employee's
occupational achievement, the more likely
he/she will be self—directed at work.

H4a: The more the employee is self-directed at
work, the higher will be his/her self-esteem.

The finding for these four hypotheses indicated that
socioeconomic status of origin of the family had a very
small indirect effect on self-esteem through the following
order: socioeconomic status ——9 T educational attainment
—-9 T occupational achievement level -9 T occupational
self—direction -—> T self-esteem.

The total indirect causal influence of socioeconomic
status on self-esteem was estimated by nufltiplying the

XP XP =.410X

four causal paths: P21 X P 64

32 43

.652 X .241 X .516 = 0.033.
In regard to the interaction effect, the result of
regression analysis, as shown in Tables 5—8, indicated no

significant effect of any interaction term on the

dependent variable, self-esteem. Since regression
analysis identified no significant interaction effect, one
would conclude that the relationships between variables in
the model were not affected by career stage. Although the
four hypotheses (HSa - H5d) that presumably tested the
interaction effect were constructed on a theoretical
argument and background, the statistical analysis did not

show a, significant interaction among the variables in

   

95121:“ 61!: “0" oil
in ad Iflw :oflpld on! [Iron

    

      

.M

Jan: bsjsoibni neaeflJoqyd uuoi seen: 10! afllbal1

339v t h-H ijFfifi -‘1 to nig::u o .u1r~* wimonoaoo

    

'iiw01103 eni Hyuour; hnr!r -.F a do szv'-o Ju~wibn Ilsa.

H-nr': ' 'rqu , ::ebuc
I
0' l
I - l ‘- \r— —

 

 

100
Figure 5 and we failed to reject the null hypotheses. We
assume that the reason for such results is attributed to
one or all of the following:

1. ‘There is no relationship between the variables
that were created as an interaction term;

2. The relationship between the interaction term and
the dependent variable (self-esteem) was too weak to be
detected in a study sample of this size;

3. Although the reliability of the two-item career
stage scale was relatively high (0.76), it may not have
contained enough items to be an accurate measure of career
stage.

It is reasonable to expect. a somewhat different

result with a larger sample and more precise measurement.

Conclusion

This research considered the relationship of
socioeconomic status of familiy of origin, educational
attainment, and occupational conditions and experiences,
such as occupational achievement level, self—direction,
and possibility for upward mobility, and how these
variables influenced self—esteem.

Based on the statistical findings reported in this
research, it has been determined that there was no
significant relationship between socioeconomic status and
self—esteem. The beta weight for socioeconomic status and

self—esteem was —.174, which is not significant at the

 

101
0.05 level. This result was consistent with the research
proposition that socioeconomic status only indirectly
influenced self-esteem through mediating variables, as
depicted in the hypothesized causal model.

Moreover, the results of the statistical findings
presented in Figure 3 indicate that the path coefficient
between socioeconomic background and the subsequent
educational attainment was 0.410, with a probability of
0.0000, which is highly significant. Thus, the researcher
concluded that there was a significant relationship
between socioeconomic status of origin of family and
subsequent educational attainment. This finding is a
replication of findings by Blau and Duncan (1967); Duncan,
Featherman, and Ihncan (1972); and Sewell and Hauser
(1975), who confirmed the determinant effect of
socioeconomic background on educational attainment.

The most interesting finding concerning
socioeconomic status, as demonstrated in Figure 3, was
that socioeconomic status was only related to its
subsequent variables through educational attainment. The
direct path coefficients between socioeconomic status and
occupational achievement level, and self—direction, are
too small, with values of 0.079 and -0.063, respectively,
which are not significant at the 0.05 level. Accordingly,

the researcher concluded that there was no significant
direct relationship between socioeconomic status and

occupational achievement level, and occupational

    

W:
.._,. a: ,.
\

' l.‘
f
. (I

‘1'."— l l

fljiw .013.0‘naw Jnemrisjge‘jbnoiiaoubb

I ["1‘
i-

flojnw .0000.0

hohufnnco

102
self-direction. This finding did not support the research
hypotheses, where we expected a direct path from
socioeconomic background to occupational achievement
because the latter was assumed to be a consequence of the
former, and another direct path from socioeconomic
background to occupational self-direction, assuming that

socioeconomic background would produce differences in

occupational values and experiences. These two
theoretical propositions had their foundation on previous
research; for example, in the work of Blau and IMncan
(1967); Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan (1972); Eckland
(1965); and Nachmias (1977), who showed the importance of
socioeconomic background for occupational attainment
level. Moreover, the research of Kohn and Schooler (1983)
and Mortimer and Lorence (1979b) demonstrated the effect
of socioeconomic background on occupational self-direction
and work autonomy.

These unexpected findings draw our attention to the
need for further investigation in another research
project, where we would have a larger sample and a more
precise and objective measure of self—direction.

Likewise, the fourth hypothesis (4b), which
indicated that "the higher the employee's perceived
opportunities for upward mobility, the higher will be
his/her self—esteem," we reject, based on the statistical
findings, because the path coefficient from perceived

upward mobility to self-esteenl was only 0.002, which is

 

PLAT-""1: n-:- r.---_:I_‘: ..r-.I-' - r. i"; - "'=-r<".: .[nL'IIJe‘IoeM

'r-'.'.!i .-.- :.rL'" - .. . -:' .- :rli'vtIE'I'fiESI

I ; -.'- : II; : -':' ‘1" -. \i'- '1 Zi‘thI)
-.r.‘-?1'
I l I 'H

103
not significant at the 0.05 level. Thus, the researcher
concluded that. there was no direct relationship between
self—esteem and perceived possibility for upward mobility.

One of the most important findings of this study was
that Hypothesis 4a, where we proposed that "the more the
employee is self-directed at work, the higher will be
his/her self—esteem," was sustained. The statistical
findings (see Figure 3) indicated that the path
coefficient related to this hypothesis was 0.510, with a
probability of 0.0000, which is highly significant.

In addition, we failed to sustain Hypothesis 3c,
where we posited that "the higher the level of an
employee's occupational achievement, the higher will be
his/her self-esteem.“ The path coefficient was -0.062,
which is not significant at the 0.05 level. Thus, the

researcher concluded that there was no direct relationship

between self—esteem and the target population's
occupational achievement level. This finding, which shows
that occupational achievement level affects self-esteem
only indirectly through self—direction, confirmed Faunce's
(1982) propositions, which suggested that research
attention should be shifted from looking at the direct
association between occupational status and self-esteem to
specifying the mechanisms (indirect relationships) which
contributed to this association. It also confirmed Kohn

and Schooler's (1983) finding that the impact of

13190:

Jun}:

 

“filiueflowq

Iul

'—

 

104
occupational position on men's psychological functioning
was attributable to occupational self-direction.

As a corollary, the findings of this study and their
theoretical base contribute to the literatures of social
psychology, and occupational and organizational sociology,
which advocate that work conditions and experiences tend
to affect rather then reflect employees' self-esteem by
attesting the importance of the effect of work conditions
on the employees' psychological functioning.

Moreover, in contrast to the authors of Work in
America, and research by Harvey (1975) and Crites (1976),
who assumed without any specification, that work is
necessarily a major determinant of employees' self-esteem,
the firuiings of this study specify how work influences
self-esteem by emphasizing the importance of work
conditions (not work per se), such as occupational
self-direction, which condition the effect of work on
self-esteem. This finding supports Faunce's (1989)
proposition which challenged the common assumption that

work necessarily affects self-esteem.

There are two distinct points of difference between
this study and Kohn and Schooler's (1983) researdi. One
is that the sample used for this study was much smaller
than the national sample used by Kohn and Schooler (1983),
who interviewed 3,100 men. The other difference is that
Kohn and Schooler (1983) used the two components of

self-conception (self-confidence and self-deprecation)

 

bne: asbnafioqxo bus anoldtbnoa not an: 0:!

yd mseiee-irea 'aeeyolqme 3291391 nedd 19:13.: :99

 

anoijibnoo #10:» :IO $993139 m-‘J ‘ao ernnjvoqni an: 9:11:80!!!
.Iy.- noiiDnu” lfi'-.E;_-oi'-.v"'v\._aq ".--:s\_'-.'.[qn'.-.;- 911:! no

_r_1_i___:-_.__-_c_;Zi lo worthy: -:~.'. :=- inn-- (us-“c.1570”

‘ _' l .-. .--"'"_-'1-: --I I -. ._ ' _ " L _'--=: ."'-: \BOF'J! 'iIr-

— ...—....—

'.'l
r I r r
' s I
l
l 'i '- -
..... . .
I - J

' It'-

 

105
separately to measure self-esteem, whereas in this study
the measure was applied as a whole without separating the
two components. Despite these two differences, the
findings of this study replicate the major findings of
Kohn and Schooler (1983), which emphasized the importance

of occupational self-direction for employees' self-esteem.

Discussion

Before we discuss the findings, it is important to
refer to some of the limitations of this study. First,
the measure we used to consider the perceived possibility
of upward mobility was clearly subjective 1J1 nature. A
measure of actual upward mobility may reveal a different
result in terms of its effects on self—esteem, and the
effect of educational attainment and occupational

achievement level on upward mobility.

Second, the constructed measure for self-direction
is also subjective in nature. An objective measure of
self-direction, such as assessing the nature of the target
population's job, is necessary for further research to
ensure that the same pattern of results between

self-direction and self—esteem is obtained. A point

worthy of mention is the consistency between our findings
and those of Kohn and Schooler (1983), who used an
objective measure for self-direction, adding to the

credibility of our construct.

 

106
Third, although the study sample represents a
sufficiently broad range of socioeconomic status of origin
and present occupational achievement level (see Tables 2
and 4), it is recommended that further research efforts
include a larger sample.
Fourth, although the regression analysis did not

evidence a significant effect of career stage on relations

between our independent and dependent variables, a more
precise measurement of career stage and a larger sample
may lead to a significant interaction effect between the
interaction term and self-esteem.

The finding that occupational self-direction was the
only variable highly associated with self-esteem indicates
the importance of self-direction at work. The large path

coefficient, = 0.510, indicates the importance of

P64
work conditions which facilitate the exercise of
occupational self-direction on fostering self-esteem.
Self—direction may have this effect because it provides
opportunities for perceiving one's self as responsible,
competent, and capable of dealing with challenging
circumstances. This finding provides strong support for
Mortimer and Lorence's (1979b) finding which suggested the
importance of work autonomy for adult psychological
development; for Kohn and Schooler's (1983) finding that
occupational self-direction had a substantial impact upon

adult psychological functioning; and for the research of

Tharenou (1979), who found that jobs providing autonomy,

 

meiosxq

107
challenge, and skill were positively associated with
global and work-specific self-esteem and competence.

However, the path from socioeconomic background
(X1) to occupational self-direction (see Figure 3,
P41) did not support Kohn and Schooler's (1983) finding
that social-class position affected a person's
opportunities to exercise occupational self-direction (p.
186). Nor did this path support the work of Mortimer and
Lorence (l979b), who found a direct path from family
income to work autonomy.

There are two reasons why socioeconomic background
may have had less effect on self-direction than the
findings reported by Kohn and Schooler (1983). One reason
is that two different socioeconomic background measures
were used; i.e., Kohn and Schooler employed Hollingshead's
(1958) "Index of Social Position," whereas this study used
Duncan's "Socioeconomic Index." The second reason is that
the theoretical model employed in this study mainly
represents the status attainment model with addition of
self—esteem as the outcome variable and self—direction as
an intervening variable. This differs from Kohn and
Schooler's (1983) study, which used non-status attainment
related variables such as social orientation and parents'
values. One or both of these reasons may have caused the
conflicting results between the two studies.

Likewise, the negative and insignificant path from

educational attainment (X2) to occupational

 

 

 

108

self-direction (P42) was incongruent with findings of
Kohn and Schooler (1983), who argued that "education
provides the intellectual flexibility and breadth of
perspective that are essential for self-directed values
and orientations" (p. 30). Also, our finding did not
support Mortimer and Lorence's (l979b) finding that there
was a positive path fronI educational attainment tC) work
autonomy. It is possible that lack of congruency in these
results occurred because of the fact that, in some jobs,
employees with a higher level of education may perform a
job which In! its nature requires high supervision and
close instructions. This Inight have been the case for
subjects in the target population of this study who had a
higher level of education, although our data do not permit
a test of this explanation.

Although the statistical results did not support our
initial theory of the positive effect of socioeconomic
background and educational attainment on occupational
self—direction, as stated in Hypotheses ch and H2b, this
result does not imply that there was not any kind of
relationship, only that there was no direct effect or
relationship. On the other hand, our finding indicated
that socioeconomic background and educational attainment
influenced self-direction indirectly, in the following
way: T socioeconomic status-——9 ’reducational attainment
——9 T occupational achievement level-——9 T occupational

self-direction.

{9.7:}. , ». ‘_ . 1:..- . ’.‘...

    

99981.n1.uejngzunno.1e.uana Jiflt|nl¢lanngllh

34:33”

V

aJIuasI
;. '_ r:- 'qr-‘e

109
Recommendations
As a result of the literature review and the
conclusions reached in this research, the following
recommendations are offered.

Recommendations Resulting from

the Literature Review

1. Since upward mobility is assumed to be a very
salient goal in the work setting, additional research
exploring how upward mobility affects employees'
self-esteem should be conducted.

2. Since researchers in the area of social
psychology have used two aspects of self-perception
(self—concept and self—esteem) interchangeably, and since
the two aspects are interrelated, researchers should
differentiate between the use of the terms "self—concept"
and "self—esteem." Self—concept of ability in the
occupational role (such as seeing oneself as a good
sociologist or psychologist) is, for example, a different
variable from self—esteem and might have a different
relationship with variables in the model used in this

study. Global self-esteenl is a general assessment of
self, self-concept of ability is an assessment of
performance in a specific role, and general self-concept
is purely descriptive. Self—concept of ability in a
specific role may influence global self—esteem but we
also, then, need to examine the determinants of

self-concept of role-specific ability. Research

.s '.
_, 1 .2’1'

    

-I'-:' n.; 1509 Snell-'3

.'III_ “'04 L‘fiilOIgXO

.-r._II'-,.' .' ZEN-1!??-

r\

110

concerning the differences in the sources of self—esteem"

and self-concept“ should be conducted.
3. In addition to measuring global self—esteem,
researchers should also consider measuring specific task

self-esteem. Such a measure would assess specific

experiences and feelings of competence pertaining to the

work setting.

Recommendations Resulting from the
Findings and Conclusions of This Study

1. Although our" sample represented 21 sufficiently
broad range of socioeconomic status of origin and present
occupational achievement level, it is recommended that
this study be replicated with a larger sample.

2. This study should be duplicated with a nmre
objective and precise measure of upward mobility.

3. Since this study showed that the socioeconomic
background had less effect on self-direction than reported
by Kohn and Schooler (1983), who used Hollingshead's
"Index <3f Social Position“ to measure socioeconomic

background, it is recommended that this study be

replicated comparing various socioeconomic background
measures and various measures of self—direction. This may
reveal a different result in the effect of socioeconomic
background on self—direction.

4. It is recommended that this study be replicated
using :1 self—investment measure as a component of an

interaction term with each of the independent variables

31115.an aides: H.130! ascend! I done .

    

9:13 0.1 pninlsdzaq saneieqmoo 30 nautical but

. 9511.130. m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEND IX

 

 

 

 

C“ ”IV! ‘III-- -I .‘I I .

\---. ._

1 .

APPEND IX A

Questionnaire

 

112

M.S.U. Occupational Survey

Hello, my name is . I am working
on.a survey being done by the Department of Sociology at Michigan State.
The survey is part of a study of occupations in which people all over the
United States will be interviewed. You are one of the people here in Lansing
who have been selected to be interviewed. The procedure for selecting people
is a scientific one designed to produce a representative sample so we really
need your cooperation. It will not take much of your time. Your answers
will be strictly confidential and, in fact, your name won't even be put on
the answer sheet.

l. First of all, we would like some information about your job and work ex-
perience. What is your present job? (GET SPECIFIC JOB TITLE)

a.

(Job Title)

b. What do you do on that job? What are some of your duties?

c. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

d. How long have you been in that job? (GET YEAR AT WHICH CONTINUOUS
EMPLOYMENT ON THIS JOB BEGAN)

(Year)

2. Now beginning with the job you had just before your present one. we would
like to know what jobs you have had since leaving school. We would like
to know about changes in employers as well as changes in jobs for the

same employer. What was the full-time job you had just before the one
you have now?

a.

lJob Title)

 

113

b. What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

 

 

c. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

d. During what years were you in that job?

(Years)

What jobs did you have before that one?
(CONTINUE WITH OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY UNTIL FIRST FULL-TIME JOB AFTER LEAVING

SCHOOL 15 REACHED. NOTE ANY PERIODS OF ONE YEAR OR LONGER OUT OF THE LABOR

FORCE AS A RESULT OF UNEMPLOYMENT. ILLNESS, RETURN TO SCHOOL, MILITARY
SERVICE, ETC.)

a.

(Job Title)

b. What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

c. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

d. During what years were you on that job?

(Years)

*****

(Job Title)

0. What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

mam

 

 

...—0—6— '13::

- n: ..w zen»: HM! [u ““0 A

— ass-'5

 

 

b.

d.

114

(ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

During what years were you on that job?

(Years)

*****

(Job Title)

What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

(ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

During what years were you on that job?

(Years)

*****

(Job Title)

What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

 

 

(ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

During what years were you on that job?

(Years)

 

 

115

a.
(Job Title)

b. What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

 

 

c. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

d. During what years were you on that job?

(Years)

*****

(Job Title)

b. What did you do on that job? What were some of your duties?

c. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

d. During what years were you on that job?

(Years)

Now we would like to find out a little about the jobs of members of your
family. What was your father's occupation at the time you left high school?

a.

(Job Title)

b. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

 

S.

C.

116

Was that the kind of job he had most of his life? (CIRCLE ONE)
(l) Yes (Go to Question 5)

(2) No

IF NO:

What kind of job did he have most of the time?

(Job Title)
(ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

Was your mother employed at the time you left high school? (CIRCLE ONE)

(l) Yes

    
    
     
 

IF YES:

 

a. What kind of job did she have?
(Job Title)

b. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

IF NO:
Was she ever employed full-time?
(1) Yes

a. What kind of job did she have most of the time she was
employed? .

(Job Title)
b. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

(2) No (GO TO QUESTION 6)

 

ngH r': ‘--: 12".“! eve-0 :m Ml! MI, #9 “”'-

 

 

 

- ..—

 

 

117

Are you:
married? (GO TO 6A)
single? (GO TO 7)
divorced? (GO TO SB)
Widowed? (GO TO 68)

6A - MARRIED

MALE INTERVIEWEES
a. Is your wife employed?

(l) Yes (1) What kind of job does she have?

(Job Title)

(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

(3) Is that the kind of job she has most of the
time?

Yes (GO TO b.)

No What kind of job does she have most
of the time?

b. What kind of job did your father-in-law have most of his life?

(1)
(ao'b' Ti t—)le '—“'__

(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

FEMALE [NTERVIEWEES

a. What kind of job does your husband have?

(1)

(Job Title)
(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

 

 

 

118

(3) Is that the kind of job he has most of the time?

Yes (GO TO b.)
No What kind of job does he have most of the time?

I

(Job Title)

b. What kind of job did your father—in-law have most of his life?

(1)
(Job TTETEI' “T"""““""““—‘———““—‘"

(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

63 - DIVORCED OR WIDOWED

iALE INTERVIEWEES
a. Was your wife employed?

(1) Yes (1) What kind of job did she have?

(Job Title)

(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

(3) Is that the kind of job she had most of the
time?

Yes (GO TO b.)

No What kind of job did she have most of
the time?

(2) N0 (DO TO b-) I33B—T?ET37———-———‘—‘——'———“‘

b. What kind of job did your father-in-law haye most of his life?

(1)
(Job Title)

(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

95‘.“ am To flaw '.wsr. -cr"-n: - ---1.'r.‘ wot bib dot ‘0 Null-1W .6
(I)

. .. ..-- __._. ...- ...... J
. - - - trim. -
." '. 3;'-'?_' "-'3="-.."-!?"3‘:'\} (is)

 

 

 

119

FEMALE INTERVIEWEES

a. What kind of job did your husband have?

(1) .
(Job Title)

(I) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

(3) Is that the kind of job he had most of the time?

I

Yes (GO TO b.)

No What kind of job did he have most of the time?

(Job Title)

b. What kind of job did your father—in-law have most of his life?

(1)
(Job Title)

(2) (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

 

7. How about the other members of your family? 00 you have any (ASK ABOUT
EACH RELATIVE BELOW) who are employed full time?

(IF YES)
a. What kind of job does he (she) work at most of the time?

(Job Title)
b. (ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL PROBE)

A. Brothers who are employed?
(l) Yes

(2) ”0 (6° To M Job Title Probe

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

120

Sisters who are employed?

(l)
(2)

Yes

No

(60 TO C.)

Job Title

Brothers-in-law who are employed?

(1)
(2)

Yes

No

(GO TO D.)

Sisters-in-law who are employed?

(1)
(2)

Yes

No

(GO TO QUESTION 8)

Probe

 

 

 

8.

9.

l0.

ll.

121

Now I would like to have you think about the five people with whom
you talk most often while you are at work. I don’t want to know their
names, but I would like to know their occupations. What jobs do they

have?

(I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Me Probe

 

During a typical gay_on the job how often do you talk to your immediate
supervisor?“ (READ AND CIRCLE ANSWER)

(u
(2.)
(a)
(4)-

5 or 6 times a day or more.
around 3 or 4 times a day.
once or twice a day.

less than once a day.

During a typital week on the job how often do you talk to persons above
your immediate supervisor? (READ AND CIRCLE ANSWER)

il)
(2)
(3)
(4)

 

 

5 or 6 times a week or more.
around 3 or 4 times a week.
once or twice a week.

less than once a week.

Now please think about the five people outside your family with whom you

most often get together socially during evenings or weekends.

a.

What are their jobs? If any are not employed, I would like to know
that, too.

 

122

(IF ANY ARE NOT EMPLOYED, WRITE IN "NE")
Job Title Probe

 

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

b. Do you work with any of these five people?
(I) Yes
(2) No (GO TO C.)

(IF YES)

Which ones?

(WRITE IN NUMBERS FROM lla)

 

(Numbers)

___________.___.___._______—______J

c. Are any of these five people your neighbors?
(I) Yes
(2) No (GO TO 12.)

(IF YES)
Which ones?

(WRITE IN NUMBERS FROM lla)

(Numbers)

 

 

 

 

123

l2. Are there any (other) neighbors you talk to very often?
(l) Yes
(2) No (60 TO 13.)

(IF YES)

What are their jobs?
.Job Title

 

l3. How many years have you lived in this house (apartment)?

(WRITE IN NUMBER OF YEARS)

14. How many years all together have you lived in the Lansing area?

(WRITE IN NUMBER OF YEARS)

l5. We were talking before about the jobs of various members of your family.
Aside from your wife (husband) and children, do any of those relatives
we were talking about live in the Lansing area? (ASK ABOUT BROTHERS.
SISTERS, BROTHERS-IN-LAW, SISTERS-IN-LAW AND FATHERS-IN-LAW)

(1) Yes
(2) No (GO TO l6.)

(IF YES)

Which ones?.
(WRITE IN RELATIONSHIP AND OCCUPATION ON NEXT PAGE.)

 

124

b. How often do you see (him, her)? Would you say it was (READ)
(l) 5 or 6 times a month or more
(2) around 3 or 4 times a month
(3) once or twice a month
(4) less than once a month

(WRITE IN CODE NUMBER INDICATING FREQUENCY BELOW)

Relationship Occupation Freouency

 

16. In general, how often do you talk to people whom you regard as having high
status jobs? (ACCEPTABLE SYNONYMS FOR HIGH STATUS JOBS ARE "HIGH PRESTIGE
JOBS" OR “JOBS GIVEN HIGH STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY"). Would you say it was?

(READ RESPONSE CODE AND CIRCLE ANSWER)
(l) 5 or 6 times a month or more

(2) around 3 or 4 times a month

(3) once or twice a month

(4) less than once a month

l7.

18.

19.

 

125

How often do you talk to people whose occupational status is any g1:-
ferent from yours - either higher or lower? Would you say it was:

 

(READ RESPONSE CODE AND CIRCLE ANSWER)
(l) S or 6 times a month or more

(2) around 3 or 4 times a month

(3) once or twice a month

(4) 'less than once a month

Here is a card with a scale from I to 10 on it,( The scale represents

the range in the extent to which success or failure at work affect how
we feel about ourselves. It is not a measure of hgw_we feel about our-
selves. It is, instead, a measure of how much our work affects how we

 

feel about ourselves. For some people, success at work is the only

thing that counts, while for others it doesn't make any difference at all.

A person for whom work is the most important thing in life and who would

have to be successful at work in order to think well of himself would be

at the extreme left end of this scale. (POINT) The other end (POINT)

of the scale would represent a person who regards other things as being

more important than work and who does not need to succeed at work in

order to feel that he is a success. Is the meaning of the scale clear?

(IF YES, GO TO a. IF NO, REPEAT INSTRUCTIONS)

a. What point on this scale (MOVE FINGER BACK AND FORTH ALONG SCALE)
shows the importance of work to how you feel about yourself?

 

b. At what point would you say you were five years ago?

 

c. How do you think you will feel five years from now?
’(NOTE: IF INTERVIEWEE WAS NOT EMPLOYED FIVE YEARS AGO, WRITE "NA" IN b.
IF INTERVIEWEE DOES NOT INTENO TO BE EMPLOYED FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WRITE
“NA" IN c.)

 

Now we would like to know where you think some of your friends would fall
on this scale. You may not know exactly, of course, but we would like
to know how you think they might answer. You gave me the occupations of
five people outside your family with whom you most often get together

126

socially during evenings or weekends. (TURN BACK TO QUESTION ll.)
What point on the scale do you think shows the importance of work

for how your friend who is a (READ OCCUPATION OF PERSONS LISTED FIRST
IN QUESTION ll.) would feel about himself or herself? (WRITE IN
OCCUPATION AND SCALE NUMBER. REPEAT FOR EACH OF THE FIVE PERSONS
LISTED) How about your friend who is a ...

Job Title Scale Number
(I)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
We would also like to know how you think some of your relatives might

answer this question.
(IF EVER MARRIED, ASK a. IF SINGLE, GO TO b.)

How about your wife (husband)? What point on the scale do you
think shows the importance of work for how she (he) feels (felt)
about herself (himself)?

(NOTE: IF SPOUSE IS 0R WAS NOT EMPLOYED, SAY "IF SHE [HE] WERE
EMPLOYED, HOW DO YOU GUESS SHE [HE] WOULD ANSWER [WOULD HAVE

ANSWERED1?)
(WRITE IN SCALE SCORE)

Spouse Scale Score

 

(IF INTERVIEWEE HAS RELATIVES OUTSIDE IMMEDIATE FAMILY LIVING IN LANSING
AREA - SEE QUESTION l5 - ASK b. IF NOT, GO TO c.)
b.

         

   

    

You said you had some relatives living in the Lansing area. (TURN
BACK TO QUESTION l5.) What point on the scale do you think shows
the importance of work for how your (READ RELATIONSHIP AND, IF
NECESSARY, OCCUPATION) would feel about himself (herself)?

 

127

(WRITE IN RELATIONSHIP, OCCUPATION AND SCALE SCORE FOR RELATIVE

LISTED FIRST IN QUESTION l5. REPEAT FOR EACH RELATIVE LISTED.)
How about your...

Relationship Occupation Scale Score

How do you think your father would have answered this question
around the time you were leaving high school? What point on the

scale would you guess shows the importance of work for how he felt
about himself?

(WRITE IN SCALE SCORE)

Father's Scale Score

 

2i. If two people were more or less alike in most ways but were at opposite
ends of that scale, which one do you think you would like best? (READ
AND CIRCLE)

(l) a person for whom work is most important for feelings about
themselves.

 

(2) a person for whom other things are most important for feelings
about themselves '

I I h”
5m; slug "dingo: lg

    

I -——.———.———-——-——..- ———. —- —. —— ———.—-————————_————n——

l . _ ._ ~.——_. . .. — _ ..- .. ..-—._—_

 

 

 

128

22. How much difference do you think their views about work would make in

your liking of these two people? Would you say they would be: (READ
AND CIRCLE)

(1) very important
(2) somewhat important
(3) not very important

(4) not at all important

Now we have a few more questions about your experiences at work.

23. Are there others where you work who have more or less the same job as yours?
(I) Yes
(2) No (GO TO b.)

(IF YES)

Is it easy to tell whether or not you are doing a better or worse

job than they do? That is, is it easy or hard to compare your work
and the work of others? (CIRCLE RESPONSE)

(l) Easy
(2) Hard

 

b. Are there differences in how well people do your job or is everyone's
performance about the same? (CIRCLE RESPONSE)

(l) Differences
(2) About the same

24. How often are evaluations of how well you do your job made by the person
who supervises your work? Would you say that happens: (READ AND CIRCLE)

(1) Very often
(2) Often

(3) Sometimes
(4) Seldom

(5

V

Very seldom

 

 

 

129

25. How about the people you work with? How often do you compare or
evaluate each other's work? Would you say that happens: (READ AND
CIRCLE)

(l) Very often
(2) Often

(3) Sometimes
(4) Seldom '

(5) Very seldom

26. Do you think your supervisor uses the right criteria or the right basis
when he evaluates your work? That is, does he evaluate you on the right
things? (CIRCLE RESPONSE)

(I) Yes (GO TO 27)

(2) No
(IF NO)

What criteria or basis should he use?

What criteria or basis does he use?

How hard would it be to get him to use the right criteria? Would
you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE)

(l) Very hard to do
(2) Hard to do

(3) Somewhat hard to do

 

 

130

27. How about the people you work with? Do they use the right criteria
or the right basis when they evaluate your work? (CIRCLE RESPONSE)

(l) Yes (60 TO 28)
(2) No

(IF NO)
a. What is wrong with the criteria or basis they use?

b. How hard would it be to get them to use the right criteria? Would
you say it would be: (READ AND CIRCLE)

(1) Very hard to do
(2) Hard to do
(3) Somewhat hard to do

 

28. Would you describe your job as a competitive one? That is, would you say
it was: (READ AND CIRCLE)

(l) Very competitive

(2) Somewhat competitive
(3) Not very competitive
(4) Not at all competitive

29. Do you plan to stay in the job you have now until you retire? (CIRCLE
RESPONSE)

(l) Yes (GO TO 30)
(2) No

(IF NO)

What job do you plan to change to?
(job title)

b. Why do you want to make this change?

 

131

30. Would you say the job you have now is the best job you ever had?
(CIRCLE RESPONSE)

(I) Yes (GO TO 31)

(2) No

    

(IF NO) ~
What.job was better?

(Job Title)

What made it better?

l

L—_—_——_—_——_—_——_—_—.

3l. What would have to happen for you to feel that you were more successful
at work? PROBE: Anything else?

32. How hard would you say it would be for you to get promoted or to move up
in the organization where you work? Would you say it would be: (READ
AND CIRCLE)

a. 1. Very hard to do
2. Hard to do

3. Somewhat hard to do
b. What would the next step up be?

(Job Title)

(NOTE: FOR PERSONS ALREADY AT TOP OF ORGANIZATION, ASK, “IS THERE
ANYTHING THAT WOULD REPRESENT A STEP UP TO YOU?")

 

 

 

 

132

c. How certain do you feel about your chances of moving up? Would
you say you were: (READ AND CIRCLE)

(l) Very certain

(2) Certain

(3) Somewhat certain
(4) Uncértain,

(5) Very'unCertain

d. How important is it to you to move up? Would you say it was: (READ
AND CIRCLE)

(1) Very important

(2) Somewhat important
(3) Slightly important
(4) Not at all important

33. In general would you say you have already achieved most of the goals you
set for yourself in your work life or are there still things you feel
it is important for you to accomplish? How satisfied are you with what
you have accomplished? Would you say you were: (READ AND CIRCLE)

(l) Very satisfied
(2) Satisfied

(3) Dissatisfied

(4) Very dissatisfied

34. Now we would like to know how much you agree or disagree with some state—
ments about work. Please try to think about your responses as though you
were giving them to yourself rather than to me or to anyone else.

(Instruction “A") Here is a card with numbered responses ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. I will read the statement
and you tell me which number on the card represents your response.
While all of the statements are somewhat similar, each contains some-
thing different. Please think about the statements carefully before
responding. (PUT CHECKS IN SPACES)

 

 

 

 

133

(Instruction "§f) Here is the list of statements. The columns
following each statement contain responses ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. While all of the statements are some-
what similar, each contains something different. Please read

the statéments carefully and put a check mark in the column indi-
cating how much you agree or disagree with the statement.

NOTE: ALTERNATE INSTRUCTION "A" AND INSTRUCTION "B" PROCEDURE. USE
"A" PROCEDURE IN FIRST INTERVIEW, ”B" PROCEDURE IN SECOND INTERVIEW,
AND 50 ON. CIRCLE BELOW WHICH PROCEDURE USED.

(1) Instruction "A"

(2) Instruction "B"

 

134

l f 2 3 4 5
..q Neither
Strongly' Agree nor Strongly
Agree. - Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree

The major satisfaction
in my life comes from
my job.

When I am through work
at the end of the day,
I hardly ever think
about whether I did a
good or a bad job.

Doing my job well
increases my‘feeling
of self esteem.

I sometimes feel
uncomfortable when
talking to people whose
jobs carry more prestige
than mine.

I am very much involved
personally in my work.

The type of work I do is
important to me when I
think about how
successful I am in life.

The most important things
that happen to me involve
my job.

I think members of my
family feel proud when
they tell people what
I do for a living.

I live, eat and breathe
my job.

When I do my work well,
it gives me a feeling of
accomplishment.

Most things in life are
more important than work.

I sometimes feel ashamed
to tell people what kind
of work I do.

I feel a great sense of
personal satisfaction
when I do my job well.

n.

The
not

I would be happy to have
my children do the kind
of work_I do.

I'm really a perfection-
ist about my work.

When I make a mistake or
do something badly at
work, it sometimes
bothers me for days.

To me, my work is only a
small part of what I do.

If I could not do my job
well, I would feel that
I was a failure as a
person.

When I perfonn my job
well, it contributes to
my personal growth and
development.

I feel depressed when I

.a.| at something
connected with my job.

following statements do
necessarily refer to

work.

(I)

(4)

(5)

I feel that I am a
person of worth, at
least on an equal
basis with others.

I feel that I have a
number of good qualities

All in all, I am
inclined to feel that I
am a failure.

I am able to do things
as well as most other
people.

I feel I do not have
much to be proud of.

I take a positive
attitude toward myself.

135

Strongly'

Agree

Agree

3

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

 

 

 

(7)

(8)

(9)

l0)

On the whole, I am
satisfied with myself.

I wish'l could have more
respect for myself.

I certainly feel
useless at times.

At times I think I am
no good at all.

136

Strongly'
Agree

Agree

3

Neither
'Agree nor
Disagree

' 4 5

Strongly
Disagree Disagree

 

 

 

 

137

Now, to finish up, we need a little more information about you.

35. How old were you on your last birthday? (WRITE IN YEARS)

(years)
36. How many years of school did you have? (CIRCLE)
6 7 B 9 IO ll l2 l 2 3 4 M.A. Ph.D.

37. Have you had any additional job training?

(I) Yes.

(2) No (co T0 38)

How long did it last?

 

38. How many years of school did your father have? (CIRCLE)

6 7 8 9 10 ll l2 l 2 3 4 . M.A. Ph.D.
39. Do you have any children? (CIRCLE ONE)

(1) Yes

(2) No (GO TO 40)

(IF YES)
What are their ages? (RECORD BELOW)
Which ones, if any, are still in school? (IF IN SCHOOL) What year
are they in school? (RECORD BELOW)
Which ones, if any, are employed full-time — not just during school
vacation? (IF EMPLOYED FULL-TIME) What is their job? (RECORD JOB
TITLE BELOW)

Age Year in School (or) Job Title

 

 

 

138

40. Do you belong to any clubs or organizations? 00 you belong to any
like these? (GIVE CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS CARD) (CHECK BELOW ANY

BELONGED TO AND THEN ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDING EACH ORGANI-
ZATION MENTIONED.)

a. How often do you attend the regular meetings? 00 you attend:
(WRITE IN CODE NUMBER BELOW)

(I) All of them
(2) Most of them
(3) Some of them
(4) None of them

b. Are you now or have you ever been an officer in the organization?
(IF YES, PUT CHECK MARK IN SPACE)

Organizations Belong Attendance Office
Church and church related

Social or Fraternal -_

Union

Professional -

pm... -—
...-......ood -—
Civic

School related --

41. Approximately what was your individual gross income last year?

 

(Annual Income)

42. Approximately what was your total family income last year?

(Annual Income)

 

139

(NOTE: IF REFUSAL, ASK) Would you mind telling me if your individual
gross income was above or below $18,000 (IN C.T. 31.02) $11,000 (IN C.T.
20)? (CIRCLE ONE) ‘

(1) Above
(2) Below

How about your total family income? Was it above or below $18,000 (IN
C.T. 31.02) $11,000 (IN C.T. 20)? (CIRCLE ONE)

(1) Above
(2) Below

Thank you for your cooperation. Are there any comments you would like to make

or information you would care to add?

I think we have all the infonnation we need for the study but, in case we need

to contact you again, could I have your telephone number please?

(Telephone Number)

140

Interviewer Response Sheet
(PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM IMMEDIATELY AFTER INTERVIEW)

1. Length of interview in minutes

2. Comments regarding interview (was interviewee cooperative; any questions
where wording seemed awkward or inappropriate; any questions which inter-
viewee had trouble understanding, etc.)

3. Conditions of interview
(Anyone else present? Any interruptions? etc.)

4. Address where interview took place:

5. Other addresses tried and reasons for failure to conduct interview

Addresses Reasons not interviewed

6. Sex of interviewee

1. Male
2. Female

7. Race of interviewee

1. White
2. Black

Other

 

  

r

I > , L ‘ I - I :_. - _ I .
's.: . '
m' 30w" q min-aw

“lei-i bun-nu n Pun-u .... at... ‘-"w ,
AIWM (WW ”I! Mn'u- m' '5. --—o.
bllflpuh ' v- -. ”....
.-,_.
APPENDIX B

Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in the Detailed
Classification of the Bureau of the Census: 1950

 

.dsatii

 

 

141

Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in the Detailed
Classification of the Bureau of the Census: 1950*

Sacio- Socio-
Occupolionr, by Maior economic Occupations, by Major economic
Occupclion Group lndu Occupolion Group Indu
Professional, technical, and kindred workers Oplomolrisls 79
Accounlonls and oudilors 73 Osloopalhs _ 96
Actors and oclresses 60 Personnel and labor-ralahons workers 84
Airplane pilols and novigalors 79 Ph°""°‘“" 32
Archilocls 90 Pholographers 5O
Arllsls and or! “och.“ 67 Physicians and surgeons 92
:thu 52 Radio operators 69
I A lhors 76 Recreolion and group workers , 67
Cl: misls 79 Religious workers 56
ChTro roclors 75 Social and wollora workers, exccpl group 64
Clsr Pmen 52 Social scianiisls Bl
Collsgyo presidenls, professors, Sporls inslruclors and ofllcicls 64
and insiruclors (n. e. c.) 84 Surveyors ‘8
Dancers and dancing leochors 45 how-'2‘ (n. °‘ (‘l‘ 72
Donlisls 96 Technlcrans, medical and denial 48
Designers 73 Technicians, lasting 53
Diulicians and nulrilionisls 39 Tethnlcions (n. o. c.) 62
Drolisman 67 Therapists and hoolors (n. e. c.) 58
Edilors and reporlers 32 v°'°'i"_°"°m _ 73
Engineers lechnical 85 Professional, lochmcal,
Aoronairlicol 37 and kindred workers (n. o. c.) 65
Chorfiwl :3 Farmers and {arm managers
Civi
Eloclricol 34 Farmers (owners and lenonls) l4
lnduslrial 86 Form managers 36
M°‘h°"i‘°l :: Managers, officials, and proprietors, oxc. farm
1 l ' I and m lollur his
2:? l: lngcu ' o g 85 Buyers and doparlmenl heads, sloro 72
Inmg Bu ers and shi ers larm roducls 33
No! elsewhere classified 87 Y PP . P
. 3‘ Conduclors, railroad 58
Enlcrlmners (n. o. c.) . 33 Credit men 74
Form- and homo-management advuors “0°,an and floor managers, slora 5°
F°’"l°“ °"d ‘°“’°"°"°"”l‘ 4B lnspeclors, public odminislraiion 63
FUMTOI dlffllm’ and “"‘bul‘M" 59 Federal public adminislralion and poslal service 72
lawyers and iudges 93 State public cdminislrolion 54
librarians 60 local public odminisirolion 56
Musicians and music leathers 52 Managers and superintendents, building 32
Naiurol scienlisls (n. o. c.) 80 Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship 54
Nurses, prolessionul 46 Officials and odminislrolors (n. e. c.),
Nurses, sludonl prolessionnl 5) public administration 66
Federal public adminislraiion and poslal service 84
Slalo public adminislrolion 66
local public odminislralion 54
Officials. lodge, sociely, union, etc. 58
Poslmoslers 60

*SOURCE: Otis D. Duncan, "A Socioeconomic Index for All
Occupations." In Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (ed.),
Occupations and Social Status, pp. 109—138. New
York: The Free Press, 1961.

 

Occupations, by Maior
Occupalion Group
Purchasing agents and buyers (n. e. c.) .
Managers, oflicials, and
proprietors (n. e. c.)—salaried
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Telecommunications, and utilities and
sanitary services
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Food- and dairy-products stores,
and milk retailing
General merchandise and five-
and ten-cent stares
v Apparel and accessories stores
Furniture, home furnishings,
and equipment stores
Motor vehicles and accessories retailing
Gasoline service stations
Eating and drinking places
- Hardware, form implement,
and building material, retail
Other retail trade '
Banking and other finance
Insurance and real estate
Business services _
Automobile repair services and garages
Miscellaneous repair services
Personal services
All other industries (incl. not reported)
Managers, officials, and
proprietors (n. e. c.)—self-employed
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Telecommunications and utilities and
sanitary services
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Food- and dairy~producls stores,
and milk retailing
General merchandise and
five-and-ten-cent stores
Apparel and accessories stores
Furniture, home turnishings,
and equipment slates

Socio-
economic

Index
77

68
60
79
7t

76
7O
56

50

68
69

68
65
31
39

64
59
85
84
80
47
53
50
62

48
5|
6t
43

44
59
43
33

47
65

59

142

Occupations, by Moior
Occupation Group
Motor vehicles and accessories retailing
Gasoline service stations
Eating and drinking places
Hardware, farm implement, and
building material, retail
Other retail trade
Banking and other finance
insurance and real estate
Business services
Automobile repair services and garages
Miscellaneous repair services
Personal services
All other industries (incl. not reported)

Clerical and kindred workers

Agents (n. e. c.)

Attendants and assistants, library
Attendants, physician's and dentist's ofllce
Baggagemen, transportation

Bank tellers

Bookkeepers

Cashiers

Collectors, bill and account

Dispatchers and starters, vehicle

Express messengers and railway mail clerks
Mail-carriers

Messengers and office boys
Oflice-machine operators

Shipping and receiving clerks
Stenagraphers, typisls, and secretaries
Telegraph messengers

Telegraph operators

Telephone operators

Ticket, station, and express agents
Clerical and kindred workers (n. e. c.)

Sales Workers

Advertising agents and salesmen
Auctioneers

Demonstrators

‘Hucksters and peddlers
insurance agents and brokers
Newsboys

Real-estate agents and brokers

Socio-
economl:
Index

70
33
37

6t
49
85
76
67
36
34
4t
49

68
44
38
25
52
5t
44
39
40
67
53
28
45
—22
6|
22
47
45
60

66
4O
35

66
27
62

 

A1

143

Soda.
Occupations, by Maior economic
Occupation Craup Index
Stock and bond salesmen 7:)
Solomon and sales clerks in. e. c.) 47
Manufacturing 65
Wholesale trade 61
Retail trade 39
Other industries (incl. not reported) 50
'Craftsmen, foreman, and kindred workers
Bakers 22
Blacksmiths i6
Boilermakers 33
Bookbinders 39
Brickmasons, slanemasons, and tile-setters 27
Cabinetmakers 23
Carpenters 19
Cement and concrete finishers ' 19
Compositars and typesetlers 52
Cranemen, derrickmen, and haistmen 21
Decorators and window-dressers 40
Electricians 44
Eiectrotypers and stereotypers 55
Engravers, except photoengravers 47
Excavating. grading, and road-machinery operators 24
foremen (n. e. c.) 49
Construction 40
Manufacturing 53
Metal industries 54
Machinery, including electrical 60
Transportation equipment 66
Other durable goods 4i
Textiles, textile products, and apparel 39
Other nondurable goods
(incl. not specified mfg.) 53
Railroads and railway express service 36
Transportation, except railroad 45
Telecommunications, and utilities and
sanitary services 56
Other industries (incl. not reported) 44
Forgemen and hammermen 23
Furriers 39
Glaziers 26
Heat treaters, annealers, and iemperers 22
inspectors, scoters, and graders, log and lumber 23

Occupations, by Maior
Occupation Group

inspectors (n. e. c.)
Construction
Railroads and railway express service
Transport, exc. r.r., communication, and
other public utit.
Other industries (incl. not reported)

Socio-
economic

Index
41
46
41

45
38

fewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths 36

Job-setters, metal
linemen and servicemen, telegraph, telephone,
and power
locomotive engineers
Locomotive firemen
loam tlxers
Machinists
Mechanics and repairmen
Airplane
Automobile'
Ottice machine
(Radio and television
vRaiiroad and car shop
Not elsewhere classified
Millers, grain, ttour, feed, etc.
Millwrights
Maiden, metal
Motion~picture proiectionists
Opticians, and tens grinders and polishers
Painters, construction and maintenance
Paperhangers
Pattern- and model-makers, except paper
Photoengravers and tilhographers
Piano and organ tuners and repairmen
Plasterers '
Plumbers and steam-fitters
Pressman and plate printers, printing
Rollers and roll hands, metal
Roofers and slaters
Shoemakers and repairers, except factory
$_Iationary engineers
Stone-cutters and stone-carvers
Structural-metal workers
Tailors and tailoresses
Tinsmiths, coppersmiths, and sheet-metal workers
ooimakers, and die-makers and setters
pholsterers
Craftsmen and kindred workers in. e. c.)
Members of the armed forces

28

49
58
45
10
33
25
48
19
36
36
23
27
i9
31

)2
43
39
16
10
44

64
38

25
34
49
22
15
12
47
25
34
23
33
50
22
32
18

 

 

Occupationr, by Maior
Occupation Group

Operatives and kindred workers

Apprentices
Auto mechanics
Bricklayers and masons
Carpenters

Electricians
Machinists and toolmakers
Mechanics, except auto
Plumbers and pipe-filters
Building trades in. e. c.)
Metalworking trades (n. e. c.)
Printing trades
Other specified trades
Trade not specified
Asbestos and insulation workers
Attendants, auto service and parking
Ilosters and powdermen
loatmen, canalmen, and lock-keepers
Jrakemen, railroad
Bus-drivers
(hainmen, rodmen, and axmen, surveying
Conductors, bus and street railway
Deiiverymen and routemen
Dressmakers and seamstresses, except factory
Dyers
_ filers, grinders, and polishers, metal
fruit, nut, and vegetable graders
and packers, exc. factory
iurnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers
Heaters, metal
Joundry and dry-cleaning operatives
"Meat-cutters, except slaughter and packing house
Mittiners
Mine operatives and laborers (n. e. c.)

Coal mining
Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction

Mining and quarrying, except fuel
'Matormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc.
'Motormen, street, subway, and elevated railway

Oilers and greasers, except auto

Painters, except construction and maintenance
Photographic-process workers

tower-station operators

,Soilors and deck hands

oowyers

Spinners, textile

Socio-
economic
index

35
25
32
31

37
41

34
33
29
33
40
31

39
32
19
11
24
42
24
25
3O
32
23
12
22

10
18
29
15
29
46
10

2
38
12

3
34
15
18
42
50
16

5

5

144

Occupations, by Maior
Occupation Group

Stationary firemen

Switchmen, railroad
Taxicab-drivers and chaufieurs
Truck- and tractor-drivers
Weavers, textile

Welders and flame-cutters

Operatives and kindred workers in. e. c.)

Manufacturing

- Durable goods
Sawmills, planing mills, and misc.

wood products

Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work
Miscellaneous wood products

Furniture and fixtures
Stone, clay, and glass products
. (Hess and glass products

Cement; and concrete, gypsum;

and plaster products
Structural clay products
Pottery and related products

Misc. nonmetaltic mineral and

stone products
Metal industries
Primary metal industries

Blast furnaces, steel works, and

rolling mills

Other primary iron and steel industries
Primary nonferrous industries
. Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal)

Fabricated steel products

Fabricated nonferrous metal products
Not specified metal industries

Machinery, except electrical

Agricultural machinery and tractors
Ofiice and store machines and devices

Miscellaneous machinery

Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies

Trpnsporlation equipment

‘ Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment

Aircraft and parts

Ship and boat building and repairing

Socio-
economic
Index

17
44
10
15

6
24

15
16
15

17
12
15
16
16
15
14
22
21

31

22
26
23

21

34
16

Railroad and misc. transportation equipment 23

Professional and photographic equipment

and watches

29

 

 

Socia-
Occupations, by Maior economic
Occupation Group index
Professional equipment and supplies 23
Photographic equipment and supplies 40
Watches, clocks, and
clockwork-operated devices 28
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 16
Nondurabte goods
Food and kindred products 16
Meat products 16
Dairy products 22
Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables,
and sea foods 9
Grain-mill products 14
Bakery products 15
Confectionery and related products 12
Beverage industries 19
Misc. food preparations
and kindred products 11
Not specified food industries 19
Tobacco manufactures 2‘»
‘Textile mitt products ' 6
Knitting mills 21
Dyeing and finishing textiles,
exc. knit goods 8
Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings 14
Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 2
Miscellaneous textile mill products 10
Apparel and other fabricated textile products 21
Apporetand accessories 22
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 17
Paper and allied products 19
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 19
Paperboard containers and boxes 17
Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 19
Printing, publishing, and allied industries 31
Chemicals and allied products 20
Synthetic fibers 9
Drugs and medicines 26
Points, varnishes, and related products 15
Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 23
Petroleum and coal products 51
Petroleum refining 56
Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 14
lubber products 22
leather and leather products 16
Leather: tanned, curried, and finished 10
Footwear, except rubber 9

145

Occupations, by Moior
Occupation Group
Leather products, except footwear
Not specified manufacturing industries
Nonrnanufacturing industries (incl. not reported)
Construction
Railroads and railway express service
Transportation, except railroad
Telecommunications, and utilities and
sanitary services
Wholesale and retail trade
Business and repair services
Personal services
Public administration
All other industries (incl. not reported)

Private-household workers

Housekeepers, private household
living in
living out

laundresses, private household
living in
living out

Private-household workers in. e. c.)
living in
living out

Service workers, except private household

Attendants, hospital and other institution

Attendants, professional and personal service
in. e. c.)

Attendants, recreation and amusement

Barbers, beauticians, and manicurists

Bartenders

Boording- and lodging-house keepers
Bootbtacks
Chamomen and cleaners

Cooks, except private household
Counter and fountain workers
Elevator operators
Firemen, fire protection
Guards, watchmen, and doorkeepers
Housekeepers and stewards,

except private household
Janitors and sextons
Marshals and constables
Midwives

Socie-
economic
Index

14
16
18
18
15
23

21
17
19
11
17
20

19
10
21
12

12

12

13

26
19
17
19
3O

10
15
17
10
37
18

31

21
37

 

Socio-
Occupationr, by Major economic
Occupation Group Index
Policemen and detectives 39
Government 40
Private 36
Porters 4
Practical nurses 22
Sherifls and bailiffs 34
Ushers, recreation and amusement 25
Waiters and waitresses 16
Watchmen (crOssing) and bridge-tenders 17
ServiCe workers, except private household (n. e. c.) 11
-farm laborers and foreman
form farcmen 20
Form laborers, wage workers 6
Farm laborers, unpaid family workers 17
Form-service laborers, self-employed 22
laborers, except farm and mine
Fishermen and oystermen 10
Garage laborers, and car-washers and greasers 8
Gardeners, except farm, and groundskeepers 11
longshoremen and stevedores 11
lumbermen, raftsmen, and wood~choppers 4
Teamsters 8
laborers (n. e. c.)
Manufacturing 8
Durable goods '
Sawmills, planing mills, and
misc. wood products 3
Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 3
Miscellaneous wood products 2
Furniture and fixtures 5
Stone, clay, and glass products 7
Glass and glass products 14
Cement; and concrete, gypsum, and
plaster prod. 5
Structural clay products 5
Pottery and related products 7
Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products 5
~ Metal industries 7
Primary metal industries 7
Blast furnaces, steel works,
and rolling mills 9
Other primary iron and steel industries 4
Primary nonferrous industries 6
Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal) 7
Fabricated steel products 7
Fabricated nonferrous metal products 10
Not specified metal industries 9
Machinery, except electrical 11
Agricultural machinery and tractors 14
Office and store machines and devices 17
Miscellaneous machinery to
Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies 14
Transportation equipment 11
Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 13
Aircraft and parts 15
Ship and boat building and repairing 2
Railroad and misc. transportation equipment 8

146

Occupations, by Maior .f°:‘;:;¢
Occupation Group Index
Professional and photographic equipment,
and watches 11
Professionalequipmentond supplies to
Photographic equipment and supplies 16
Watches, clocks, and
clockwork-operated devices —-
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 12
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products 9

Meat products 8
Dairy products

Canning and preserving fruits, veget.,
and sea foods 6

Grain-mitt products 6
Bakery products 10
Confectionery and related products 10
Beverage industries 16

Misc. food preparations and kindred products 5

Not specified food industries 14
Tobacco manufactures 0
Textile mill products 3

Knitting mills 4

Dyeing and finishing textiles,

exc. knit goods 9

Carpets, rugs and other floor coverings 14

Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 1
Miscellaneous textile-mill products 6
Apparel and other fabricated textile products 9
Apparel and accessories 11
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 6
Paper and allied products 7
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 6
Paperboard containers and boxes 10
Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 8
Printing, publishing, and allied industries 23
Chemicals and allied products 8
Synthetic fibers 4
Drugs and medicines 22
Points, varnishes, and related products 8
Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 8
Petroleum and coal products 22
Petroleum refining
Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products
Rubber products 1
Leather and leather products
leather: tanned, curried, and finished
Footwear, except rubber 1
leather products, except footwear 1
Not specified manufacturing industries
Nonmonufacturing industries (incl. not reported)
Construction
Railroads and railway express service
Transportation, except railroad
Telecommunications, and utilities and

N

'OUVNQNONONUO

sanitary services
Wholesale and retail trade
Business and repair services
Personal services
Public administration
All other industries (incl. not reported)
Occupation not reported

..-
OQNHONO

.4

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

REFERENCES

Bachman, J., and M. O‘Malley
1977 "Self—Esteem in Young Men: A Longitudinal
Analysis of the Impact of Educational and
Occupational Attainment." Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 35(6):
365-380.

Beane, J., and R. Lipka
1980 "Self-Concept and Self-Esteem: A Construct

Differentiation." Child Study JCurnal 10

Bedeian, A.G.
1977 “The Roles of Self-Esteem and N Achievement in
Aspiring to Prestigious Vocations." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 11:104-119.

Blau, P, and 0. Duncan
1967 The American Occupational Structure. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.

Brissett, Dennis
1972 "Toward a Clarification of Self-Esteem."

Psychiatry 35 (August): 255-263.

Calhoun, G., and W. Morse
1977 "Self—Concept and Self—Esteem: Another

Perspective." Psychology in the Schools 14
(July):3l8—322.

Carmines, Edward G, and Richard A. Zeller
1979 Reliability and validity Assessment. Beverly
Hill: Sage Publications.

Cohen, Bernard
1989 Developing Sociological Knowledge, Theory and
Method. 2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Inc.

Cooley, C.H.
1902 Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:

Scribner's Sons.

1967 Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:
Schocken Books.

147

 

148

1973 "Primary Group and Human Nature." pp. 158-
160. In: Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in
Social Psychology, 2nd edition, ed. by J.
Manis and B. Meltzer. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Coopersmith, Stanley
1959 "A Method for Determining Types of Self-
Esteem.“ Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology 59(1):87—94.

1967 The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Crandall, R.
1973 "The Measurement of Self-Esteem and Related
Constructs." pp. 45—67. In: Measures of
Social Psychological Attitudes, ed. by J.
Robinson and P. Shaver. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.

Crites, John
1976 A Comprehensive Model of Career Development

in Early Adulthood. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 9:105-118.

Douvan, E., and J. Adelson
1966 The Adolescent Experience. New York: Wiley.

Duncan, Otis D.
1961 "A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations.“
pp. 109-138. In: Occupations and Social
Status, ed. by Albert J. Reiss, Jr. New York:
The Free Press.

Duncan, D., D. Featherman and B. Duncan
1972 Socioeconomic Background and Achievement.
London: Seminar Press.

Eckland, B.K.
1965 "Academic Ability, Higher Education, and

Occupational Mobility." American Sociological
Review 30 (October):735-746.

Faunce, William A.
1980 "Work and Self—Esteem." Unpublished
manuscript.

1982 "The Relation of Status to Self-Esteem: Chain
Saw Sociology at the Cutting Edge."

Sociological Focus 15(3):163—177.

149

1984 "School Achievement, Social Status, and
Self-Esteem." Social Psychology Quarterly 47
(1):3-14.

1989 "Occupational Status Assignment Systems: The
Effect of Status on Self—Esteem." Forthcoming

in American Journal of Sociology 95(2):378—400.

Faunce, William A. and R. Dubin
1975 "Individual Investment in Working and Living."

pp. 299—316. In: The Quality of Working Life,
Vol. 1: Problems, Prospects and the State of

the Art, ed. by L. Davis and A. Cherns. New
Ybrk: Free Press.

Felson, R.
1981a "Ambiguity and Bias in the Self-Concept."

Social Psychology Quarterly 44:64—69.

1981b "Self and Reflected Appraisals Among Football
Players: A Test of the Meadian Hypothesis."

Social Psychology Quarterly 44:116-26.

1985 "Reflected Appraisal and the Development of

Self." Social Psychology Quarterly 48(1):
71-78.

Festinger, L.

1954 "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes."
Human Relations 7(2):117-140.

Fitch, Gordon
1970 "Effects of Self-Esteem, Perceived Performance,
and Choice on Causal Attributions." Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology
16(2):3ll-315.

Gecas, Viktor

1982 "The Self-Concept." Annual Review of Sociology
8:1-33.

1983 "Beyond the Looking-Glass Self: Social
Structure and Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem."

Social Psychology Quarterly 46(2):77-88.

Gergen, Kenneth

1971 The Concept of Self. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

Gordon, Chad
1968 "Self—Conceptions: Configurations of Content."
pp. 115-136. In: The Self in Social

Interaction, ed. by Chad Gordon and K. Gergen.
London: John Wiley and Sons.

    

u -- .. .--. "..j " r': . ' _r_- '- F .H: "rl=l_h}t1.'.'lr'\“ 61891
-- J ":".-' -.E ”$0: . _ -,.‘_'..i ‘.'._- i308

. . - . 4!:"9!

 

150

Greenhaus, J.H., and I.J. Badin
1974 "Self-Esteem, Performance, and Satisfaction:

Some Tests of a Theory." Journal of Applied
Psychology 59(6):722—726.

Haas, H., and M. Maehr
1965 "TWO Experiments on the Concept of the Self and

the Reaction of Others." ournal of Personality
and Social Psychology 1(1):100—105.

Hall, D.T.
1971 "A Theoretical Model of Career Subidentity
Development in Organizational Settings."

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
6:50-76.

Harvey, Edward B.
1975 Industrial Society: Structures, Roles, and
Relations. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.

Hensley, W., and M. Roberts
1976 "Dimensions of Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale."

Psychological Reports 38:583-584.

Hollingshead, A. and F. Redlich
1958 Social Class and Mental Illness: A Community
Study. New York: John Wiley.

Jacques, T., and K. Chason
1977 "Self-Esteem and Low Status Groups: A Changing

Scene." The Sociological Quarterly 18
(Summer):399-412.

James, William
1896 The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1. New YOrk:
Henry Holt and Co.

Kaplan, H.B.
1971 "Social Class and Self-Derogation: A

Conditional Relationship." Sociometry 34(1):
41-64.

Kasl, S.V., and J.R. French
1962 "The Effects of Cbcupational Status on Physical
and Mental Health." The Journal of Social
Issues 18(3):67—89.

Kinch, J.W.
1963 "Research Note: A Formalized Theory of the

Self-Concept." American Journal of Sociology 68
(January):481-486.

1973 Social Psychology. New York: McGraw—Hill.

151

Kohn, M.L., and C. Schooler
1969 "Class, Organization, and Orientation."

American Sociological Review 34 (October):
659-678.

1973 "Occupational Experience and Psychological
Functioning: An Assessment of Reciprocal

Effects." American Sociological Review 38
(February):97-118.

1978 "The Reciprocal Effects of the Substantive
Complexity of WOrk and Intellectual
Flexibility: A Longitudinal Assessment."

American Jburnal of Sociology 84(1):24—52.

1983 Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the
Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Korman, A.K.
1970 "Toward an Hypothesis of Work Behavior."

Journal of Applied Psychology 54(1):31—41.

Luck, P., and J. Heiss
1972 "Social Determination of Self-Esteem in Adult

Males." Sociology and Social Research 57(1):
69—84.

Luckmann, T., and P. Berger
1964 "Social bbbility and Personal Identity."

Archiv. Europ. Social. (V):331—344.

Manis, M.
1955 "Social Interaction and the Self Concept."

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51
(3):362—369.

Mannheim, B.
1966 "Reference Groups, Membership Groups and the

Self Image." Sociometry 29(3):265—279.

Mead, G.H.
1934 Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press.

Morse, S., and K. Gergen
1970 "Social Comparison, Self-Consistency, and the

Concept of Self." ournal of Personality and
Social Psychology 16(1):148-156.

Mortimer, J., and J. Lorence
1979a "Work Experience and Occupational value

Socialization: A Longitudinal Study." American

Journal of Sociology 84(6):1361—1385.

 

 

152

1979b "Occupational Experience and the Self-Concept:

A Longitudinal Study." Social Psychology
Quarterly 42(4):307—323.

Nachmias, Chava
1977 "The Status Attainment Process: A Test of a
Model in Two Stratification Systems." The

Sociological Quarterly 18 (Autumn):589—607.

Pavalko, Ronald M.

1988 Sociology of Occupations and Professions. 2nd
ed. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock.

Rogers, C.M., M. Smith, and M. Coleman
1982 "Social Comparison in the Classroom: The
Relationship Between Academic Achievement and
Self-Concept." pp. 326—335. In: Social
Psychology of the Self-Concept, ed. by M.
Rosenberg and H. Kaplan. Arlington Heights,
Illinois: Harlan Davidson.

Rosenberg, Morris
1965 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.

1979 Conceiving the Self. New Ybrk: Basic Books.

Rosenberg, Morris, and H. Kaplan
1982 Social Psychology of the Self-Concept.
Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson.

Rosenberg, Morris, and L.I. Pearlin
1978 "Social Class and Self-Esteem Among Children

and Adults." American JOurnal of Sociology 84
(July-November):53—77.

Rosenberg, Morris, and R.G. Simmons
1971 Black and White Self—Esteem: The Urban School
Child. Rose Monograph Services. Washington,
D.C.: American Sociological Association.

Schwalbe, M.L.
1985 "Autonomy in Work and Self—Esteem." The

Sociological Quarterly 26(4):519—535.

 

Sewell, W., and R. Hauser
1975 Education, Occupation, and Earnings:
Achievement in the Early Career. New York:
Academic Press.

Stryker, Sheldon
1968 "Identity Salience and Role Performance."

Journal of Marriage and the Family 30:558—564.

o

 

MIT :moogaaéfa $119 a! noa’amw it A 5

_ ,1, maul; 7 4- L i _H a_—L.A___gJ__I.-‘

153

1973 "Role-Taking Accuracy and Adjustment." pp.
472-482. In: Symbolic Interaction: A Reader
in Social Psychology, 2nd edition, ed. by J.
Manis and B. Meltzer. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

1980 Symbolic Interaction, A Social Structure
version. Menlo Park, California: The
Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.

1989 "Further Developments in Identity Theory:
Singularity versus Multiplicity of Self."
pp. 35—57. In: Sociological Theories in
Progress, New Formulations, ed. by J. Berger,
M. Zeldich and Bo Anderson. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.

Stryker, S., and R. Serpe
1982 "Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role
Behavior: Theory and Research Example." pp.
199—218. In: Personality, Roles, and Social
Behavior, ed. by W. Ickes and E. Knowles. New
York: Springer Verlag.

Tharenou, P.
1979 "Employee Self—Esteem: A Review of the
Literature." Journal of Vocational Behavior
15:316-346.

Tharenou, P., and P. Harker
1982 "Organizational Correlates of Employee

Self-Esteem." Journal of Applied Psychology
67(6):797—805.

Videbeck, Richard
1960 "Self-Concept and the Reactions of Others."
Sociometry 23 (December):351-359.

Walsh, Anthony

1990 Statistics for the Social Sciences with
Computer Applications. New York: Harper &

Row.

Weidman, J., W. Phelan and M. Sullivan
1972 "The Influence of Educational Attainment on

Self-Evaluation of Competence." Sociology of
Education 45 (Summer):303—312.

Wells, L., and G. Marwell
1976 Self-Esteem: Its Conceptualization and
Measurement. London: Sage Publications.

.4 ‘.' '1 38

‘1'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

11 11 11111 1111911199 99

3129300785

... gg.

...».
W.,.

9.,...

.,._.,..
.......,., -. ““‘
...)... , _ - "“
....
“......1. . .....1‘.,...‘,.......‘:.‘...1.‘
.........,. ....
‘..
w.

21‘: ' ~' 4 . 9.

-1-,.-:~~ ~11
“1..“ x.