-r

”K . A.»
H.“ ' .

,21- 13.0.5- ‘

.. ”why-*-

, .. . -

uu

  

   

‘ v. .
.. . .. ”.321: N3.

  
   

                
  
 

      
  

.. -‘
wax-#2:“

 

 

   

   

    
     
 

 

      

-.
‘~~':~:V~.'~.‘
,,‘,~; u -

4. V ”-7

.,§

‘1

         
   

 

-. L511. :{
.. ‘ .3. ,

 

 

 

 

    
   
    

. .- “:7“
33133:. .J'" ‘35:» :.
.~’-’~‘<.~’...:‘. mo r. '5».'

H. ..-..

uwwwfinm m.

hum: ‘ 13......"
V ”a; 1:...

 
  
  

 

1' "r
->>‘ n.-.
... n. u‘. n
-o—.-.~... .

 

 
  
  
 

 

w

$31.;

 

  

 

on

  

- n
wwwovvh"
-. k
a ,

IIIIII3IIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

79840

——--——...._.___

PLACE II RETURN BOXtomnovoWlMoulflom your record.
TO AVOID FINES Mom on o: baton dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II I

MSU loAn Nflmafiva Action/Emu Oppommlty IMRI‘IOI'I

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

The Self Concept: Its Relatimnship Ito-.3
... ’ "\.

Parental and PeerlAcceptehce

presented )b'g "33M? 4w».- 4 .

‘1
~!

:L I, ‘.

Albert w. 311' ii; ' ‘ * ‘.

has been accepted towards fulfillment .
of the requirements for:3 M

211.12. degree ihfiiSlcthng '

"N mfl~ r ‘ 52"..2
hlmgt—proless 685: a;

Iknc_December_b,_1951___

 

0-169

THE SELF CONCEPT: ITS RELATIONSHIP

TO PARENTAL AND PEER ACCEPTANCE

BY

Albe rt Wolf Silve r

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate
Studies of Michigan State University of
Agriculture and Applied Science in
partial fulfillment of the require-

ments for the degree of.

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1957

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The active encouragement of many persons has helped to
make completion of this research project possible. The writer wishes
to exPress his thanks to Mr. Robert Ewigleben, Superintendent of the
Crystal Community Schools, and to his staff, for offering the use of
his school to gather the necessary data. He provided the writer with
every possible assistance, making it possible for him to gain the co—
0peration of the parents and children who served as subjects. These
parents and children deserve the writer‘s gratitude.

The writer sincerely wishes to thank his committee chair-
lady, Professor Marian G. Kinget for her careful reading and construc-
tive criticisms of the thesis, and the committee members, Professors
Alfred Dietze, Carl Frost, and Donald Grummon for their positive
guidance. In his role as therapist, Professor Donald Grummon played
a vital role in enabling the writer to successfully complete what at times
seemed a very distant and threatening goal.

Thanks are due to Doctors Irving Katz and Thomas McGehee
for encouraging the writer to pursue his project along lines suggested
by their studies. Professors Eugene Jacobson and Donald Johnson tem-
porarily served as committee members and the writer wishes to acknow-

ledge their assistance. Professor Kenneth Arnold of the Statistics

Department provided helpful suggestions with statistical questions
while most of the statistical calculations were faithfully executed by the
Department of Statistics under Mr. John Van Dyke's supervision.

The writer has drawn courage from the knowledge that his
parents have been ready to lend him their moral and material support.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to cite the names of all who
have helped to complete this thesis; nevertheless, the writer is grate-
ful to them. However, Miss Margaret Orr deserves Special recogni-
tion and the writer‘s heartfelt gratitude for her unfailing, patient
understanding and assistance in bringing this the sis to completion.

Finally, the writer would like to exPress his gratitude to a
free, democratic educational system that has made it possible for him

to obtain a liberal education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Page
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS . . . . . . 33
III. MEASURING INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . 35
IV. MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF THE

DERIVED MEASURES AND THEIR PSYCHO-

LOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE. . . . . . . . 40
V. RESTATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES IN TERMS

OF SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

MEASURES O O O O O O O O O I O O 48
VI. POPULATION o o o o o o o o o o o 59
VII. PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . 60
VIII. STATISTICAL TREATMENT . . . . . . . 62
IX. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS . . . . . . 63
X. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . 70
XI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, CRITICISMS, AND

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . 92
XII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O I O 108

APPENDIXES ‘ O O O O O O O O I O O I I

ii

Nurnbe r

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Title Page

 

Means, Ranges, and Sigmas of the Ex-
perimental Group's Age and Intelligence

0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O 63

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between
All Predicted ExPerimental Measures and
Between Age, Intelligence, and Defensive-
ness and ExPerimental Measures . . . . 63 (A)

First-Order Partial Correlation Coeffi-
cients Showing the Relationships Between
Experimental Measures When Subjects

Age is Held Constant and the Zero-Order
Correlations When Age is Not Held Constant

O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 66

Second-Order Partial Correlation Coeffi-

cients Nullifying the Effects of Age and
Intelligence on ExPerimental Measures,

and the Zero-Order Correlation Coeffi—

cients When Age and Intelligence are not

Held Constant . . . . . . . . . 67

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between
Measures of Self Concept Level and Con-
sistency and Measures of Parental
Acceptance.......... 70

iii

Nurnbe r

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

 

Title Page

 

Zero-Order and First- or Second Order

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Bet-

ween Level and Consistency of Self Concept
Measures and Measures of Peer Accept-

ance with and Without Age and/or Intelli-

gence Held Constant . . . . . . . . 74

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between
Measures of Parental Acceptance and
Measures of Peer Acceptance . . . . . 78

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between
Measures of Level and Stability of the Self
Concept and Measures of Discrepancy

Between Perceived and Actual Appraisals

of the Self by Parents and Peers . . . . 83

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between
Measures of Level and Stability of the Self
Concept and Measures of Perceived Dis-
crepancy Between Subjects' Self Concepts

and Estimated Concepts of Self from

Parents' and Peers' views . . . . . . 87

iv

I. INTRODUC TION

A. THE CONTROVERSY OVER INTROSPECTION

A convenient definition of the self describes it as "the object
of the individual's self-perception”. (55) The first question which
arises in discussing the self concept, however, is why so natural

and essential an idea should have fallen into scientific disrepute.

Since the definition cited points to the inherent privacy and
individuality of the self concept introsPection seems necessarily to
be the method of choice for investigating a phenomenon directly
accessible only to the subject under investigation. In 1890, William

James wrote in The Principles of Psychology, Y'IntrosPective obser-

 

vation is what we have to rely on first and foremost and always. The
word introsPection need hardly be defined -- it means, of course,

the looking into our own minds and reporting what we there discover

. . . . . All pe0ple unhesitatingly believe that they feel themselves
thinking, and that they distinguish the mental state as an inward acti-
vity or passion, from all the objects with which it may cognitively
deal. I regard this belief as the most fundamental of all the postulates
of Psychology, and shall discard all curious inquiries about its cer-
tainty as too metaphysical for the sc0pe of this book. ” (35) Even

James, however, was not as naive about the efficacy of the intros-

(2)

pective method as this passage might indicate. For he cites the
controversy between Comte and John Mill in which the former
maintains that thinking or feeling and observing oneself in these
activities at the same time, are necessarily incompatible states.
Mill on the other hand, believed he neatly diSposed of Comte's ar—
gument with this reply, "It might have occurred to M. Comte (that
a fact may be studied through the medium of memory, not at the very
moment of our perceiving it, but the moment after: and this is
really the mode in which our best knowledge of our intellectual acts
is generally acquired. " (35) Thus far, the controversy over intro-
sPection and its resolution may be summarized in these terms; the
existence of introsPection as a natural phenomenon is not to be
doubted. As a method for investigating the mind, however, at least

one count against it is that introsPection is in fact retrosPective.

The psychological work of the last quarter of the 19th century
tended to make the science of human nature synonymous with the science
of facts revealed by introsPection. (77) One of Wundt's fundamental

thesis in the Beitrage zur Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung, complet-

 

ed in 1862, and said to mark the beginning of exPerimental psychology,
is that Selbstbeobachtung (introsPection) is the method of psychology.

This law withstood serious attack until bahaviorism came into vogue

(3)

in America. (13) Then animal psychologists, and particularly the
most out8poken of them, Watson, vehemently revolted against the
repressive attitude towards animal psychology by the important
psychologists of the day who were perfectly clear that psychology
was, and must logically be, the study of conscious exPerience and

nothing else.

B. THE IMAGELESS THOUGHT CONTROVERSY PRODUCES NEW
ORIENTATIONS

The advent of the imageless thought findings of the Kulpe
group is said to have caused a parting of the ways in psychological
theories. Messer of this group finds himself forced to posit uncon-
scious processes underlying thought. Ach introduces the concept of
the will, i. e. , motivation as guiding the thought processes. Buhler
in the same group indicates that it is important in the study of the
thought processes to emphasize and sympathize with the subjects en-
gaged in this kind of exPerimentation. Then, it is believed that the
problem is suddenly dr0pped because these investigators in using
each other as subjects had struck on the unconscious and concommi-
tantly gene rated anxiety and resistance. Whether the imageless

thought controversy merely cast doubt on the introsPective method,

(4)

or because these findings hinted at a concept which the science of
psychology was not sufficiently mature to integrate with its acquired
body of knowledge, the fact remains that academic psychology detoured
the problem of unconscious motivation in two ways. Behaviorism
completely rejected the whole method of introsPection, while Gestalt
psychologists held that the trouble lay in the effort to use intros-
pection as an instrument of analysis, and pr0posed to give up mental
chemistry altogether, sensory and thought elements alike. (7) Thus,
contradictory findings from the camp of introsPective psychologists
precipitated rejection of introsPection by the behaviorist group, and
the overthrow of mental chemistry, or as sociationism by the Gestalt

faction.

C. DARWIN AND FUNCTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

In 1859 Darwin eXpounded the theory of evolution in The

 

Origin of Species. Many consider his work as the greatest scientific

 

achievement of the nineteenth century. (13) The school of functional
psychology which shortly thereafter deve10ped in this country translated
Darwin's practical, biological theory of life into a comparatively

practical psychological theory. Mead, who, after Dewey and Angell,

(5)

represents one of the three exponents of this new movement, made
significant contributions to present-day interest in, and understanding,
of the self concept. His insights with resPect to the problem of self
will be discussed in a later section of this chapter. To summarize
again: the imageless thought controversy produced a parting of the
ways in academic psychology. Two Opposed groups Sprung up as a
result: behaviorism and Gestalt psychology, both of which rejected
introsPection as a method of investigation, although for different
reasons. At about the same time functional psychology in the United
States was translating Darwin's evolutionary theory into a practical
psychological theory. Mead, one of the Spokesmen for the functional

school helped to reintroduce the self as a re8pected scientific concept.

Freud's discoveries began appearing in print at about the same
time that Dewey's criticism of "the reflex arc concept in psychology"
appeared in 1896, which anticipated Gestalt psychology by twenty years.
Where as sociationism, the theoretical basis of nineteenth century ex-
perimental psychology, failed to exPlain satisfactorily the coherence,
unity, and purposiveness of mental life, psycho-analysis brought

these conceptions back into focus.

The historical perSpective gained from the preceeding discussion

(6)

proves useful in gaining an organized picture of the self concept be-
cause vestiges of the controversy between structural and functional
psychology, between behaviorism and intrOSpectionism, and bdween
Gestalt theory and as sociationism confound efforts to present a com-

pletely unified theory of the self concept.

II. PSYCHOANALYTIC EGO AND THE SELF CONCEPT
A. PHENOMENOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF THE SELF CONCEPT

Orthodox as well as neo-Freudian psychoanalysts have
written extensively about the ego rather than the self concept. Al-
though the term ego - as used by some writers- is more or less
cognate with the term, 'self' (2), in contrast with the self concept
the term ego describes a group of mental processes from the position
of an external observer. In contrast with ego, the self is the pheno-
menal representation of the ego, the ego become conscious. (5)
Ego and self are phenomenally identical, although functionally they
differ from one another. ”For the self, being a phenomenal repre—
sentation , does not include all that belongs to the ego and at times
apprehends the ego wrongly. The ego is prior to the self and far

wider than it. " There is between the two the same kind of relation

(7)

as between the physical object and its psychological representation.

(5) Analytic writers discuss ego functions in the following terms:

"That part of the personality which is primarily concerned
with self-preservation is represented by the ego . . . . . . The ego
controls consciousness . . . . . . While the ego still remains funda—
mentally addicted to the pursuit of pleasure, it learns to postpone
pleasure and to take the facts of life, the requirements of existence,
into account . . . . . . In order to help protect itself, the ego denies the
existence of unconscious strivings and represses them. " (54) In
analytic theory the ego is the primarily conscious arbitrator between,
and executive of three harsh masters: the external world, the super—
ego, and the id. It stands for socially acquired, reasoning, although
essentially powerless mental processes, in contrast with the instinc-
tive, powerful, irrational, primarily unconscious id and super-ego

functions.

B. LOSS OF THE CONCEPT OF SELF IN PSYCHOANALYSIS

In his presidential address to the American Psychological
Association, Hilgard indicated that the mechanisms of defense play a

vital role in the preservation of the ego against anxiety and guilt. He,

(8)

therefore, concluded that the existence of these defenses imply
self-reference since their function is to prevent the individual from
conceiving himself as a reaponsible agent, capable of good or bad
choices. It seems paradoxical that in develoPing the most detailed
method for scrutinizing the mind by such techniques as free asso-
ciation, interpretation of dreams, symbols, and transference, the
notion of an active self should fail to have emerged. Although, as
Hilgard indicated, the self must be central in a theory vitally con-
cerned with anxiety, guilt, and defenses erected against gaining
awareness of these feelings, the self, per se, has not found its way

into analytic writing.

C. NEO-FREUDIAN EGO PSYCHOLOGY

The Neo-Freudian writers, Horney, Sullivan, and Fromm,
reacting against the trend of orthodox Freudians to dwell increasingly
on an inaccessible, esoteric depth psychology, produced a new move-
ment labelled 'ego psychology‘. Beyond placing the ego in a position
of prominence in its own right, and inbuing it with motivating pr0per—
ties, the neo-Freudians also shed new light on related concepts such

as self-esteem(50). This will be discussed in more detail under "Dev—

I (9)

e10pment of the Self Concept". Coincidentally they helped to forge

a link for integrating the previously increasingly divergent links of
psychoanalysis and academic psychology. Thus, orthodox psycho-
analysis entirely neglected the self, per se. However, it deve10ped
a concept analagous to the self in the ego, the self as viewed from an
external position. The ego is said to function like an executive in
compromising and co-ordinating between the demands of the external
world, the id, and the super ego. (54) Self-reference is a necessary
though neglected explanatory concept in clarifying the function of de-
fense mechanisms which protect the ego against anxiety and guilt.
Neo-Freudian investigators writing in the vein of a new ego psychology
have also stressed related concepts such as self-esteem, and helped

to bring the neo-analytic tradition closer to contemporary academic

psychology.

Gestalt psychology's description of the ego and its functions
is more concise than that of psychoanalysis, although the two are
essentially in agreement. Koffka states that the psych0physical organ-
ization contains two major systems, one referring to the environment,
the other to the individual. The latter is the ego-system. The ego

directs itself to things and asserts itself in action; it is the actor and

(10)

initiator. (40)

D. BODY IMAGE, EGO, AND SELF CONCEPT

Asch clarifies the difference between body schema or body
image, ego, and self. Starting with the most inclusive fact, the
psych0physical organism, he notes that many processes are outside
of the range of its direct exPerience, such physiological processes
as blood circulation, etc. In the realm of events that determine action
and exPerience by being psychologically represented, the organism
receives two kinds of data. "In order to act it must perceive facts
and relations in the surroundings - of distance, size, movement, and
so on. But action also requires the ability to mobilize the body and
its capacities appr0priately - to approach or withdraw or direct the
eyes to an object. Action requires representation within the organism
of certain facts about the environment and about itself. " (5) The body
schema enables the organism to localize each body sensation and
impression, to give it 'local sign' by bringing it into connection with
the schema, which includes a reference to the relations of the differ-
ent parts of the schema. (The most dramatic illustration of the ex-

istence of a body image is the phenomenon of 'phantom limbs'.

(11)

Pe0ple who have had a limb amputated continue to feel the limb

and to experience movement in it for years following amputation be-
cause of the psychological presence of an already formed body image.)
While the body image localizes and differentiates internal and exter-
nal body sensations by referring them to a unified model which refers
only to the body, the ego is an organization of data pertaining to the
organism as distinct from the environment and necessary to bring the
organism into relation with the environment. The following pages will
deal with the deve10pment of the ego. In order to clarify the relevance
of the ego to the self concept the latter is redefined, "the phenomenal
representation of the ego, the ego become conscious. " (5) Although
ego and self are phenomenally identical, they are not identical func-
tionally. ”For the self, being a phenomenal representation, does

not include all that belongs to the ego and at times apprehends the ego
wrongly. The ego is prior to the self (deve10p mentally)* and far
wider than it. The self is not the mirror image of the ego; there is
between them the same kind of relation as between the physical object

and the psychological representation. " (5)

* Write r ' s inse rtion

(12)

.111. EGO DEVELOPMENT

A. BIPOLAR ORGANIZATION AND CATHEXIS

The deve10pment of the ego as the mediator between organ-
ism and environment, as well as its far-reaching functional signi-
ficance, is explained by the psychoanalytic concept of cathexis, or
by the analagous Gestalt concept of bipolar organization.

". . . bipolar organization resembles situations in physics in
which lines of force or directed processes refer one part of a field
to another. In Ge stalt‘s psychology the various directed attitudes
of the self are not interpreted as "instincts” which reside in the
self per se. Rather, they are regarded as vectors, which depend
both upon the self and upon given objects, or more precisely, upon
the relation which obtains at the time between the characteristics of
the former and those of the latter. ” (40) Stated in slightly different
terms, the idea pr0posed here is that the ego emerges from the fact
that the locus of one end of the bipolar vectors constantly arising out
of the needs, wishes, and interests of the organism is consistently
fixed by the boundaries of its body image. From interaction with ob-

jects the two loci of the bipolar organization are gradually differenti—

(13)

ated, and the concept of ego, the mediator between internal sensa-

tions and relevant external stimuli, emerges.

Psychoanalysis on the other hand, views bipolar organiza-
tion deve10p mentally in terms of cathexes upon external objects

resulting in the transformation of id into ego processes:

"At first the libidinal ”intere st" of the organism is entirely
bound up with what may be called internal events; sensations from
all parts of the body which introduce the tensions which libidinal
activity relieves. This situation soon changes, for practically from
the instant of birth external events begin to effect the organism, and
to change and modify a part of the id into that public self which we
know as the ego. This ego shortly begins to bring the results of
its perceptual exPerience to bear upon the purely internal, the ”wish"
activity of the id. . . During the period of infancy, when the id is
dominant and the ego scarcely deve10ped, the libido obeys the id's
fantastic (alogical)* wishes and attaches itself to any and all pleasur—
able objects, investing them with interest and thus forming what

Freud termed ”object cathexis". He eXplains cathexis at length:

*Writer ' s insertion

(14)

”any attempt at a short definition or description is likely to be
misleading, but Speaking very loosely, we may say that 'cathexis'
is used on the analogy of an electric charge, and that it means the
concentration or accumulation of mental energy in some particular
channel. Thus when we Speak of the existence in someone of a
libidinal cathexis of an object, or of an object cathexis, we mean
that his libidinal energy is directed towards, or rather infused

into, the idea (Vorstellung) of some object in the outer world. "

(8)

B. NURTURANCE DELAYS

The deve10pment of satisfactory object relationships through
the process of cathexis is said to be the most important attainment
in infancy for adequate ego deve10pment. To trace all the ramifica-
tions of ego deve10pment in infancy within the framework of psycho-
analytic theory would entail the introduction and exPosition of
numerous basic concepts such as primary and secondary processes,
omnipotence, projection, identification, oedipal complex, bisexual-
ity, ambivalence, etc. , all of which are said to play a role in pro-

ducing the healthy as well as the pathological ego. In brief, the

(15)

infant's earliest exPeriences occur in an undifferentiated abso-

lute. No psychological boundaries exist between internal sensa-
tions and external exPerience. Gradually, pleasurable exPeriences
regardless of the source of gratification are introjected, while un-
pleasurable sensations, such as inevitable frustrations produce,

are projected outside the body. If pleasurable sensations outweigh
frustrations the ego begins to assume the pr0perties of a valued
object, i. e. , self-esteem deve10pes, and by the same token de-
pression or self-hate result from accumulating an unfavorable
balance of gratified versus frustrated exPeriences. Thus, by means
of a 'feedback' principle,what at first is nothing more than one locus
of an undifferentiated, all-inclusive bipolar organization in the
infant, begins to differentiate into two, more or less separate,
though complexly inter—related psychic structures, representing on
the one hand the ego, and on the other hand the 'Vorstellung' of that
object or objects re3ponsible for regularly gratifying its needs,
usually its Mother. This deve10pment of a bipolar organization,

the psychic representation of an ego and cathected external objects,
is crucial to all personal deve10pment, and depends on a prepon-

derance of gratifying interactions between the infant and its environ-

(16)

ment. Piaget's empirical studies indicate that the young child
imbues every asPect of the 'cosmos’ with force, much as in
primitive anthr0pomorphism. (57) In analogous fashion, one

or both parents are invested with absolute power; he or she is
omnipotent in the child‘s eyes. Apparently the cathexis with
which external objects are invested imbues them with power and
vitality, which are only gradually withdrawn into the ego as it
begins to acquire mastery over the environment. In order to
tolerate more easily the inevitable delays in need-gratification,
or perhaps simply because it is endowed with a highly deve10p-
ed mental apparatus, the neonate hallucinates or anticipates the
mother image since it is not yet capable of distinguishing between
its mental images and externally perceived objects. If this anti—
cipatory image is positive as a result of generally harmonious
interactions between mother and infant, beside associating a
positive feeling-tone with this first clearly apprehended external
object, the same positive feeling-tone is generalized to the 0p-

posite locus of the bipolar organization, the ego.

(17)
c. ANXIETY AND "NOT-ME" EXPERIENCES

Consistent interaction between an anxious or disturbed,
and consequently punitive, denying, or rejecting mother and her
infant, on the other hand, Sullivan suggests, produces anxiety,
dreadful and uncanny emotions, the "not-me" personality compo-
nents of the infant. These reactions are prototypical of neurotic
and psychotic symptoms in later life, symptoms like repression,
dissociated behavior, depersonalization, and acute hallucinatory
episodes in all of which the avoidance of anxiety plays a central
role. (69) Avoidance of overwhelming anxiety, i. e. , the intense
and objectless fear which derives from interactions with a severely
anxious and/or punitive mother, is also said to be the motivating

force underlying the deve10pment of the self.

”The self— system thus is an organization of educative ex-
perience called into being by the necessity to avoid or to minimize
incidents of anxiety. " (69) The preconscious foundation for the
self is organized around positive interactions with the nurturing
figure, producing the concept of a ”good—me", and the learning

techniques deve10ped for avoiding the arousal of anxiety associated

(18)

with punishment, the "bad—me". Chaotic, disorganizing "not—me"
exPeriences are said to result from sudden, overwhelming disrup-
tions of harmonious relationships between the undeve10ped organ-

ism and its major link with the environment, namely - the mother.

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF SELF

A. SPEECH AND THE EMERGENCE OF SELF

The gradual acquisition of Speech in the young child pro-
vides a powerful impetus for accurately representing objects, in-
cluding the self, and for symbolizing anticipated actions and their
effect on disciplinary figures. Ge sell's developmental observa-
tions on the emergence of language and self offer a striking over-
view of the complex attributes and relationships incorporated into
the child's self concept (26) :

"The progress which he (the child)* makes from the first
to the tenth year might be summed up in a series of pr0positions
which reflect his advancing insight:

1. "Johnny” - that's me. 2. I am I. 3. That's my

mother. 4. That's my father. 5. He is a man.

*Writer ' s insertion

(19)

6. I am a boy. 7. Susan is a girl. 8. She has a
father and mother too. 9. I was a baby. 10. I grew.
11. I came from my mother. 12. I am going to get
bigger. 13. I am going to school. 14. I am in the
first grade. I have a mother and a teacher. 15. I am
in the second grade. I h0pe my teacher likes me. I
hOpe Freddy is not mad at me. 16. I am eight years
old. I want to grow up. 17. I am ten years old. I
read the). . . magazine. I want to be an engineer when
I'm a man, like my father.
In rough outline these statementsShow how the self exPands,
differentiates, and incorporates new dimensions into its struc-
ture. ”The first differentiations have to do with the me and the
not me. But very early the child has to reckon also with the dis—
tinctions of sex . . . Of great psychological significance is his

gradual realization that he has an historical self as well as a pre-

 

sent self. He was once a baby! At four or six his interests exPand

 

 

into the family tree from which he himself stemmed, and so he in-
quires about his relatinnships to parents, grandparents, and great-
grandparents . . . Having made a correct intellectual discrimina-

tion as to sex, it will still take years for the child to define and

(20)

establish his pr0per role as a boy or a girl . . . the acquisition
of a mature sense of self is an extremely intricate process in
which the Sphere of sex figures importantly, but not omnipotent-

1y." (25)

Mead has described the process of socialization, the
deve10pment of a minded self, entirely through the agency of
language and auxiliary processes such as games, play, and role-
taking. .

"Mind is the presence in behavior of significant symbols.
(significant symbols evoke the same re Sponse or meaning in the
individual which they call out in others. )* . . . It is the same
agency of language which on this theory makes possible the
appearance of the self. Indeed, the self, the mind, "conscious-
ness of”, and the significant symbol are in a sense precipitated
together. Mead finds the distinguishing trait of self—hood to re-
side in the capacity of the minded organism to be an object to
itself. " (53) Although Mead does not deal with the preverbal
foundations of self-deve10pment his views coincide with the pre-
ceding theoretical positions. He is considered one of the early
social behaviorists because instead of beginning with individual

*Write r ' s in se rtion

(21)

minds and working out to society, Mead starts with an objec-
tive social process and works inward, tracing the deve10pment
of a social self, or ego, through the importation of the social
process of communication into the individual by the medium of

the vocal gesture. (53)

B. PLAY, GAMES, AND ROLE-TAKING

Mead stresses two stages in the deve10pment of self, the
stages of play and the game. In play, the child assumes one
role after another of persons and animals that have in some way
or other entered into its life. In order to recreate an absent,
cathected object, its teddy—bear or its mother, the child tempor-
arily becomes that object because the distinction between the wish
and the reality is sufficiently vague for the two perceptual poles of
the bipolar organization to momentaril’y fuse. In the game, how-
ever, one has become, as it were, all of the others implicated
in the common activity. In order to successfully play one's own
part the whole organized activity must be formulated within one's
self. The person has not merely assumed the role of a Specific

other, but of any other participating in the common activity; he

(22)

has generalized the attitude of role-thinking into a concept of the

”generalized other". (53)

Cameron's description of play and role—taking is essen-
tially in agreement with Mead's. He emphasizes the skill which
one acquires in play of shifting from one role to another, for
gaining an outsider's, impartial view of one's behavior, or for
understanding the point of view of someone else. A child learns
in group play to ad0pt as realistically as he is able, the attitude
and points of view of father and mother as well as of their baby,
of teacher as well as pupil, of storekeeper and customer at the
same time. Rigid personalities, manifesting a fixity of persPec-
tive, are susceptible to persistant psychoses according to
Cameron, because they have failed to deve10p the social skills
involved in running through a repertory of different roles and view-
points. (17) Only with the acquisition of language, play, role-
taking, and the concomitant skill in representing the ego as a

conscious object, can the self pr0perly be said to begin functioning.

(2 3)

V. PHENOMENOLOGY AND AN AHISTORICAL
CONCEPT OF SELF

A. A UNIFIED MOTIVATIONAL PRINCIPLE

Phenomenologists have translated Gestalt concepts of
unity and organization and analytic ideas of motivation, into an
ahistorical theory which stresses the importance of the self
concept. Two of Roger's fundamental theoretical postulates
state that the organism reacts as an organized whole to his
phenomenal or perceived field, and that the organism has one
basic tendency and striving - to actualize, maintain, and enhance
the exPeriencing organism. (60) Although a number of writers,
notably Goldstein (27), and Lecky (44), preceded Rogers with
similar points of view, the latter also integrated this viewpoint
with a practical method of treatment. With this approach Rogers
seeks to correct the elementaristic tendency to isolate the many
organic and psychological needs of the organism, and considers
them instead as partial a3pects of a posited, fundamental, unify-
ing need. Proceeding from this point of view, Rogers defined the
self in the following way:

"As a result of interaction with the environment, and parti-

(24)

cularly as a result of evaluational interaction with others, the
structure of self is formed - an organized, fluid, but consistent
conceptual pattern of perceptions and relationships of the "I" or

the "me”, together with value attached to these concepts. " (60)

B. THE SELF AND THE IDEAL-SELF

In keeping with the ahistoric approach of Gestalt psycho-
logy and field theorists the phenomenologists have generally by-
passed the thorny issues involved in the deve10pment of the self
concept. Recognizing however that the self develop/elf) as a result

\
of ”evaluational interaction with others” which soon become inter-
nalized, Rogers describes this process in motivational, ahistorical
terms as psychic activity or conflict between the self and the
ideal-self. Comparable to the analytic school's concept of super-
ego and ego-ideal, the non-directive group prefers the less meta-
phorical notion of an ideal-self for understanding the introjected
parental and cultural standards and values according to which the
person orients and directs his behavior. A wealth of research on

the relationship between self and ideal-self ratings and personality

adjustment, psychotherapy, etc. , some of which will be cited in the

(25)

section dealing with research on the self concept, deriveskdirect-
\
ly from the interest generated in these ideas by the non-direc-

tive orientation. (16)

VI . MAJOR HYPOTHESIS

The threads of the preceding theoretical history of the
self concept and the outline of its growth and deve10pment in the
individual converge in their emphasis on the vital importance of
positive relatedness with the nurturing, evaluating parental
figures for the very emergence of an ego, and for attaining a whole-
some attitude towards one's self. In 1947, Murphy "hesitatingly
offered" what may be considered the major hypothesis of this in-

ve stigation:

"The tendency to value rather than disvalue the self is
correlated with parental approval . . . " (55) In the framework of
this study this hypothesis is Operationally exPressed in the follow-

ing way:

The level and consistency of self-ratings is positively

related to parental acceptance.

(26)

Before proceeding with the empirical discussion of this
study, the following section surveys the empirical research

dealing with the self concept.

VII. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES RELATING TO THE
SELF CONCEPT
Research dealing with the self concept has proliferated
enormously in recent: ‘ygars. The Psychological Abstracts list
six references to the self in 1939, in 1949 nine references are
cited, while the index of the 1956 Psychological Abstracts yields

fifty-four articles relating to the self concept.

A wide variety of measuring instruments have been utiliz-
ed to investigate the self concept, written autobiographies (36),
the Rorschach test (41, 11) personality tests such as the Califor-
nia Test of Personality (25, 29, 71) and the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (61, 79), and self-ratings on trait and ad-
jective lists (15, 39, 50, ll, 58), etc. The major portion of the
studies in this area fall into the latter category because trait-lists
are easily constructed, are readily administered, and quantified

for a Specific research problem. An important methodological ad-

(27)

Vance in research on the self concept is the deve10pment of the

Q sort by Stephenson (68). It is a forced - choice rating procedure
in which a large number of descriptive statements are assigned to
a fixed number of ordered categories. The extreme categories
contain those statements judged to be most characteristic and least
characteristic of the person being described. Intra-individual
measures of stability are obtained by repeated self-sorts from
different frames of reference, such as the self the person thinks
he is, his ideal for himself, etc. Comparisons between groups or
individuals measure the relative degree of self—acceptance or self—

esteem.

Some of the parameters which have been related to the self
concept are motivation (34), learning (20), memory (18), and most
importantly, adjustment (52, 12, 64, 78), and interpersonal rela-
tionships (6, 15, 10, 56). Broynfain found significant differences on
various sociometric indices of group acceptance, anticipation of
group acceptance, and peernality inventory differences, between
groups with stable and unstable self concept ratings (‘15). A number
of studies support the notion that self-acceptance and acceptance of

others are positively related (58, 56). However, McIntyre found

(28)

that individuals who exPress acceptance of others and feel accept-

ed, are in actuality not more or less accepted than individuals who
exPress less acceptance of others (51). This, as well as other studies
indicates that a simple, direct relationship does not necessarily ob-
tain between phenomenological measures of group acceptance or
p0pularity, or between phenomenological measures of most kinds, and
reality. (74). The discrepancy between reality and the subject‘s
self-ratings, the phenomenoligical measure, is attributed to the
subject's defensiveness. Various researchers have used the K-

scale of the M. M. P. I. (39, 50), and the F-scale (15), as mea—
sures df defensiveness. Depending on the purpose of the study,

scales such as these may be used to eliminate highly defensive sub—
jects, although the results of some studies argue against the elimin-
ation of defensive or rigid subjects (20). Since the K-scale, and si-
milar measures, are said to measure the effectiveness of ego defen—

ses, high scores in these scales may reflect ego strength as well

as rigidity.

Self-esteem and stability as attributes of the self concept
have been studied by numerous researchers (62, 50, 52, 39, 78).

Brownfain describes stability within the structure of the individual

(29)

self in the following manner:

”The individual might, for example, conceive of the self
that he really believes he is, the self that he realistically aSpireS
to be, the self that he h0pes he is now, the self that he fears he is
now. The self concept is a configuration of these and of other
possible self-definitions and the stability of the self concept derives
from interrelations among the various ways of defining the self. "
(15). The Operational measure of stability derived from this de-
finition is the discrepancy between repeated self-ratings from
different points of view, the self the rater h0pes he is, his positive

self, and the self he fears he is, his negative self.

In measuring stability and self-esteem McGehee utilized a
slightly modified version of Brownfain's self-rating inventory, which
E. Lowell Kelly deve10ped from the Cattell factors of personality
(50). He found that the discrepancy between positive and negative
self-rating, Brownfain's stability index, is not as satisfactory a
measure of self—esteem as other measures, primarily test-retest
reliability of the self concept, and the discrepancy between the self
concept as the subject thinks his mother and his father reSpectively,

view it. McGehee concludes that the introjection of contradictory

(30)

parental value systems produces unstable self-concepts. He also
maintains that this measure of stability and individual test-rete st
measures of reliability measure stability independently of self-
esteem, although dynamically stability and self-esteem are relat-
ed asPects of the self concept. By obtaining actual measures of
differential evaluations by a subject's parents on Similar measur—
ing instruments, the present study presents a realistic paradigm
for investigating a finding which McGehee found Significant at the

phenomenological level.

Katz investigated the relationship between stability and
such facets of interpersonal relations as sociometric status, per-
ception of sociometric status, accuracy of sociometric perception,
and sociometric predictability. He found that self concept stability
relates significantly with social status, confidence that the person
will be highly chosen, insight about one's social status, and with
the insight of others in one's group concerning their acceptance or
rejection by the subject (sociometric predictability). He did not
find accuracy of sociometric perception to relate significantly
with stability of the self concept, and in conclusion doubts whether

"accuracy of social perception is a stable and reliable personality

(31)

characteristic. " (39) His findings support McGehee's results
inasmuch as he found temporal stability and measures of discre—
pancy between perceived mother and perceived father ratings of
the self to be sensitive indices of stability. Thus evidence from
another source, still on a phenomenological level however, points
to the importance of positive and mutually consistent introjected
parental evaluations in the formation of a stable self concept. One
of the few investigations on the influence of parental attitudes is a
study by Sommers on blind adolescents and their parents. She
found that good adjustment was always related to attitudes on the
part of parents described as accepting. Maladjustment was found
to have its genesis not in blindness itself, but in the social environ-

ment of which parents are such a large and early part. (67)

A number of studies have sought to probe the relationship
between attitudes towards the self and one's body. Symonds asserts
that one's body is valued and becomes the core of the later self be-
cause it is the source of pleasure and pain, and the vehicle or tool
for attaining satisfaction. (70) Secord and Jourard hypothesized
that negative feelings about the body are associated with anxiety

arising from undue concern with pain, disease, or bodily injury.

(32)

They found that the body and the self tend to be cathected to the
same degree, that low body—cathexis is related to anxiety and in-

security about the self. (64)

(33)

II. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES

 

The following research considers the concept of self from
one of a number of theoretical standpoints, as a system of traits
whose meaning, structure, and affective values derives from ex-
periences arising from interpersonal relationships. The contri-
butions of Mead, Sullivan, Allport, Murphy, and others can be
traced in this orientation. While essentially eclectic, this orienta-
tion may be contrasted with other approaches toward the self such
as the psychoanalytic which conceives of the self or ego as process,
i. e. , the executive which mediates among biological needs (id),
internalized social restraints (superego), and the demands of real-
ity. The viewpoints regarding self as structure and process are
obviously complementary although research has tended to emphasize
one or the other asPect without attempting to integrate them into a

larger, more meaningful concept of the self.

This study purports to investigate whether the level and sta-
bility of the self concept can be empirically related to two Signifi—
cant areas of interpersonal relationships, (1) to parents' concepts
of the subject, and (2) to his peer relationships. To this effect the

following hypotheses were formulated and tested:

(34)

Major Hypothe sis

 

I. The level and consistency of self-ratings is positively

related to parental acceptance.

Secondary Hypothe se 3

 

II. The level and consistency of self-ratings is positively
related to measures of peer acceptance.

III. Significant and positive correlations obtain between
measures of parental acceptance and measures of peer acceptance.
IV. Individuals with consistent and high self- ratings are
more accurate in predicting how parents and peers perceive them

than individuals with inconsistent and low self—ratings.
V. High and consistent self-ratings correlate positively
with agreement between the subject‘s self concept and his estimate

of parents' and peers' concepts of himself.

The exPerimental hypotheses will be stated later in terms of
Specific, predicted correlations between measures, following a des-
cription of the measuring instruments and the measures to be derived

from them.

(35)

III. MEASURING INST RUMENTS

 

A. SELF CONCEPT INVENTORY

The primary measuring instrument of this study is a slight-
ly modified form of Brownfain's self-rating inventory deve10ped by
E. Lowell Kelly based on Cattell‘s factors of personality (see ap-
pendix). Using his class as the reference group each subject rates
himself on twenty desirable traits along a ten-point scale. Thus,

a self-rating of ten on a trait such as intelligence, indicates the
subject considers himself within the highest tenth of his class with

reSpect to this characteristic.

The twenty traits in the inventory are:

1. Intelligence 11. Sportsmanship
Z. Maturity 12. Individuality
3. At Ease Socially 13. Self- Understanding
4. Physical Attractivene s s 14. Inte re st in Opposite Sex
5. Generosity l 5. Dependability
6. Cheerfulne ss 16. Understanding of Others
7. Since rity 17. Accepting One self
8. Initiative 18. P0pularity
9. Trustfulne ss 19. Persistence
10. Adaptability 20. Self - Control

Each subject rates himself seven times on the inventory at

(36)

different times, and after receiving different rating instructions
designed to elicit different asPects of his self concept. The seven
self-ratings and their functions are:

1) "Private Self”: the subject's most accurate estimate
of himself.

2) "Private Self" repeated: the same inventory adminis-
tered two weeks later with identical instructions. (Except for the
second "private self" rating all self-ratings were administered
in one group session.)

3) ”Positive Self”: a rating of himself slanted positively.
Here the subject gives himself the benefit of every reasonable
doubt while still conceiving of this self-picture as believable. This
is the self as he h0pes it is.

4) "Negative Self": a rating of himself slanted negatively.
This time the subject denies himself the benefit of every reasonable
doubt while still conceiving of this as a believable self-picture. This
is the self as he fears it is.

5) ”Phenomenal Mother Self": a rating of himself as he be-
lieves his mother sees him.

6) ”Phenomenal Father Self": a rating of himself as he be-

lieves his father sees him.

(37)

7) ”Phenomenal Peer Self": the subject's most accurate

estimate as he believes his classmates see him.

B. DEFENSIVENESS SCALE

 

Self-ratings may be misleadingly high and consistent because
of a subject‘s unwillingness to admit to inconsistencies or psycholo-
gical weaknesses about himself. Therefore, a modified check list of
twenty unflattering statements, deve10ped by Taylor (71), was ad-
ministered as a measure of defensiveness. (See appendix for a

c0py of this scale and other measures used in the study.)

C. PARENTS' AND PEERS' RATING OF THE SUBJECT

 

Each subject's mother, father, and his classmates were ask-
ed to rate the subject on the same trait inventory. The following
ratings were obtained from them:

1) Mother Rating: a rating of the subject by his mother as
she sees him.

2) Mother's Ideal Rating: a second rating of the subject
by his mother with instructions to rate the inventory this time as
she would like her son to be.

3) Father Rating:

(38)

4) Father‘s Ideal Rating: ratings identical to the two pre-

vious scales, administered to subjects! fathers.

5) Mean Peer Trait Ratings;

Each subject is rated by his

classmates on ten items, eight of which are traits taken from the

self-rating inventory. These traits are:

l . Intelligence 5.
2. Maturity 6.
3 . Adaptability 7.
4. Sportsmanship 8.

The two additional items are:

Dependability

Unde r standing of Othe r s
P0pularity

Pe r si stenc e

1) How well the rater knows the subject.

2) How well the rater likes the subject.

The first eight items are averaged to yield a mean peer esti-

mate of the subject.

D. MEASURES OF GROUP ACCEPTANCE

 

Each subject indicates how well he likes every other subject

of the exPerimental group on a ten-point sociometric scale. The

same scale is then readministered with instructions to indicate how

well the subject thinks every other member likes him. Including the

entire group in each subject‘s judgment provides an advance over the

(39)

customary method of sociometric ratings in which the rater usually
selects a predetermined number of chosen and rejected peers (22).
This method provides quantitative data of the degree to which a
subject accepts or rejects all his peers, and also of the extent to
which he thinks he is, and the extent to which he actually is accept-

ed or rejected by all members of the group.

IV. MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF THE DERIVED
MEASURES AND THEIR PSYCHOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

 

 

A. MEASURES OF THE LEVEL AND CONSISTENCY OF THE
SELF CONCEPT

 

 

1) Private Real Self Concept: the arithmetic sum of the
subject's self-ratings of twenty traits re Sponded to as he really
thinks he is.

This measure yields an overall index of how highly the
subject values himself on a representative trait list in comparison
with members of his class. Probably because of its obvious signi-
ficance to the subject, and perhaps also because it is the first self-
rating presented to him, investigators have generally found it not
to be among the most sensitive measures of stability (20, 39, 50).
On the other hand, the two following measures of self concept level
and stability have been included in the study because of their proven
sensitivity.

2) Negative Self Concept; the arithmetic sum of the sub-
ject's self-ratings of twenty traits as re Sponded to from a negative
point of view.

Cowen concludes that a subject relaxes his defenses for an

(40)

(41)

”apparently innocuous rating” such as the negative self (20). He
suggests that the poorest rating a person admits to may actually
be the closest approximation of the way he feels about himself.

3) Temporal Discrepancy: the absolute arithmetic sum of
changes in the ”private real self concept" readministered after a

two -we e k inte rval.

McGehee found that this measure is one of the most potent
measures of stability (50). This measure is not only an index of
test reliability, but when it is computed for each subject also
functions as a measure of individual difference, something which
different subjects bring to the test situation in varying amounts.
Thus, the consistency with which a subject rates himself on the
same scale after an interval of time has elapsed is a sensitive

measure of his stability.

B. MEASURES OF PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE

 

1) Actual Mother Acceptance: the arithmetic sum of all
twenty traits of the mother's rating of the subject.

This measure is identical arithmetically to the subject's
”Private Real Self—Concept", and is also the first and most obvious

scale presented to the subject's mother. It serves as an over-all

(42)

measure of maternal acceptance.

2) Actual Mother - Mother Ideal Discrepancy: the arith-
metic sum of discrepancies for each trait between a mother's rat-
ing of the subject as he is and as She would like him to be.

A high score on this measure may indicate that a mother
rejects her son either because She sets unduly high standards for
him, or because She values him low in comparison with his class-
mates, or both. This measure thereby functions as a measure of
maternal acceptance or rejection.

3) Actual Father Acceptance:

4) Actual Father-Father Ideal Discrepancy: these two
ratings by the subject‘s father are identical to the two preceding
ratings by the subject's mother.

5) Actual Mother — Father Discrepancy: the arithmetic
sum of the discrepancies between the mother's and father‘s rating
for each trait as each thinks the subject really is.

The phenomenal counterpart of this measure, discrepancy
between the concepts a subject believes his mother and father have
of him, has been demonstrated to have potency and sensitivity as a
measure of instability. (50) Discordant attitudes of acceptance or

rejection between father and mother may have devastating effects

(43)

on the subject's stability.

C. MEASURES OF GROUP ACCEPTANCE

 

1) Social EXpanSiveness Score: the summed ratings ranging
from one to ten assigned by a subject to every other member of the
exPerimental group.

This is a direct, over-all measure of each subject's accep-
tance of the exPerimental group.

2) Actual Group Acceptance Score: summed ratings assigned
by the entire exPerimental group to each subject indicating how high-
ly accepted by the group he is.

3) Perceived Group Acceptance: each subject's summed
ratings indicating how well he thinks he is liked by every other mem-
ber of the group.

This measure is the phenomenal counterpart of the previous
measure, Actual Group Acceptance Score.

4) Social Predictiveness Discrepancy Score: summed dis-
crepancies between a subject's perceived group acceptance and his
actual group acceptance.

This measure indicates the degree to which the subject's

' perception of acceptance by the group agrees or conflicts with the

(44)

group' 3 actual acceptance .

D. MEASURES OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PERCEIVED AND

 

REAL PARENT AND PEER CONCEPTS

 

1) Actual Mother—Perceived Mother Discrepancy: sum-
mated discrepancies between the concept a subject thinks his mother
has of him, and the obtained rating by the subject's mother.

This measure indicates how accurately a subject perceives
his mother's Opinion of him. For the subject who is highly regard-c
ed by his mother this task presents no particular problem, while
the rejected child may be inclined to distort and therefore misper-
ceive his mother's concept of him. (In rare cases however, a re—
jected child may nevertheless be able to accurately perceive his
mother's attitude toward him and still maintain a stable self con-
cept, where the factors which produce ego-strength have not been
totally squelched by parental rejection. )

2) Actual Father-Perceived Father Discrepancy: sum-
mated discrepancies between the concept a subject thinks his
father has of him, and the father's Obtained rating.

The function and rationale of this measure is analogous

with that of the previous measure.

(45)

3) Actual Average Peer-Perceived Peer Discrepancy:
summated discrepancies between the concept a subject believes
his classmates have of him, and the obtained average of ratings
of the subject by his classmates on eight traits.

This measure functions in an analogous manner with the
two previous measures except that comparisons now are made
between the subject's estirnated concept of himself by his class-
mates and the peer group's rendered concept of him. Unlike the
four measures of group acceptance described in the previous sec—
tion, which includes ratings of each subject by every other mem-
ber of the entire exPerimental group (N=56), this measure is bas-
ed only on ratings by the members of a given subject's classmates.

The subjects fall into the following grade distribution:

 

 

Grade Level Number of Subjects

7 8

8 6

9 9

10 13

l 1 7

12 13
Total 56

Consequently a tenth grade subject is rated by twelve class-
mates while an eighth grader is rated by only five classmates.

This procedure was followed because rating fifty—five subjects on

(46)

ten items per subject would have proven too repetitive and ex-
haustive for the subjects in addition to the other requirements of
the study. Yet subjects were believed to be sufficiently familiar
with one another to rate members (i different grade levels on
measures of group acceptance, because of the close ties which
exist in this small, relatively stable rural community, and be-

cause of joint classes and shared facilities in the school.

E. MEASURES OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN SELF CONCEPT
RATINGS AND SUBJECTS' ESTIMATES OF SELF FROM

THE VIEW-POINT OF PARENTS AND PEERS.

 

The functions and rationales of the four measures which
comprise this group are essentially similar. Discussion Of their
rationale is therefore reserved until all the measures are mathe-
matically defined.

1) Perceived Mother - Real Self Concept Discrepancy:
arithmetically summed discrepancies between the subject's "Per-
ceived Mother Self" ratings and his ”Private Self" ratings.

2) Perceived Father - Real Self Concept Discrepancy:
arithmetically summed discrepancies between the subject's] "Per-

ceived Father Self” ratings and his ”Private Self” ratings.

(47)

3) Perceived Inter-Parent Discrepancy; arithmetically
summed discrepancies between the subject's "Perceived Mother
Self" ratings and his "Perceived Father Self" ratings.

4) Perceived Peer—Real Self Concept Discrepancy: arith—
metically summed discrepancies between the subject's "Perceiv-
ed Peer Self” ratings and his ”Private Self" ratings.

Three of the four measures in this group compare subjects‘
private self concepts with the concepts which they believe both
parents and their peers have Of them. The third measure in this
group, "Perceived Inter-Parent Discrepancy”, indicates divergence
between the concepts which a subject believes his mother and his
father have of him. Katz and McGehee, using the same group of
subjects found that this group of measures correlates very highly
with measures of self concept level and stability and therefore used
them interchangeably as measures of self concept stability (39, 50).
On theoretical grounds, too, these measures may be considered
indices of self concept stability. Subjects who perceive their par-
ents and peers as having positive concepts of themselves will
generally also have positive self concepts according to Sullivan's

theory of ”reflected appraisals” (69).

V. OPERATIONAL RESTATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES IN

 

TERMS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEASURES

 

HYPOTHESIS I. The level and consistency of self-ratings is

 

positively related to measures of parental acceptance.
The following correlations are predicted between measur-
es of level and consistency of the self concept and measures of

parental acceptance:

Measures of Level and Stability of the Self Concept

 

(High) Private Real Self Concept
(High) Negative Self Concept
(Low) Temporal Discrepancy

correlate significantly with:

Measures of Parental Acceptance

 

(High) Actual Mother Acceptance

(High) Actual Father Acceptance

(Low) Actual Mother - Mother Ideal Discrepancy
(Low) Actual Father - Father Ideal Discrepancy
(Low) Actual Mother — Actual Father Discrepancy

The terms "High" or "Low” preceding each measure de-

(48)

(49)

note whether a given measure is a direct or inverse measure of
the exPerimental variable. Thus, ”Private Real Self-Concept"
is a direct measure Of self concept level and is, therefore, pre-
ceded by the term “High”, while ”Temporal Discrepancy" is an
inverse measure of stability and consequently is preceded by the term
”Low". All measures with the term "discrepancy" in the title are
inverse measures. Positive correlations are predicted between two
"High” or two ”Low" measures while negative correlations are pre-
dicted between ”High" versus ”Low” comparisons. (High) Private
Real Self concept for example, is expected to correlate positively
with (High) Actual Mother Acceptance, while the former measure
should correlate negatively with (Low) Actual MOther - ,Mother Ideal
Discrepancy. When three measures of level and consistency of the
self concept are compared with five measures of parental accep-
tance, two at a time, a total of fifteen possible correlations Obtain.
Research comparing measures of stability with phenomenal
measures of parental acceptance (50), and theoretical statements
regarding the significance of identification with the like-sexed par-
ent, suggests that paternal acceptance is more Significant than
maternal acceptance for develoPing an adequate self-image in male

adolescents. The experimental data should also throw empirical

(50)

light on this question.

HYPOTHESIS II. The level and consistency of self—ratings is posi-

 

tively related to measures of peer acceptance.

The following correlations are predicted between measures
of level and consistency of the self concept and measures of peer
acceptance:

Measure of Level and Consistencygf Self Concept Ratings

 

(High) Private Real Self Concept
(High) Negative Self Concept
(Low) Temporal Discrepancy

c or relate signific antly with:

Measures of Peer Acceptance

 

(High) Actual Group Acceptance

(High) Social ExPansiveness

(High) Perceived Group Acceptance

(Low) Social Predictiveness Discrepancy

Significant correlations between all of the above measures
would indicate that subjects with stable and high self concept ratings

accept members of the peer group better, eXpect to be, and are,

(51)

better accepted by peers, and are more accurate in estimating

how well accepted they are by individual peers than subjects with
lower and less stable self concept ratings. Katz (39) obtained
Significant correlations between self concept ratings and measures
of group acceptance, but he and earlier investigators failed to Ob-
tain significant relations between self concept ratings and accuracy
in predicting peer acceptance, (Social Predictivene SS Discrepancy).
These data are replicated in the present study in order to compare
and contrast the effect of parental acceptance with the effect of peer
acceptance on self-esteem and stability of the self concept (Hypothe-
sis III). Specifically, since it is anticipated that parents will be
more ego-involved, and, therefore, more defensive in rating the
subject than peers, the latter's ratings should correlate more high-
ly with measures of self concept level and stability than parents'
ratings. Twelve possibly significant Irelations obtain in comparing
each of three measures from one group with each of four measures

from the second group.

HYPOTHESIS III. Significant and positive correlations Obtain

 

between measures of parental acceptance and measures of peer

acceptance.

(52)

The following correlations between measures of parental

acceptance and measures of peer acceptance are predicted:

Measures of Parental Acceptance

 

(High) Actual Father Acceptance

(High) Actual Mother Acceptance

(Low) Actual Father - Father Ideal Discrepancy
(Low) Actual Mother - Mother Ideal Discrepancy
(Low) Actual Mother - Father Discrepancy

correlate significantly with:

Measures of Peer Acceptance

 

(High) Actual Group Acceptance

(High) Social ExPansiveness

(High) Perceived Group Acceptance

(Low) Social Predictiveness Discrepancy

In comparing each one of five measures from one group with
each one of four measures from the second group, a total of twenty
comparisons are possible. If all of these comparisons prove to be
significant and in the predicted direction, it will be possible to

assert that an adolescent who is accepted by both parents also accepts

(53)

his peer group, is accepted by it, and correctly perceives the
degree of acceptance and rejection he receives from individual
members of the group. The predicted relations between parental
and peer acceptance challenges prevalent concepts of adolescence
which maintain that the adolescent's sense of status is predicated
entirely on the acceptance of his peer group, while he tends to rebel
against parental Opinion and authority. Results in the predicted
direction would, on the contrary, tend to indicate that the adolescent
whose security is firmly anchored by his parents' positive regard
for him, also gains the support and acceptance of his peer group.
Perhaps in antisocial groups, such as delinquent gangs, the adoles-
cent who Openly rebels against his parents, and in turn is rejected
by them, tends to be more highly accepted by the delinquent peer group

than youths in his group who are better accepted by their parents.

HYPOTHESIS IV. Individuals with consistent and high self- ratings

 

are more accurate in predicting how parents and peers perceive them

than individuals with inconsistent and low self—ratings.

The following correlations are predicted between measures of
level and consistency of the self concept and measures of discrepancy

between perceived and actual appraisals of the self by parents and

(54)

peers:

Measures of Level and Stability of the Self Concept

 

(High) Private Real Self Cnncept
(High) Negative Self Concept
(Low) Temporal Discrepancy

c or relate significantly with:

Measures of Discrepancy Between Perceived and Actual Appraisals

 

of the Self by Parents and Peers

 

(Low) Actual Mother — Perceived Mother Discrepancy
(Low) Actual Father - Perceived Father Discrepancy
(Low) Actual Peer - Perceived Peer Discrepancy

Individuals with high and consistent self concepts are exPected
to be more accurate in anticipating how parents and peers perceive
them than less consistent subjects for several reasons. The concept
of "reflected appraisals" in the interpersonal theory of personality
asserts that self-esteem deve10ps from interactions in which an
individual enjoys the positive regard of "significant others". .Conse-
quently an individual who enjoys a high level of self-esteem is also

esteemed by parents and peers, and for this reason has no cause to

(55)

distort or in any way misPerceive their attitudes about himself. On
the other hand, individuals lac king in self-esteem probably also do
not enjoy the acceptance of parents or peers. Such individuals may
tend to inflate their estimate of others' acceptance of themselves in

a compensatory manner, and thereby, produce discrepancies bet-
ween perceived and real appraisals of acceptance. Theoretically,
however, another alternative is available to individuals lacking in self-
esteem which this hypothesis does not test. Such individuals may
recognize that they are not well accepted by parents and peers and
stlll evaluate accurately the Opinion these others maintain toward
them. (These individuals probably also withdrew from relationships
which have proven to be costly to so essential a feeling as one's self-
esteem, in order to protect themselves from further injury.) This
group would comprise individuals with low self-esteem who also lack
defenses to ward off recognitiOn of this deficit. If a large portion of
subjects fall into this category, the hypothesis will not be validated.
Presumably however, a small number of subjects would fall into this
category in a normal pOpulation. Still another possibility which would
conflict with the stated direction of the hypothesis occurs when indivi-
dules with low self-esteem correctly anticipate low parental accep-

tance and yet are rated highly by their parents because of defensive-

(56)

ness on their parents' part. Indirect evidence of this eventuality may
be Obtained if the hypothesis is validated an the basis of perceived —
versus - real peer discrepancies while analogous parent discrepancy
scores fail to prove significant, since it may be assumed that peers
are less ego-involved, and therefore less evasive in rating a sub-

. ject than his parents would tend to be. Consequently, discrepancies
between the way the subject thinks peers see him and the way he is
actually perceived by them, may be more valid as an indication

of low self-esteem than comparable discrepancy measures of the
subject's parents.

Perhaps because of the number of alternative possibilities
which tend to Oppose the stated direction of the hypothesis, Katz con—
cluded from a related study that the ability to predict peer members'
acceptance of one‘s self is not a stable personality characteristic.
(39), It is more likely however, that a positive relationship between
self-esteem and ability to predict others' attitudes towards one's self
could be demonstrated if hypotheses cognizant Of the nature and de—
gree of the subject's and the rater's defenses are elaborated. For
this hypothesis, a total of nine possible significant relations occur
when each of three measures from one group is compared with each

Of three measures in the second group.

(57)

HYPOTHESIS V. High and consistent self-ratings correlate posi-

 

tively with agreement between subjects' self concepts and their

estimate of parents' and peers' concepts of themselves.

The following measures of level and stability of the self
concept are exPected to correlate with the measures of discrepancy

between perceived parent-self ratings and peer—self ratings:

Measures of Level and Stability Of the Self Concept

 

(High) Private Real Self Concept
(High) Negative Self Concept
(Low) Temporal Discrepancy

correlate significantly with:

Measures of Perceived Parent-Self and Peer-Self Discrepancy

 

(Low) Perceived Mother-Real Self Concept Discrepancy
(Low) Perceived Father-Real Self Concept Discrepancy
(Low) Perceived Inter-Parent Discrepancy

(Low) Perceived Peer-Real Self Concept Discrepancy

Hypothesis V is the phenomenal analogue of Hypothesis I and

II which assert that the level and consistency of self-ratings and

(58)

parental and peer acceptance are positively related. Previous
investigators have found that these measures consistently covary
with each other, and have simply included them under the rubric,
measures of self concept stability (39, 50). However, because the
design of this study permits a number of comparisons of measures
of phenomenal versus actual discrepancies between self concept
ratings and peer and parental acceptance, this hypothesis is stated
independently. In comparing one group of three measures with four
measures of another group, twelve correlations are Obtained. A
total of sixty-eight correlations are obtained from predictions based

on five hypotheses.

VI. POPULATION

 

The exPerimental group consists of fifty- six white, male
adolescents comprising all of the male pupils attending the seven-
th through twelfth grades in a rural community school. The sub-
jects in the study live in the outskirts, or within, the small town
in which the school is located. The community is relatively
stable and is composed primarily of working class and some middle-
class members, farmers, factory workers, small sh0p keepers,
artisans, and a small scattering of professionals such as clergy
and school teachers. The community is also relatively uniform in
terms of its racial, ethnic, and religious characteristics, the over-
whelming pr0portion of residents being white Protestants. (The
stability and uniformity of the area is implied by the fact that
members of minority groups such as Negroes and Jews are liter-

ally unknown by most subjects of the study.)

(59)

VII. PROCEDURES

 

1) Procedure with Subjects

 

The Superintendent of Schools, a pOpular and reSpected,
although familiar faculty leader, introduced the author as a psy—
chologist collecting research data and urged the students to active-
ly c00perate. The author then briefly exPlained to the experimental
group that he was interested in learning how boys of their age think
and assured them that the information he gathered would be com-
pletely confidential and was not to be divulged to the school. Ex-
cept for a small nmnber of absentees, all of the subjects were
tested in two group sessions, each of which lasted about one and
one-half hours at the beginning of a regular school day.

In the first group session, subjects completed all of the
self concept inventories and the defensiveness scale. In the second
group session subjects completed the measures of group acceptance
and the trait-ratings of their classmates. A brief third session was
held two weeks after the first group session for completing the sec—
ond rating of the ”Private Real Self Concept”, from which the "Tem-

poral Discrepancy" measure is derived.

2) Procedure with Parents

 

Letters from the Parents—Teacher Association bearing the

(60)

(61)

signature Of the Superintendent of Schools announced to the subjects'
parents the author's presence at one of the group's regular meetings.
Approximately one third of the total number of parents who COOperat—
ed in the research study were reached at the meeting. The remain-
ing number were contacted by further letters, ‘phone calls, and
personal visits to the home of each subject's parent. The adoles—
cents' reaction to the research study seemed to be favorable. The
study also received the official support of the school authority as well
as adequate publicity including some notice in the local newsPaper.
Nevertheless, the author encountered some indifference and occa-
sional signs of resistance and suSpicion on the part of some parents
which to some extent may be attributed to the lackiof s0phistication
of the pOpulation and Specifically to its unfamiliarity with the function

of research and the role which psychologists play in'it.

VIII, STATISTICAL TREATMENT

 

Pearson's product-moment coefficient, r, was used to
determine whether predicted eXperimental measures correlate sig-
nificantly. Scattergrams were plotted to determine whether the
asSumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity underlying the product-
moment coefficient were met. Use of this particular statistic is also
justified on the basis of previous positive results in related research
studies, and on the basis of the ”robustness" of this statistic. Age,
intelligence, and defensiveness were also correlated with relevant
exPerimental measures, and wherever one or more of these variables
correlated Significantly with an eXperimental measure, the effect of
that one or several variables on a predicted relationship was nullified
by the method of partial correlation. However, it was only possible
to apply the method of partial correlation where the pOpulations of

both eXperimental measures were equal in number.

(62)

IX. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Table 1 lists the mean age and intelligence quotient on the
California Mental Maturity Test of the eXperimental group, as well
as the range and standard deviation of the group's age and intelli-
gence. Thus, the mean age of the group is 15. 75 years and the mean

intelligence quotient is 97. 6.

TABLE 1

Means, Ranges and Sigmas of the Experi-
mental Group's Age and Intelligence

 

 

 

 

Mean Range Sigma
Age (years)) 15. 75 12. 41-18. 83 22. 6
Intelligence (California 97. 6 76 - 129 11. 1
Mental Maturity
Test) ’

(63)

TABLE 2

   
 

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between All Predicted Experimental Measures
and Between Age, Intelligence, Defensiveness and Experimental Measures

 

  
  

rceived Parent— Self

 

   
  
  

 

 

 

   
   

 

   
 

.1, 4,

*Indicates Significance at the 5% Level

"‘°Indicates Significance at the 1% Level

63-(A)

dPeer~Self Discrepancy Parental Acceptance Pear
rceived Perceived Perceived Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Iher- Inter— Peer Mother Mother— Father Father— Mother— Group 7
a1 Parent Real—Self ACCpt— Mother- Accept— Father— Father Accept— 7""
Dis— Concept ance Ideal Dis— ance Ideal Dis— Dis— ance '
crepancy Discrepancy crepancy crepancy crepancy
56 41 41 25 25 2.4 56 k,
—,285* —.001 —.305 .221 —.452* —.364 ,582** i
-.244 .039 .072 .067 .007 _.123 .036 7‘“,
7'?
75:4
. 084 fie.
fi-
—. 529*‘1‘ —. 417** . 234 —. 085 . 526** ~. 492* —. 419* . 194 5'.
$1
73"“; -. 517% _. 474M .372* _. 359* .680** —. 512% —. 338 . 169 N
“"7“ .546** .526ee .179 .064 _. 266 .335 .031 —. 342* H
.k .
.315’1< —.360* .176 -.156 .078 -
.232 —.227 .275 —.290 —.333
.216 —.191 .468* _.503>:<* —.374 ;
i
,5.
. 151 .089 —.089 .525** . 155 a,“

fi'.

w

edicted ExPerimental Measures
3 and Experimental Measures

 

 

 

 

 

 

:11 Acceptance Pear
a1 Actual Actual Actual I
:r Father- Mother- Group
pt- Father- Father Accept-
: Ideal Dis— Dis- ance
crepancy crepancy
25 24 56
1 —.452* —.364 .582=i°'v<
7 . 007 -. 123 . 036
6** —.492* -.419* .194
0** -.512** -.338 .169
6 .335 .031 -.342*
6 -. 156 . 078 I
I
5 -.290 -.333 I
8* -. 503** -. 374 '
89 . 525** . 155

 

 

 

 

 

Level and Stability ’
of Self Concept '

 

 

 

Private Negative Temporal Perceived k,

Real Self Dis— Mother- '1

Self Concept crepancy Real "'

Concept Self Concept :7‘ a,

DiscrepanCy | "I

N = 56 56 56 56 CE. .

I 7 '£ 1

.2733 . 145 —,416:‘<* “.3 >1: .-,

Control Age 38 .3:
Intelligence . 278* . 246 —. 222 _. 253

Variable s

Defensivene S s
"e

.é'

255 —.221 —.063 .118

If -

.5,
1:

Private Real

Level and 5.
Stability Negative will

of Self Concept ' L I
Self

Concept Temporal Discrepancy

 

Actual Gr oup

Acceptance
Peer

Social

Expansivene s 5
Acceptance

Perceived Group
Acceptance

Social Predictivene s s

 

DiscrepanCy
Critical Values of r

N 5% Level 1% Level
56 . 264 . 343

50 . 279 . 361

41 . 307 . 397

25 , 394 . 503

24 . 404 . 515

 

 

Ly .,,,_ in“ If, I- ,-V-a,__,,;.r,_.

(64)

Table 2 represents the major exPerimental finding of the study.
It lists all of the correlation coefficients which Obtain between previous-
ly predicted exPerimental measures. It also shows the correlations
which obtain between age and intelligence and all exPerimental measures,
as well as the correlations which Obtain between defensiveness and
measures based on subjects' self—ratings.

A number of over-all conclusions may be drawn from Table 2.
In the first place, of the sixty-eight Specifically predicted correlations,
twenty-eight correlations prove to be significant, at, or beyond, the one
percent level while nine correlations are significant at, or beyond, the
five per cent level, thereby making for a total of thirty-seven significant
correlations which exceeds half the total number of predicted relations.
On the basis of chance alone, less than one correlation in sixty-eight
Should prove significant at, or beyond, the one per cent level, while
between three and four correlations in sixty—eight should prove signifi-
cant at, or beyond, the five per cent level. Therefore, the conclusion
that the over-all results of the study are Significant far beyond the
chance level of exPectancy is warranted.

Table 2 also indicates that in addition to the significant correla-

tions between exPerimental measures, age correlates significantly with

(65)

five of the exPerimental measures at, or beyond, the one per cent
level. Subjects' age also correlates significantly with eight of the
experimental measures, as well as with intelligence, at, or beyond,
the five per cent level. Intelligence correlates with four exPerimental
measures, as well as with age, at, or beyond, the five per cent level
of significance, while correlations between defensiveness and
measures based on ratings completed by the subjects never attain

the five per cent level of significance.

 

assumsou 30$ «OZ owls. "quoflSoU novnOuon0N 009.0033: v
oogoflsfim mo H304 as; $30pr as.
0050wflnmfim mo H0>0A e\em mom—00:03...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 3,
case... a 38 a an: i ,, $2 i fess .3 5.63 .v rat; .a
seam . NS .. t: .. . MS .- m2 .- 3.3+ . teas . 55622666
3.89808
:33: i 2.3 i 3.: a its? :3 fine“. i
3.8m .. m8 . m2 . Seems .. isms..- 3380 son )
i 0>flmm02 WM
>05A0H0ma If thundmouogn
m a 0n 00:59000L 0 0 0d 02830004 >0§m0u 005 umoodOU
n00nm .0>3030Hm 103333 -msouO «@0330 fi0m 30m flood
00>«00n0nmtn00 dfioom muouO 1308 3304 Saunoom H0502
3304 00>M00H0I®I “00300099. U0>M00u0nm

 

 

 

undue GOO “:03 no.2

 

ma anou d0; mdoflmaoquO u0vHOIOu0N 0:» odd ugumdou “:0: 3 0m mloowafim d0; mohfimdoz

Hmuaoawu0munm :003u0m 333.30% 03» wgogm 03303300 doflawHoHHOO Hmfiudnm H0UHO$0HFH

m H438

Edam GOD 30m 002

09832005 95 0m< 3d30¢m000 n06~0nou0N 0000033": V
00§0§dmfim mo 1:64 a? 0000033 in

mugofifinmfim mo .354 ...»m 080305..”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.38 .-v 33. .-v A303 .0 rig .0 $2 .0 $31.3. ...V £3.53 i 3880
immm .. m3 ... .52 1v . ”33$ . . moo ... $0M .. .133 ... Wow ”00%
033nm
hodddw0n0ma f 0 N0fldM0uoma >0uddmw0uoma
H00nm mm0d0>30€ 0033m000¢ mm0d0>wmgm 0053m000< um0odoU 30m 300qu 30w
v0>w0000nm ..0Anm dfioom 9500 ..xnm Hdfioom 9500 3004 30d H00m 30Man0502
u 00muamn50< v0>w00n0m W0>M00H0nm v0>fi00n0m

 

 

 

«53280 “:0: “oz 090 mflflBWflEufl find 0% no; mud0fi0wmm000 GOBNH0HHOU

u0vn@:ou0N 0:» was 60.30002 d030fi$u0mmnm doL00n0LmMS0udH v5 0iw4 mo

303E 0:» $032252 03335500 00303.300 Hannah M0UHO|Un000m

v ӣ38

(67)

(68)

Tables 3 and 4 indicate the correlations which obtain
between experimental measures significantly affected by age or in—
telligence, or both, when the effect of either, or both, is held con-
stant by the method of partial correlation. Table 3 presents first-
order partial coefficients in which age alone was found to correlate
significantly with an exPerimental measure. Table 3 also lists the
correlation coefficients which obtain between measures significant-
ly affected by subjects' age when the effect of age on the relationship
is not nullified, i. e. , the zero-order coefficients found in Table 2.
By comparing the zero—and first-order coefficients an estimate is
obtained of the extent to which the eXperimental findings are changed
byhullifying age differences between subjects. It is clear from this
comparison that only one correlation out of six which previously was
not significant attains statistical significance when age is held con—
stant, namely the correlation between ”Temporal Discrepancy" and
"Actual Group Acceptance”. On the other hand, of the six correla-
tions which were significant before holding subjects' age constant,
all but two increase in magnitude after age is held constant. In
short, it may be generally concluded that although age correlates

significantly with most of the exPerimental measures, it does not

(69)

to any great extent affect the predicted correlations between
measures, and in most instances nullifying the effect of age in-
creases the magnitude of predicted correlations.

Table 4 lists the second—order partial correlations coeffi-
cients between "Private Real Self Concept", which is significantly
correlated with subjects' age and intelligence, and various other
exPerimental measures having N's of equal size. (Although three
other measures also correlate significantly with both age and in-
telligence second-order partial correlations could not be computed
for these measures because the second—order coefficients would
entail comparisons betweeen N's of unequal size.) Table 4 clearly
indicates that where a relationship was statistically significant be-
fore age and intelligence were taken into account that relationship
remains significant. On the other hand, if a relationship failed to
attain statistical significance before holding the effect of subjects'
age and intelligence constant, nullifying the effect of age and intelli-
gence on that relationship will not produce a statistically significant
correlation. The conclusion seems warranted then, that the exPeri-
mental results are not caused by an artifact produced by differences
in subjects' age or intelligence level, and conversely that potentially
significant results are not obscured by the presence of these vari-

ables.

HYPO THESIS I.

X.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

 

 

tively related to measures of parental acceptance.

TABLE 5

The level and consistency of self- ratings is posi-

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN MEASURES OF SELF

 

CONCEPT LEVEL AND CONSISTENCY AND MEASURES

 

OF PARENTAL AC CEPTANCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L Measures of Parental Acceptance
Egg-Esgfiag-agr.22r
0cm g-cfigcm vs: :50
32:5; Silicate; £381., £213
...
s5 3% §5 §3 5%
0 g. r, 5.”, g. 8 s- s» at S- g.
“’9; are; 2%“3 ~39;
IN: 41 41 25 ‘ g5 24
Level and (Hi h Private '
Rea elf-Concept .234 -.085 .526*>fi -.492* -.419*
Consistency
(High) Negative ,
of Self Concept .372* -.359* .680** -.512*’l -.338
Self (Low) Temporal
Concept Discrepancy -. 179 .064 -.266 .335 .031
Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at or beyond 5% level

**Significant at or beyond 1% level

Seven out of fifteen predicted correlations for Hypothesis I

proved significant beyond the five per cent level, indicating that on

(70)

(71)

the whole a demonstrable relationship exists between parental
acceptance and the level and consistency of self concept ratings
in the eXperimental group. All correlations are in the predicted

directions, i. e. , two ”high” measures correlate positively, etc.

Four out of six measures of paternal acceptance correlate
significantly with self concept stability while only two out of six
measures of maternal acceptance correlate significantly with the
same stability measures. This finding attests to the importance
in boys of achieving a satisfactory relationship with their fathers
for deve10ping feelings of positive self—regard. Little evidence on
the empirical, interpersonal level has been adduced for the concept
of identification. However, phenomenological studies have pointed
to the importance of harmonious father—son relationships for devel-

0ping feelings of positive self—regard (39, .50).

Only two studies on the self concept are cited in the litera-
ture in which parents actually rate their children. A study by Lang-
ford is only tangentially relevant because mothers and fathers were
asked to complete a personality test also completed by their child-
ren as they thought their children would answer it, (42). One find-

ing of interest to this study however, is the fact that Langford ob—

(72)

tained closest agreement between father and son, which suggests
that fathers generally have better insight into their sons than
mothers. The close cognitive ties between father and son which
Langford's findings indicate are paralleled by their close affective
ties as indicated by the results of Hypothesis 1. A study by Helper
is more pertinent to the present study (31). Using self concept
ratings of children and parents and trait ratings of each other, he
found that paternal acceptance of boys increases as boyst ideal
selves are in closer harmony with their fathers' ideals for them.

On the other hand, all of Helper's findings concerning boys fail to
attain statistical significance among girls, while one correlation
concerning boys actually goes in the Opposite direction in the girls'
case. Helper does not present comparisons between mother ratings
and father ratings of the same child. Considering that father-son
correlations fail to hold up between mothers and daughters one might
Speculate that mother-son ratings may also tend to be less clear-cut
in his study than the father-son correlations obtained in his study and

in the present one.

Table 5 also indicates that discrepancies of acceptance bet-

ween parents significantly affects the stability of male adolescents'

(73)

self concept. Finally, from Table 5 comparisons may be made
between the relative effectiveness of the three measures of self
concept (two of level and one of consistency) for demonstrating
significant correlations with parental acceptance. Thus, it is
apparent that "Negative Self Concept" is the most effective measure
for this purpose in so far as all predicted correlations between this
measure and parental acceptance proved to be significant. Three
out of six "Private Real Self Concept" correlations proved to be
significant, while none of the predicted correlations for "Temporal
Discrepancy” attained to the stated significance levels. It seems
particularly interesting to note that the lowest realistic view a sub-
ject takes of himself, his "Negative Self Concept", correlates most
highly with his parents' views of himself. This finding suggests
either that the parents of subjects in this study take a generally
critical view of their sons, and/or, as Cowen has previously suggest-
ed, that the poorest rating a subject admits to may actually be the

closest approximation of the way he feels about himself (20).

(74)

HYPOTHESIS H. The level and consistency of self-ratings is

 

positively related to measures of peer acceptance.

TABLE 6

Zero-Order and First or Second-Order Pearson Correlation Co—

 

efficients Between Level and Consistency of Self Concept Measures

 

and Measures of Peer Acccflatance with and without Age and/or In-

 

telligfnce Differences Held Constant

 

N = 56 for all Measures

Measures of Peer Acceptance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(High) (High) (High) (Low)
Actual Social Perceived Social
Group ExPansive - Group Predict-
Accept- ne ss Accept- ivene s s
ance ance Discrepanc
:3, (High)
.5 Private Real . 194 . 37l** . 346** -. 242
4..»
a Self
a, *4 Concept ((-. 065)) (L 4193)“ (L 411))** ((-. 102))
g 3* '
u
3 8
> (High)
0 O
C”! :1 Negative . 169 . 327* . 355** —. 057
o ,3 Self
a ‘3 Concept (. 105) (. 005)
o
E 5
d I:
a) a; (Low)
2 1; Temporal -. 342* -. 176 -. 172 . 093
c.
0
U Discrepancy (-. 135) (-. 193) (-. 187) (-. 102)

 

( ) Indicates First—Order Partial Coefficient: Age held constant
(( ))Indicates Second—Order Partial Coefficient: Age and Intelli-
gence held constant

* Indicates Significance at or beyond 5% level
** Indicates Significance at or beyond 1% level

 

(75)

Of twelve correlations predicted for Hypothesis II four
correlations attained the stated significance level after subjects'
age and intelligence differences are nullified through partial
correlations. Nine of the twelve predicted correlations are in
the anticipated directions wherein two "low” or two "high" measur—
es correlate positively, etc. The results of testing Hypothesis II
indicate that measures of self concept level correlate significant-
ly primarily with the subjects‘ own eXpressions of group accept-
ance. Specifically, ratings which indicate how well a subject
accepts members of his group (Actual Group Acceptance) and
ratings of how well he thinks he is accepted by the group (Perceiv-
ed Group Acceptance) correlate significantly with the levels of his
fi'Private Real" and "Negative" Self Concepts. On the other hand,
neither the level nor the consistency of self-ratings correlates
significantly with the group‘s actual acceptance of a subject (Actual
Group Acceptance) or with a subject‘s ability to perceive the degree
of acceptance received from his peer group (Social Predictiveness
Discrepancy).

Helper found that similarity between boyst self concepts
and their concepts of their father is associated with high peer status.

Katz, who also investigated the question of peer status

(76)
found a relation between measures of peer acceptance and measur-
es of level and consistency of the self concept. However, neither
Katz, previous exPerimenter, nor this author, obtained a significant
correlation between measures of level and consistency of the self
concept and measures of social perception. The agreement among
these researchers suggests that peer status does not necessarily go
hand in hand with ability to accurately estimate one's social status.
Katz suggests that the processes involved in social perception and its
measurement are subtle and complex insofar as they involve the per-
sonality of the perceiving and the perceived subjects (39).

In contrast with the inconclusive results obtained in this
study in comparing actual peer group acceptance with self-ratings,
Katz' obtained consistently positive results from similar comparisons.
Because of methodological differences however, Katz' results are not
entirely comparable with the findings of this study. Instead of a continuous
sociometric procedure he used forced-choice ratings in which each sub-
ject selects the five classmates he likes best and the five he likes least
(39). The more significant factor in failing to confirm Katzt findings
however, seems to be that he used smaller and older groups of subjects
of a more uniform age and grade level whose members were presumably

also better acquainted with one another than the subjects in this study.

(77)

Parental acceptance correlates more significantly with
self-ratings than peer acceptance de Spite the possibility that
parents may be more ego-involved, and therefore less candid
than peers in rating a subject. Consequently, failure to fully
establish the hypothesized relationship between self-ratings and
peer acceptance probably reflects on a methodological short-
coming rather than on the validity of the hypothesis.

In comparing the potency of the three measures of level
and consistency of self-ratings, "Temporal Discrepancy” again
proves to be the least effective measure while the "Private Real
Self Concept" correlates most highly with measures of peer
acceptance, followed closely in effectiveness by ”Negative Self Con-
cept".

The findings regarding Hypothesis II fail to show a relation
between self concept level and stability and actual group acceptance.
They also fail to show a relation between self concept level and stability
and social perception. On the other hand, the findings do indicate that
a subject‘s self concept level and stability influences the extent to which

he accepts and feels accepted by his peers.

HYPOTHESIS III.

(78)

 

Significant and positive correlations obtain

between measures of parental acceptance and measures of peer

acceptance.

TABLE 7

qr

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between

 

Measures of Parental Acceptance and Mea-

 

sures of Peer Acceptance.

 

Measures of Parental Acceptance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N= 41 41 25 25 24
(High) (Low) (High) (Low) (Low)
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Mothe r Mothe r - Fathe r Fathe r - Mothe r -
Accept— Mother Accept- Father Actual
ance Ideal ance Ideal Father
Discrep- Discrep- Discrep-
ancy ancy ancy;
(High) Actual
Group Accept- '
ance .315* -.360* . 176 -.156 .078
2", (High) Social
a: ExPansiveness .232 —.227 .275 —.290 -.333
“a 33. . .
m 52 (High) Perceiv-
a 8-: ed Group Aggept—
a 8 ance .216 —.191 .468* -.503** -.374
S3 <:
2 (Low) Social
Predictiveness
Discrepancy .151 . 089 -. 089 . 525** .155

 

 

 

*Significant at or beyond 5% level
**Significant at or beyond 1% level

(79)

Five of the twenty correlations predicted for Hypothesis
III are statistically significant. Eighteen of the twenty correla—
tions are in the anticipated direction. The results of this Hypo—
thesis as those of Hypothesis I show a tendency, although to a
lesser degree in the case of this Hypothesis, for measures of
paternal acceptance to correlate more significantly, this time
with peer acceptance, than comparable measures of maternal
acceptance. It seems reasonable that two of the highest of this
group of correlations obtain between measures of paternal ac-
ceptance and subjects' eXpected acceptance by“ their peers (Pheno-
menal Group Acceptance). The amount of acceptance a boy exPects to
receive from other boys is apparently a rather direct function of the
. acceptance he receives from his father. If this interpretation is
correct, familial' relationships set a continuing pattern for later
interpersonal eXpectancies as suggested by the analytic concept of
transference. Further research might fruitfully investigate the
question of whether boys who are highly accepted by their mothers
also exPect to receive greater acceptance [from girls. Helper found
that among boys a high degree of parental reward for similarity with

their fathers is associated with high peer status, while among girls

(80)

a high degree of parental reward for similarity with their mothers
is associated with low peer status (31). Sex differences in famil-
ial relationships resulting in personality differences between the

sexes would seem to offer a rich area of untested hypotheses.

Table 7 presents an uneXpected finding of considerable in—
terest. It shows that paternal acceptance correlates to a greater
extent than maternal acceptance with perceived group acceptance.
Maternal acceptance on the other hand, correlates more significant-
ly with actual group acceptance. A tentative hypothesis which this
finding suggests is, adolescents who gain more maternal than
paternal acceptance are actually better accepted by male peers than
boys who receive a greater amount of paternal acceptance, although
the latter group eercts more peer acceptance. Since comparable
data is not available in the literature, further study of the suggest-
ed hypothesis awaits corroboration of the exPerimental findings by
cross-validating techniques. Such study may, however, be exPect-
ed to shed light on questions of such far—reaching, though empirically
untested significance, as the effect of various types of oedipal attach-

ments on later patterns of interpersonl relationships.

(81)

One finding, at first glance, is difficult to reconcile with
other correlations obtained from Table 7. Ability to correctly
anticipate peer acceptance, ((low) Social Predictiveness Discrep-
ancy,) correlates significantly with one measure of paternal
acceptance, ((low) Actual Father-Father Ideal Discrepancy). This
seems surprising in view of the previously discussed finding that
paternal acceptance correlates significantly with eXpected group
acceptance while maternal acceptance correlates with actual group
acceptance. If these findings are confirmed by future research the
eXplanation may lie in one or both of the following formulations.
Subjects who obtain greater peer acceptance and more maternal
acceptance may be less concerned and therefore less accurate
in predicting peer acceptance than subjects who obtain more pater-
nal acceptance and anticipate greater peer acceptance. If this
proves to be the case, accuracy in predicting social acceptance
may be the reflection of an unhealthy preoccupation with, and an
exaggerated exPectation of group acceptance. Alternatively, the
obtained findings might be due to a tendency of subjects who re-
ceive greater maternal and actual peer acceptance to underesti-
mate the amount of acceptance they exPect to receive from male

peers, perhaps because that has been their exPerience with their

(82)

fathers. As a result of this tendency to underestimate these

subjects are inaccurate in their social perceptions, while the

same tendency may in fact elicit greater peer acceptance. Thus,
a benign cycle may be described wherein underestimated accept-
ance produces more actual acceptance leading eventually to more
realistic social appraisals. These are only tentative hypotheses
but they are amenable to study with research instruments essen—

tially similar to those used in this study.

(83)

HYPOTHESIS IV. Individuals with consistent and high self-ratings

 

are more accurate in predicting how parents and peers perceive

them than individuals with inconsistent and low self- ratings.

TABLE 8

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Measures of Level and
Stability of the Self Concept and Measures of Discrepancy Between
Perceived and Actual Appraisals of the Self by Parents and Peers

'Measures of Discrepancy Between Perceived and
Actual Appraisals of the Subject by Parents and Peers

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Low) Actual (Low) Actual (Low) Actual
Mother-Per- Father-Per- Peer-Perceiv-
ceived Mother ceived Father ed Peer
Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy
IN- 41 25 56
8. (High) Private
8 >~ Real Self -. 665** -. 594** -. 609**
o E ((-. 552))**
-* "é . . *
... (High) Negative
‘3 Self Concept -. 563** ... 373 -. 518**
g (-. 503)**
...
E (Low)Temporal
A Discrepancy . 438** . 535** . 369**
(. 287)*

 

*Indicates Significance at or beyond the 5% level

gence held constant

** Indicates Significance at or beyond the 1% level
() Indicates First-Order Partial Coefficient: Age held constant
(( )) Indicates Second-Order Partial Coefficient: Age and Intelli-

 

,u' Ill

 

(84)

Eight of the nine correlations predicted for Hypothesis
IV are significant beyond the one per cent level of significance;
all correlate in the predicted directions. The only correlation
which failed to attain the five per cent level of significance, the
correlation of "Negative Self Concept" with "Actual Father-
Perceived Father Discrepancy" approaches the five per cent level of
significance. In view of the consistently positive results obtained in
testing Hypothesis IV it seems not unreasonable to exPect that this
correlation too would have attained the stated significance level
with a large number of fathers c00pe rating in the study. The hy—
pothesis that level and consistency of self concept ratings is signi-
ficantly associated with accuracy in predicting how parents and
peers perceive subjects' self concepts is borne out with a high
degree of confidence.

The ”Negative Self Concept" produced generally more signi-
ficant correlations than the ”Private Real Self .C‘on‘cept" in Hypo-
thesis I which compared these measures with pare-ntal acceptance.
The reverse is true in the case of Hypothesis IV; all of the "Pri—
vate Real Self Concept” correlations are of a greater magnitude
than comparable ”Negative Self Concept" correlations. A conclu-

sive argument regarding the reSpective effectiveness of these two

(85)

measures is not possible on the basis of these findings. It would
seem however, that at least with this relatively unsoPhisticated
group even as patent a measure as the "Private (Real Self Concept"
assumes real psychological significance. ”Temporal Discrepancy”
in this hypothesis, as well as in Hypothesis I and II, produces the
smallest number of significant correlations. Only in Hypothesis
V, which compares perceived self-rating measures exclusively,
“Temporal Discrepancy" correlates most highly for every pre-
dicted relationship. Hypothesis V indicates that test-rete st relia-
bility, measured by ”Temporal Discrepancy", correlates most
significantly with ratings of the self as the subject believes parents
and peers perceive it.

A sufficiently consistent trend is established in comparing
the effectiveness of two measures of the level of self concept ratings,
”Private Real Self Concept” and "Negative Self Concept", with one
measure of self concept consistency, "Temporal Discrepancy",
in Hypothesis I, II, and IV, to forward the following formulation.

The two measures of self concept level generally correlate more
significantly with various indices of interpersonal adequacy such as

parental and peer acceptance, and ability to perceive correctly the

(86)

self from their viewpoint, than the measure of self concept con-
sistency. Self concept consistency on the other hand, produces
correlations of greater magnitude when it is compared with
measures of intrapersonal consistency, i. e. , discrepancies
between the way subjects think parents and peers perceive them
and the way they perceive themselves, than the measures of self
concept level. Measures of level of self concept ratings correlate
with measures of interpersonal adequacy while self concept con-
sistency measures intrapersonal stability. McGehee in his
study concluded that ”Temporal Discrepancy" is a measure of
self concept stability "free from contamination by the variable
of self-esteem". On the other hand, he classified the two mea-
sures of self concept level as indices of self-esteem. (50). If
the distinction between these two types of measures is valid,
then this study suggests that self concept stability is associated
with, or reflects, intrapersonal consistency while self-esteem
is associated with interpersonal adequacy. This finding, too,

seems to Open fruitful areas for further investigations.

Measure of Self. Concept

Level and Stability

(87)

HYPOTHESIS V. High and consistent self—ratings correlate

 

positively with agreement between the subject‘s self concept
and his estimate of parents' and peers' concepts of himself.
TABLE 9

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Measures

of Level and Stability of the Self Concept and Measures

of Perceived Discrepancy Between Subjects‘ Self Con-

cepts and Estimated Concepts of Self from Parents‘ and
Peers‘ Views

 

 

 

 

Measures of Parent-Self and Peer-Self Discrepancy

 

 

 

(Low) (Low) (Low) (Low)
Perceived Perceived Perceived Perceived

Mother-Real Father—Real Inter-Parent Peer-Real

Self Concept Self Concept Self Concept

Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy

N: I 56 50 50 56

(High) Private —. 550** -. 634** -. 529** -. 417**
Real Self Concept ((-. 416))** (-. 265)*
(High) Negative -. 496** -. 573** —. 517** -. 474**
Self Concept (-. 480)** . (-. 456)**
(Low) Temporal . 567** . 727** . 546** . 526**
Discrepancy (. 498)** (. 467)**

 

*Indicates Significance at or beyond the 5% level
**Indicates Significance at or beyond the 1% level
() Indicates First—Order Partial Coefficient : Age held constant
“))Indicates Second-Order Partial Coefficient: Age and Intelligence
held constant

(88)

Eleven of the twelve correlations predicted for Hypothesis
V are significant beyond the one per cent level while the twelfth
correlation is significant beyond the five per cent level. Although
the magnitudes of correlation between measures decline when sub-
jects' age alone, or age and intelligence are held constant by
partial correlation they nevertheless remain significant. (The
effect of age and intelligence on exPerimental predictions will be
discussed in detail in the section titled, Additional Findings.)
Hypothesis V which predicts significant correlations between level
and consistency of self concept ratings and self- ratings from the
points of view of parents and peers may, therefore, be said to be
completely validated. Insofar as these findings completely support
the results obtained by previous studies (39, 50), they may be con-
sidered cross-validating evidence obtained from a pOpulation unlike
previous pOpulations in a number of ecological and social class
factors. Consequently the relationships between various measures
0f the self concept exPressed by this hypothesis may be generalized
at least to members of American culture with some degree of con-
fidellcze. Previous investigators have, in fact, grouped all of these
rflea-sures together as roughly comparable indices of self concept

stability and self-esteem (15. 50)-

(89)

Corroboration of this hypothesis suggests that a subject
with high and stable self concept minimizes incongruities between
the person he thinks he is and the conception which he believes
others have of him. Corroboration of the previous hypothesis,
Hypothesis IV, indicates that self concept level and stability is
associated with recognition of one's social stimulus value. Evi-
dence from testing hypothesis I and II on the other hand indicates
that self concept level is associated with parental, particularly
paternal acceptance, and with subjective measures of group
acceptance. Integrating these findings leads to the conclusion
that subjects with high and stable self concepts generally per-
ceive themselves as others perceive them, and do so realistically,
because they are accepted socially and therefore have less need to
distort their own social stimulus value. Furthermore, because
they are well accepted socially, they also interact more frequent-
ly than subjects with low and unstable self concepts, and consequent-
ly have more Opportunity to appraise their social acceptability
accurately. These social contacts also enable a subject to adjust
his private self concept to social reality in terms of concrete social

achievements and in terms of less tangible, affective parameters.

(90)

The foregoing concepts describe a benign cycle Of intrapsychic and
interpersonal relatedness. Analogous concepts would also seem to
be applicable in describing vicious cycles of interpersonal withdraw-
al, rejection, and intrapsychic disturbance.

It is well to remember that the idea of personality structure
based almost entirely on interpersonal relations which is generally
accepted today was first exPressed as radical doctrine by George
Herbert Mead, less than thirty years ago (53). EmPirically, how-
ever, the very ubiquity of numerous, complex relationships between
inner eXperience and social behavior poses rather difficult procedur-
al questions for determining what the nature and direction of the
cause-effect relationships are.

Before closing the discussion of Hypothesis V, it is well to
note that the highest correlations of the hypothesis obtain between
level and stability of self concept ratings and discrepancies between
subject's self concepts and the concepts they believe their fathers
have Of them. Thus, stable subjects in general, see themselves as
they think their fathers see them while unstable subjects, on the
whole, see themselves quite differently from the way they think

fathers see them. This finding cross—validates data obtained from

(91)

previous research (39). At the same time it complements data ob-
tained from testing Hypothesis I which indicates that actual father
acceptance correlates more significantly than mother acceptance
with self concept level and stability. Harmony between the view a
male adolescent has of himself and the view he believes his father
has of him, and actual acceptance by his father, is more important
than comparable congruence of self concept and acceptance by mother
or peers for a stable self concept and effective interpersonal relation-
ships. This finding takes on added significance in view of the possib-
ly exaggerated importance which recent writers have placed on the
role of mother in the American Home.

Finally, Hypothesis V also indicates that the measure of self
concept stability "Temporal Discrepancy” is more closly associated
with measures of parent-self and peer-self discrepancy than measures
Of self concept level. From the discussion Of Hypothesis IV, it will
be recalled that this finding suggests parent-self and peer-self dis-
crepancy measures function as measures of inner consistency, or
stability, ‘while the measures of self concept level are considered

measures of self-esteem (50).

XI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, CRITICISMS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Additional Findings

 

The effect of individual differences in age and intelli-
gence on exPerimental predictions has been briefly discussed
but their effect on various types of experimental measures
still remains to be noted. Thus, Table 2 indicates that both
age and intelligence correlate significantly with ”Private Real
Self Concept", a measure of self concept level, while age alone
correlates negatively and significantly with the measure Of self
concept stability, "Temporal Discrepancy". These findings
suggest a general tendency for the level and consistency Of self-
ratings to increase with age - at least within the rather critical
deve10pmental period sampled by this study. The period of tur-
bulent adolescence reflects itself in these findings\by a fluctua-

ting and unfavorable self concept in the earlier years of this

difficult period.

Intelligence correlates significantly with only three other

measures, ”Perceived Father-Real Self Concept Discrepancy",

(92)

(93)

”Perceived Intra-Parent Discrepancy", and ”Actual Mother-
Perceived Mother Discrepancy". More intelligent subjects
therefore tend to be more accurate in predicting how their
mothers perceive them, eXpress less discrepancy between
their own concepts of themselves and their believed fathers'
view of themselves, and perceive less discrepancy between
the concept their mothers and the concept their fathers have of
them. In general then, there is a tendency for more intelli-
gent subjects to rate themselves more accurately and consist-
ently from the points of view of each of their parents. However,
higher and more consistent correlations obtain between level and
stability of self—ratings and accuracy and consistency of self-rat-
ings from parents' point Of view than between intelligence and the
latter two measures. Thus, the crucial variable in achieving
accurate and consistent self-ratings from parents' point Of view
is self concept stability and self—esteem. Intelligence also affects
test performance though to a lesser degree.

By referring again to Table 2 it may be noted that while
intelligence correlates significantly with only four exPerimental

measures, age is found to have a significant relation with thirteen

(94)

exPerimental measures. Age also correlates negatively and
significantly with intelligence in the exPerimental group. One
typical characteristic of this group is the fact that older boys

are somewhat less intelligent than younger boys. Age also
correlates significantly and negatively with all of the measures

Of parent-self and peer-self discrepancy. A consistent trend

is thereby noted for older subjects to express greater consist-
ency and stability in self-ratings than younger subjects. Age
correlates negatively and significantly with ”Actual Mother-
Mother-Ideal Discrepancy” and "Father-Father-Ideal Discrep-
ancy". As children grow older their parents apparently grow

less critical of their failure to live up to parental ideals. This
finding is consistent with previously noted positive correlations
between age and self concept stability. Younger boys are less
stable and less consistent in their self concepts probably because
their parents are more critical Of them in perceiving more discrep—
ancy between the way they are and their exPectations for them.
Thus, the difficulties of adolescent deve10pment reveal themselves

intrapsychically in self concept instability as well as inter-per-

(95)

sonally in parents' critical appraisals of the early adolescent.

Still referring to Table 2, it is noted that age also cor—
relates significantly with all measures of accuracyin antici-
pating parentsI and peers' views and acceptance of self. Again,
it will be recalled that partialcorrelation which nullifies the
effect Of age on the relationships between the latter measures and
measures of self concept level and stability indicates that the
primary relationship is between self concept stability and accuracy
in anticipating parents' and peers! concepts of self.

The Obtained relations between measures of accuracy in
estimating parents' and peers! concepts of one ts self and age
however, indicate that age is also a significant factor in this type
of performance. It is interesting to find that age is a more signi—
ficant factor than intelligence for accurately anticipating one's
stimulus value on parents and peers. Experience would thus
seem to outweigh intelligence in enabling one to recognize his
effect on parents and peers.

Finally, age correlates positively and significantly with
"Actual Group Acceptance". Not only are Older boys therefore
actually better accepted by peers than younger boys, but they

also know more exactly where they stand in relation to parents

(96)

and peers. In this the data point to still another source of
difficulty in the life of the young adolescent, i. e. , low status
in the peer group, and relative inexPerience in knowing this

social stimulus value.

Criticisms:

 

The most Obvious Objection that might be levelled
against this study is the relatively small number of fathers
engaged in it. This may be said to argue against the confidence
with which the conclusions may be generalized to other pOpulations.
It may be pointed out against this Objection that virtually all of the
results turned out in the predicted directions. Furthermore, the
results obtained from correlations based on mothers' ratings
which comprised a considerably larger group than the fathers,
generally parallel the results Obtained with subjects' fathers. In-
sofar as the relative unreSponsiveness of fathers would seem to be
a function of the group's rural, working class lack of SOphistica-
tion this would seem to be a disadvantage with positive as well

as negative asPects. An unintentional merit Of this study

(97)

is that it deals with a large and significant portion of our pOpu-
lation; rural, working-class children and adults, on which very

little psychological data is thus far available.

Objections might also be raised against the fact that
only about one third of the parents' questionnaires were com-
pleted in the presence of the exPerimenter thereby diminishing
confidence that the rating-sheets were completed independently,
and by the parent in question. Defense of this procedure is the
progmatic one that the results, nevertheless, proved to be con-
sistently significant and that no alternative method was avail—
able. (Future investigators might benefit from the suggestion
that inexPensive rewards, distributed after subjects' partici-
pation might serve as effective motivation with individuals at

this sociO-economic level.)

Furthermore, attempting to evaluate parents' attitudes
toward their sons by brief methods of trait rating might be criti—
cized as being altogether tOO superficial to yield a valid picture

of parents‘ real conscious and unconscious feelings toward their

(98)

children. An intensive study of parent-child relationships is be-
yond the intended sc0pe Of this study. Depth interviews and the
application Of projective methods to study the attitudes and
effect of parents on their children may be exPected to yield
information Of an entirely different order from that Obtained in
this study, without necessarily invalidating the obtained findings.
Although the rating scale was not devised Specifically for the
purpose of investigating parental acceptance its reliability and
validity as a self-rating inventory is well established by this
study and a number Of earlier investigations (15, 39,50). In
addition, the significance and consistency of the obtained results
indicate that even a written questionnaire with a high degree of

”face - validity" offers interesting and accessible research data.

In discussing Hypothesis II failure to obtain a clear-cut
relation between self—ratings and actual peer acceptance was
attributed primarily to the wide age and grade range of the ex-
perimental group. A somewhat different technique was also
used in Obtaining the sociometric data than that of earlier inve sti-

gations in this area. It is felt that failure to Obtain results com-

(99)

parable with previous findings is a function of the group's
diverse age and grade levels rather than a function Of method-

ological differences.

A further criticism previously alluded to is that an ex-
perimental design which makes use of correlation coefficients
does not permit assertion of a causal relationship between vari-
ables or of the direction of causality between them. To achieve
this aim exPeriments using a stimulus-reSponse (S - R) design
are needed rather than the reSponse-re Sponse (R - R) designs
almost exclusively employed in this area. One of the few S - R
type eXperiments in this area is that Of Benjamins in which
self concept ratings are used to predict the direction of change
in estimates Of performance on an intelligence test following
suggestion by an authority figure (9). His study also represents a
bridge between two previously unrelated types of studies, namely,

level Of asPiration studies and self concept exPeriments.

An eXperimental design which produces a large number of
correlation coefficients is also Open to the criticism that repeated

use of the same statistic may Obscure qualitative differences in

(100)

relationship between measures. Although some scattergrams
were plotted to determine whether the assumptions underlying the
use of Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient were
met, and although previous investigations have Obtained con-
sistent results using the same statistic, Block and Thomas obtain-
ed a curvilinear relationship between exPressed self-satisfaction
and personal adjustment (12). Whereas this study is an extensive
investigation of the relationship between numerous variables,
further studies might explore intensively the exact nature of the

relationships between relevant variables in this area.

Suggestions for Further Research:

 

A few research suggestions included in this section may
have been mentioned elsewhere but they are restated more ex—
plicitly here:

1) The emphasis of our contemporary democratic Psycho-
logy leans to the environmental side of the ancient heredity-environ-
ment dichotomy of personality determinants. In keeping with this

emphasis, research, including this study, has occupied itself

(101)

exclusively with environmental determinants and concomitants

of the self concept.

Winston Churchill has said that one of the most power-

ful incentives to future success is an unhappy childhood (73).
While it. surely requires a person of extraordinary inborn

talents to conquer adversity in early life, further research might
do well to study intensively the personalities of those exceptional
rejected children who nevertheless deve10p into self-reSpecting,
productive adults. ‘ As longitudinal studies of entire families are
launched the interaction between environmental and hereditary
factors, which produce such extremes as the schizoPhrenics or
the "drifters" on the one hand, and the creative individuals on
the other, will be systematically studied. Gluecks‘ recent
success in applying Sheldon's body types to a large group of
juvenile Offenders suggest one approach to the question of hereditary
factors in subjects who deve10p adequate self concepts in the face

of strong, negative environmental forces (65).

2) A less ambitious program than the previous suggestion

would deal with the relation between parents' self-esteem and

(102)

stability and the self-esteem and stability of their children.

The hypothesis to be tested would state: positive and significant
correlations obtain between the level and stability of parents'
self concept ratings and their ratings of their children, and
between parents' self concept ratings and their children's self
concept ratings. Such a study might use the instruments and
exPerimental design of this study. Some preliminary steps in

that direction have been taken by this writer.

3) One of the most interesting findings Obtained in this
study indicates that paternal acceptance produces exPectation of
greater male peer acceptance and more accurate social percep-
tion while maternal acceptance produces greater actual male peer
acceptance. This finding seems to have important implications
concerning the effect of early patterns of family relationships on
extra-familial, adult interpersonal ties and bears further investi-
gation. Study of the general climate and pattern Of family rela-
tionships and the effect of these patterns on later interpersonal
relationships would seem to be a natural, direct, and yet unattempt-
ed means of testing numerous psychoanalytic concepts, such as

transference, identification, oedipal conflicts, etc.

(103)

4) Related to the previous suggestion is the study of
sex differences in family relationships which produce masculine
and feminine personality‘differences. This suggestion is derived
from Obtained differences between measures of paternal and
maternal acceptance, and Helper's data based on male and female
subjects (31). While the previous suggestion is aimed at re-
vealing individual differences among males and females, and
is'therefore idiographic in its approach, this suggestion is
aimed at revealing nomothetic, sex-linked characteristics. A
tentative hypothesis emerges from this study, Helper's findings,
and common observation: girls' greater social awareness and
empathy, i. e. , freedom from rigidity in assuming the viewpoint of
others in social interactions, is related to a tendency to form less
intense identification with the mother and instead to deve10p multiple
identifications, than in the case of boys who identify primarily with

their fathers .

5) A number of hypotheses may be tested with the data
obtained from this study:
(a.) POpular subjects perceive peer members in a

generally more positive light than less pOpular subjects.

(104)

(b) Subjects who select each other on sociometric
rating scales have more similar self concept ratings than peer
members who neither accept nor reject one another.

(c.) Classmates' estimate of a subject's intelli-
gence and pOpularity correlate significantly with objective mea-
sures of these characteristics such as intelligence quotients and

sociometric measures of group acceptance.

XII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Fifty— six male adolescents in the seventh through
twelfth grades of a rural school completed seven self concept
rating scales from their Own vieWpOint and the poirls of view
of parents and peers, a measure of defensiveness, and socio—
metric acceptance - rejection scales. To Obtain measures of
parental acceptance forty-one mothers and twenty-five fathers
c00perated in rating the subjects from two points of view on
scales identical to the self concept ratings. Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficients were computed to test a number
of hypotheses Operationally exPressed in terms of correlations
between measures derived from the parent ratings, self concept

ratings, and sociometric scales.

The results indicate that the level and stability of self
concept ratings is significantly associated with paternal acceptance
and to a lesser degree with maternal acceptance. Level and
stability of self concept ratings is also significantly associated
with perceived measures Of peer acceptance but not with actual

measures Of peer acceptance or with accuracy of social percep-

(105)

(106)

tion. Actual peer acceptance also correlates with measures Of
maternal acceptance while paternal acceptance is associated
with measures of exPected peer acceptance and accuracy of
social perception. Level and Stability Of self concept ratings
is consistently and significantly associated with accuracy in
perceiving the self as parents and peers perceive it. Finally,
high and stable self concept ratings are positively associated

with congruence between a subject's private self concept and

the concepts which he believes parents and peers have of him.

While defensiveness, as it is measured in this study,
was not found to correlate significantly with any self concept
rating measures, age, and to a lesser degree, intelligence,
correlated with measures of self concept level, parental accept-
ance, peer acceptance, and measures Of ability to perceive the
self from parents' and peers' points of view. However, nullifying
the effects of age and intelligence on predicted correlations by
partial correlationsleft the eXperimentaI findings essentially

unchanged. Measures of self concept level and stability were

compared and a tentative conclusion was reached that test-re-

(107)

test reliability is a measure of intrapsychic stability while the
level Of self concept ratings is a measure Of interpersonal adequacy
although both are statistically and psychologically related con-

cepts.

Suggestions for further research dealing with hereditary
factors contributing to self concept adequacy, study of the re-
lationship between patterns of familial relationships and later
patterns of social interact'nns, study of personality differences
between the sexes in terms of single and multiple identifica-
tions, and criticisms of the study, were presented in the final

section Of the study.

BIB LIOGRAPHY

l. Adler, G. , "Notes Regarding the Dynamics of the Self”,
Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 1951, 24, 97-107.

 

2. Allport, G. W. , "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology",
Psychol. Rev., 1943, 50, 451-478

 

3. American Psychological Association, Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association, Washington:
Aiithor, 1957.

 

 

4. Anderson, Camilla M. , "The Self-Imsge: A Theory of the
Dynamics of Behavior”, Ment. Hyg., N. Y., 1952, 36,
227-244.

5. Asch, S. E., Social Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall,
1952.

 

 

6. Ausubel, D. P. , 8: Schiff, H. M. , "Some Intrapersonal and
Interpersonal Determinants Of Individual Differences in
Sociempathic Ability Among Adolescents”, J., Soc. Psychol. ,
1955, 41, 39-56.

 

7. Bakan, D. , "A Reconsideration of the Problem of IntrOSpection”,
Psychol. Bull., 1954, 51, 105-118.

 

8. Balint, Alice, "Identification”, Yearb. Psychoanal. , 1945, 1,
317-338.

 

9. Benjamins, J. , "Changes in Performance in Relation to
Influence upon Self- Conceptualization”, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Ohio State Univer. , 1949.

 

 

10. Berger, E. M. , ,"The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance
of Self-and ExPressed Acceptance of Other", J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 778-782.

 

 

ll. Bills, R. E. , "Self-Concepts and Rorschach Signs of Depression",
J. Consult. Psychol., 1954, 18, 135-137.

 

12. Block, J. 8: Thomas, H. , "Is Satisfaction with Self a Measure
of Adjustment”, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1955, 51,
254-259.

 

(108)

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

(109)

Boring, E. G. , A History of ExPerimental Psychology.
New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1950.

 

Brodbeck, A. J. , & Perlmutter, H. V. , "Self-Dislike as a
Determinant of Marked Ingroup-Outgroup Preferences, ”
J. Psychol.. 1954, 38, 271-280.

Brownfain, J. J. , ”Stability Of the Self- Concept as a Dimen-
sion of Personality", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1952,
47, 597-6060

 

Butler, J. M. , & Haigh G. V. , "Changes in the Relation
Between Self- Concepts and Ideal Concepts Consequent
upon Client-Centered Counseling". In C. R. Rogers &
R. F. Dymond (Eds. ), Psychotherapy and Personality
Change. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press, 1954.

 

Cameron, N. A. , The Psychology of Behavior Disorder 3.
New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.

 

Cartwright, D. S. , "Self-Consistency as a Factor Affecting
Immediate Recall", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1956,
52, 213-218.

 

Chein, I. , "The Awareness Of Self and the Structure of the
Ego", Psycho. Rev., 1944-51, 304-314.

 

Cowen, E. L. , "The ‘Negative Self-Concept' as a Personality
Measure", J. Consult. Psychol., 1954, 18, 138-142.

 

Ewing, T. N. , "Changes in Attitude during Counseling",

J. Counsel. Psychol., 1954, 1, 232-239.

 

Festinger, L. 8: Huth, H. A., "An Experimental Investigation
of the Effect Of Unstable Interpersonal Relations in a
Group", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1954, 49, 513-522.

 

Fey, W. F. , "Acceptance by Others and Its Relation to
Acceptance of Self and Others: a Revaluation", J. Ab-
norm. Soc. Psychol., 1955, 50, 274-276.

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

(110)

Forest, Ilse, ”The Libido Concept", Yearb. Psychoanal. ,
1948, 4, 61-69.

 

Forlano, G. , 8: Wrightstone, J. W. , "Sociometric and Self-
Descriptive Technics in Appraisal Of Pupil Adjustment",
Sociometry, 1951, 14, 340-350.

 

Ge sell, A. L. , Infancy and Human Growth. New York:
Macmillan, 1928.

 

Goldstein, K. , The Organism. New York: Merican Book, 1939.

 

Guilford, J. P. , Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

 

 

Hanlon, T. , Hofstaetter, P. , 8: O'Connor, J. , ”Congruence
of Self-and Ideal Self in Relation to Personal Adjustment",
J. Consult. Psychol., 1954, 18, 215-218.

 

Halpern, H. M., ”Empathy, Similarity, and Self-Satisfaction",
J. Consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 449-452.

 

Helper, M. , ”Learning Theory and the Self-Concept", J. Abnorm.

 

Soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 184-194.

 

Hilgard, E. R. , ”Human Motives and the Concept of the Self",
Amer. Psychologist, 1949, 4, 374-382.

Hillson, J. S. , 8t Worchel, P1,, ”Self-Concept and Defensive
Behavior in the Maladjusted”, J. Consult. Psychol. , 1957,
21, 83-88.

 

Holt, R. R. , "The Accuracy of Self-Evaluations: Its Measure-
ments and some of its Personological Correlates",
J. Consult. Psychol., 1951, 15, 95-102.

 

James, W. , The Principles of Psychology. New York:
Henry Holt, 1890.

 

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

(111)

Jersild, A. T. , In Search of Self. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia Univer. , 1952.

 

Jourard, S. M., 8: Remy, R. M., "Perceived Parental Atti-
tudes, the Self, and Security", J. Consult. Psychol.,
1955, 19, 364-366.

 

Kates, S. L., 8: Jordan, R. M. , "The Social Stimulus
Self and Self-Image Related to Personality and Psycho-
therapy", J. Soc. Psychol., 1955, 42, 137-146.

 

Katz, I. S. , "A Study of the Stability of the Self- Concept and
its Relationship to Sociometric Status and Sociometric
Perception”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State Univer. , 1956.

 

Kohler, W. , Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright, 1947.

 

LaFon, F. E. , ”The Relationship Between Behavior on the
Rorshach Test and a Measure of Self-Acceptance, "
Psychol. Monogr., 1954, 68, NO. 10 (Whole No. 381).

Langford, C. M. , 8: Ahn, O. W. , "A Comparison of Parent
Judgements and Children‘s Feelings Concerning the
Self-Adjustment and Social Adjustment of Twelve-year-
old Children", J. Genet. Psychol., 1954, 85, 39-46.

 

Lazowick, L. M. , "On the Nature of Identification”, J. Abnorm.

 

Soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 175-183.

 

Lecky, P. , Self Consistency. New York: Island Press, 1945.

 

Lee, Dorothy, "Notes on the Conception of Self Among the
Wintu Indians", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psyphol” 1950, 45
538-543.

 

Litwinski, L. , "Toward the Reinstatement of the Concept of
the Self", Brit. J. Psychol., 1951, 42, 246-249.

 

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

(112)

Lundy, R. M. , Katkowsky, W. , "Self Acceptability and
Descriptions of Sociometric Choices", J. Abnorm. Soc.
Psychol., 1955, 51, 260-262.

 

Macleod, R. B. , ”Perceptual Constancy and the Problem
of Motivation," Canad. J. Psychol. , 1949, 3, 57-66.

 

May, R. , Man's Search for Himself. New York: Norton, 1953.

 

McGehee, T. P. , "The Stability Of the Self- Concept and Self-
Esteem”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State Univer. , 1956.

 

McIntyre, C. J. , "Acceptance by Others and Its Relation to
Acceptance of Self and Others”, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.
1952, 47, 624-625.

 

McQuiti'. y, L. L. "A Measure Of Personality Integration in
Relation to the Concept of Self", J. Pers. , 1950, 18,
461-482.

Mead, G. H., Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Univers. of
Chicago, 1937.

 

Mullahy, P. , Oedipus Myth and Complex. New York: Hermitage,
1948.

 

Murphy, G. , Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and
Structure. New York: Harper, 1947.

 

 

Onwake, K. T. , ”The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and
Acceptance of Others shown by Three Personality Inventories”,
J. Consult. Psychol. , 1954, 18, 443-449.

 

Piaget, J. , The Language and Thought of the Child. New York:
Meridian, 1955.

 

Phillips, E. L. ,"Attitudes Toward Self and Others: A Brief
Questionnaire Report", J. Consult. Psychol., 1951, 15,
79—81.

 

Rogers, C. R. , ”Some Observations on the Organization of
Personality”, American Psychologist, 1947, 2, 358-368.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

(113)

Rogers, C. R., Client-Centered Therapy. New York: Houghton
Mifflin, 1951.

 

Rosen, E. , "Self-Appraisal, Personal Desirability and Perceived
Social De sirability Of Personality Traits", J. Abnorm. Soc.
Psychol., 1956, 52, 151-158.

 

Rudikoff, E. C. , "A Comparative Study of the Changes in the Con-
cepts of the Self, the Ordinary Person, and the Ideal in Eight
Cases". In C. R. Rogers 8: R. F. Dymond (Eds.), Psycho-
therapy and Personality Change. Chicago: Univer. Chicago
Press, 1954.

 

Sarbin, T. R. , 8: Rosenberg, B. G. , ”Contributions to Role-
Taking: IV. A Method for Obtaining a Qualitative Estimate
Of the Self", J. Soc. Psychol., 1955, 42, 71-81.

 

Secord, P. F. 8: Josrard, S. M. , "The Appraisal of Body-Cathexis:
Body-Cathexis and the Self", J. Consult. Psyphol” 1953, 17,
343-347.

 

Sheldon, W. H. , Mesomorphe in Mischief. Contemp. Psychol.
1957, 2, 125-126.

 

Sherif, M. , 8: Cantril, H. , The Psychology of Ego-Involvements.
New York: Wiley, 1947.

 

Sommers, V. S. , Parental Attitudes and the Adolescent Blind.
New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1944.

 

Stephenson, W. , The Study of Behavior. Chicago: Univer.
Chicago Press, 1953.

 

Sullivan, H. S. , The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
New York: Norton, 1953.

 

Symonds, P. M. , The Ego and the Self. New York: Appleton -
Century - Crofts, 1951.

 

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

(114)

Taylor, C. , 8: Combs, A. W. , "Self Acceptance and Adjust-
ment", J. Consult. Psychol., 1952, 16, 89-91.

 

Taylor, D. M. , ”Changes in Self- Concept Without Psycho-
therapy", J. Consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 205-209.

 

Taylor, R. L., Winston Churchill. New York: Doubleday,
1953.

 

Webb, W. B. , ”Self-Evaluation Compared with Group Eva-
luations", J. Consult. Psychol., 1952, 16, 305-307.

 

Webb, W. B. , "Self-Evaluations, Group Evaluations, and
Objective Measures", J. Consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 210-212.

 

Wittich, J. J. , ”The Generality of the Predictions Of Self-
Reports”, J. Consult. Psychol., 1955, 19, 445-448.

Woodworth, R. S. , Contemporary Schools Of Psychology.
New York: Ronald Press, 1931.

 

Zimmer, H. , ”Self-Acceptance and Its Relation to Con-
flict", J. Consult. Psychol., 1954, 18, 447-449.

 

Zuckerman, M. , 8: Monashkin, I. , "Self-Acceptance and
PsychoPathology”, J. Consult.1PsychOl., 1957, 21,
145-148.

 

APPENDIXES

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELF RATING

We want to find out what kind of person YOU REALLY THINK YOU
ARE. We are, therefore, asking you to evaluate yourself on various
personality traits. Since YOU will be rating YOURSELF, it will be
necessary to follow these instructions carefully in order to achieve
the greatest degree of accuracy.

1. You are to rate yourself cn each item of the inventory
according to a lO—point scale. "I" is the lov or least desirable
point on the scale and "10" is the high or most desirable point.

In evaluating your position on the scale on any trait, compare your-
self to those in your class.

2. Use a fresh approach on each item. Your rating on one trait
should not influence your rating on other traits. There is no reason
why you might not see yourself low on some items, high on others, and
in—between on still others. PeOple, after all, rarely stand uniformly
high or low in all qualities.

3. You are asked to rate yourself on the inventory several times,
each time following the different instructions on the rating blanks.
It is important that you make each set of ratings without referring to
the others. Therefore, after you have completed one set of ratings,
fold back the sheet and DO NOT REFER to it again when you make your
later ratings.

Your ratings will be of value only insofar as you are frank and
honest in evaluating yourself. Remember, these ratings will be kept
entirely confidential. You are not being evaluated by me in any
sense. You are simply evaluating yourself as a contribution to
psychological research and to your self—understanding. The results
will be reported in terms of the group and not by individuals. I
will be happy to discuss the results or any questions you might have
concerning this inventory with you privately.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

I
o
o
I
c
I
r 1

 

 

 

.SELF—RATING INVENTORY

Every person has a picture of himself or a way he sees himself. This
inventory consists of 20 traits which all people possess to a greater
or lesser degree. These traits are used by persons in order to point

this picture of themselves.

Only the extremes of each trait are des-

cribed. The low end, "1", describes in approximate terms the students
who stand lowest on a particular trait, while the high end, "10" des-
cribes the people who stand highest on the trait.

LOW END (1) —versus—

1. INTELLIGENCE
Is among the least bright of his
classmates. Is not especially
quick or alert in graSping
complicated ideas and tasks.

2. MATURITY
In many ways is "childish" and
seems younger than actual age.
Simply is not "grown-up". Is
among the least mature in the
group.

3. AT EASE SOCIALLY
Tends to be awkward and clumsy
in social situations; seems
embarrassed or shy in mixing
with classmates and adults.

4. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Is among those in the class who
are physically most homely or
plain-looking.

5. GENEROSITY
Tends to be selfish with money
and possessions; not helpful,
to others; self-centered and
thinks of self first.

6. CHEERFULNESS
Tends to be gloomy and "sour"
about life; is something of a
"wet-blanket" in social groups.

7. SINCERITY
Is insincere: you can't tell
whether or not he is kidding
or means what he says or does.

8. INITIATIVE
Is dependent upon others; has
trouble making up his mind;
seems to need reassurance and
support from others.

HIGH END (10)

Is among the most brilliant of his
class. Is alert, quick, and im-
aginative in understanding compli-
cated ideas and tasks.

Acts his age and is not at all
childish. Is among the most grown-
up and mature in his class.

Acts skillfully and smoothly in
social situations; is confident and
at ease in meeting and mixing with
classmates and adults.

Is among the physically most attrac—
tive in the class. Could be con-
sidered quite handsome or, if a
girl, beautiful.

Gives generously of possessions and
money; wants to help other people;
usually thinks first of the wel-
fare Of others.

Is very cheerful and optimistic
about things; tends to spread good
will in a group.

Is sincere in what he says and does:
you can always tell whether he is
being earnest or is kidding.

Is self-reliant; makes up own mind
without difficulty; does not lean
on others in situations where he
could act by himself.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Low END (1)
TRUSTFULNESS
Is suSpicious of others and
looks for hidden reasons; might
feel mistreated or disliked
without good reason.

ADAPTABLE

Is among the most stubborn in
the class. Sticks to own ideas
and ways of doing things even
though they may not be suitable
to the situation.

SPORTSMANSHIP

Can't take a joke; tends to hold
a grudge; is a poor loser and a
boastful winner.

INDIVIDUALITY

Conforms very closely to what
the class expects; is quite
conservative and cautious,
and afraid to be different.

SELF—UNDERSTANDING

Does not understand or recognize
his weak and strong points. Is
uncertain of own abilities and

not aware of personality handicaps.

INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX

Talks very little about opposite
sex. Does not use Opportunities
for contact and may avoid
association with opposite sex.

DEPENDABILITY

Is among the least reliable

in a number of ways. Might
fail to keep promises, appoint—
ments, or to return borrowed
things. Lacks a sense of
responsibility to others.

UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS

Tends to be indifferent and
blind to the needs and feelings
of others; doesn't understand
what makes other people "tick".

ACCEPTING ONESELF

Is very dissatisfied to be the
kind of person he is; wants very
much to be a different kind of
person; doesn't accept self.

HIGH END (10)

Trusts other people without being
fooled by them; gives people the
benefit of the doubt without looking
for hidden motives.

Is among the most readily adjust-
able to changing conditions; accepts
compromises and suggestions where
needed.

Can take a joke and give one; takes
victory and defeat in stride.

“xpresses feelings and opinions
easily and freely; is not a rebel
or a radical but is not afraid to
be different.

Understands own weak and strong
points especially well. Is well
aware Of his shortcomings and per~
sonality handicaps.

Associates a great deal and talks a
lot about the opposite sex. Well
aware of the Opposite sex and enjoys
being with them.

Is among the most dependable; can
be relied upon to meet promises and
to fulfil responsibilities to
others.

Is very aware of the needs and feel—
ings of other people and shows good
understanding of their personality.

Is generally pleased (but not con—
ceited) about being the person he
is; accepts himself; feels no need
to be like a different person.

18.

19.

20.

Low END (1)

POPULARITY

Has very few close friends and
few acquaintances, tends to be
disliked by others

PERSISTENCE

Does not "stick" to his work;
delays or treats lightly his
assignments and under-takings.

SELF-CONTROL
Loses temper easily; becomes
upset when angered or cannot
get his way.

HIGH END (10)

Has many friends and acquaintances;
is among the best liked in the
class.

Works consistently, attentively

and industriously at any task under-
taken or assigned, without slighting
or postponing the task.

Has very good control of temper
and emotions; calmly attempts to
find solutions to frustrating events.

Rating Sheet No. 1

Initials:

 

lst

Birthdate:

 

Middle Last

 

Mo.

 

Day Year

Now, keeping the general instructions in mind, rate yourself on each of

the items making up the inventory as YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE.

Make the most

accurate estimate of HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF and write the numerical scale value
(from 1 to 10) of this self-rating on the little line Opposite each trait name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.
15.

16.

 

17.

18.

 

l9.

 

20.

SELF-RATING INVENTORY
INTELLIGENCE
MATURITY
AT EASE SOCIALLY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
GENEROSITY
CHEERFULNESS
SINCERITY Middle
INITIATIVE
TRUSTFULNESS
ADAPTABLE
SPORTSMANSHIP
INDIVIDUALITY
SELF-UNDERSTANDING
INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX
DEPENDABILITY
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
ACCEPTING ONESELF
POPULARITY
PERSISTENCE

SELF-CONTROL

RATING SCALE

 

In the
School

top 10% of your High
Class

 

In the

Second 10% from the top

 

In the

Third 10% from the top

 

In the

Fourth 10% from the top

 

In the
Middle

10% just above the

 

In the
Middle

10% just below the

 

In the
Bottom

Fourth 10% from the

 

In the
Bottom

In the
Bottom

Third 10% from the

Second 10% from the

 

In the

 

bottom 10% of your

High School Class

 

PLEASE DO NOT REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS RATINGS FOR GUIDANCE

Rating Sheet No. 2

Most people are not entirely certain as to exactly where they stand
on these traits as compared to other people. We still want to know HOW YOU
SEE YOURSELF, but with this difference. This time rate yourself taking a
favorable view of yourself. Give yourself the benefit of any reasonable
doubt you might have on any trait and rate yourself the HIGHEST THAT YOU
REALISTICALLY THINK YOU ARE on that trait. Remember, be realistic in your
favorable self-rating. Do not, without careful consideration, give your—
self a high rating on every trait.
NOTE: On some traits, you may see yourself as higher than any member in
the class. In this case, you may use an "11" to rate your standing on that
trait instead of a "10".

SELF-RATING INVENTORY RATING SCALE

1. INTELLIGENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. MATURITY lO — In the top 10% of your
High School Class
3. AT EASE SOCIALLY
9 In the Second 10% from the top
4. PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS top
5. GENEROSITY 8 In the Third 10% from the top
6. CHEERFULNESS 7 In the Fourth 10% from the
top
7. SINCERITY “
6 In the 10% just above the
8. INITIATIVE Middle Middle
9. TRUSTFULNESS 5 In the 10% just below the
Middle
10. ADAPTABLE — _
4 In the Fourth 10% from the
11. SPORTSMANSHIP Bottom
12. 'INDIVIDUALITY 3 In the Third 10% from the
' Bottom
13. SELF—UNDERSTANDING ” "
2 In the Second 10% from the
14. INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX Bottom
15. DEPENDABILITY I In the Bottom 10% of your
High School Class
16. UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
l7. ACCEPTING ONESELF
18. POPULARITY
19. PERSISTENCE
20. SELF-CONTROL

PLEASE DO NOT REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS RATINGS FOR GUIDANCE

Rating Sheet No. 3

This time, when you are uncertain as to exactly where you stand on each
trait as compared to other people in the group, rate yourself taking an un-

favorable view of yourself.
able doubt you might have on any trait.
THAT YOU REALISTICALLY THINK YOU ARE on that trait.

realistic. Do not, without careful consideration, give yourself a low rating

on every item.

NOTE:
group.

On some items, you may see yourse
In this case, you may use a zero

item instead of a "l".

SELF RATING INVENTORY

l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTELLIGENCE

MATURITY

AT EASE SOCIALLY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
GENEROSITY

CHEERFULNESS

SINCERITY

INITIATIVE

TRUSTFULNESS

ADAPTABLE
SPORTSMANSHIP
INDIVIDUALLY
SELF—UNDERSTANDING
INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX
DEPENDABILITY
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
ACCEPTING ONESELF
POPULARITY

PERSISTENCE

SELF—CONTROL

Do not give yourself the benefit of any reason—

Instead, rate yourself the LOWEST

But

remember to be

If as lower than any member in the group.
(O) to rate your standing on that

10

O\

RATING

SCALE

 

In the
School

top 10% of your High
Class

 

In the

Second 10% from the top

 

In the

Third 10% from the top

 

In the

Fourth 10% from the tOp

 

In the
Middle

10% just above the

 

In the
Middle

10% just below the

 

In the
Bottom

Fourth 10% from the

 

In the
Bottom

Third 10% from the

 

In the
Bottom

Second 10% from the

 

 

In the

Bottom 10% of your

High School Class

 

PLEASE DO NOT REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS RATING FOR GUIDANCE

Rating Sheet No. 4

This time we want you to estimate as accurately as you can HOE THE BOYS
This is how you believe OTHERS

IN YOUR CLASS WOULD RATE YOU on all the items.

OF YOUR AGE GROUP would see you.

SELFeRATING INVENTORY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTELLIGENCE

MATURITY

AT EASE SOCIALLY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
GENEROSITY

CHEERFULNESS

SINCERITY

INITIATIVE

TRUSTFULNESS

ADAPTABLE
SPORTSMANSHIP
INDIVIDUALITY
SELF-UNDERSTANDING
INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX
DEPENDABILITY
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
ACCEPTING ONESELF
POPULARITY

PERSISTENCE

SELF-CONTROL

IO

RATING SCALE

 

In the
School

top 10% of your High
Class

 

In the
top

Second 10% from the

 

In the
top

Third 10% from the

 

In the
top

Fourth 10% from the

 

In the
Middle

10% just above the

 

In the
Middle

10% just below the

 

In the
Bottom

Fourth 10% from the

 

In the
Bottom

Third 10% from the

 

In the
Bottom

Second 10% from the

 

In the

 

Bottom 10% of your

'High School Class

 

PLEASE DO NOT REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS RATING FOR GUIDANCE

 

v a

Rating Sheet No. 5

This time we want you to estimate as accurately as you can HOW YOUR

MOTHER WOULD RATE YOU on all the items.

your MOTHER sees it.

SELF—RATING INVENTORY

 

INTELLIGENCE

MATURITY

AT EASE SOCIALLY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
GENEROSITY

CHEERFULNESS

SINCERITY

INITIATIVE

TRUTHFULNESS

ADAPTABLE
SPORTSMANSHIP
INDIVIDUALITY
SELF-UNDERSTANDING
INTEREST IN OPPOSITE sax
DEPENDABILITY
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
ACCEPTING ONESELF
POPULARITY

PERSISTLNOE

SELF—CONTROL

This is your self-picture as you believe

RATING SCALE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lO - In the top 10% of your High
School lass
9 — In the Second 10% from the
top
8 - In the Third 10% from the top
7 - In the Fourth 10% from the
top
6 ~ In the 10% just above the
Middle
5 — In the 10% just below the
[Middle
4 - In the Fourth 10% from the
Bottom
3 - In the Third 10% from the
Bottom
2 ~iIn the Second 10% from the
,Bottom
l _
l ~gIn the Bottom 10% of your

<High School Class
I

 

PLEASE DO NOT REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS RATINGS

FOR GUIDANCE

 

 

 

 

. ..
A I .
I . . » - A - ' ~ - . ~
) ' ' ‘ , . I .
,_ . . I‘ ' .. ' .lu
‘ .
. . v ' ‘ 0 " I
, ~ . . . . . I _ - ' t ‘
'.- ... l ‘ ’ O . . ‘ . I
. . , a - . - - ..._ ' g . - . ' '. v. -. . .- - . . »
.
r ' ..
4 . o A I
I - ‘ ~ - ' a t
V I u ' ‘ l ‘
. .A 1 . A
. . _..A . ‘ . . - v ' ..w ~ -
-V .-: .
. . ‘. j '
' . ' ~ : '6
. . ~ ‘ - o
. - ' . .
O x .4 -o ...
,n 1 ,‘ - A.,.
. . , a .
r
. .
. . .. . .
..
. . ii ‘ I
, . ‘ . o .
~ - ~ A .
__ I c’ ' . h
, . - ..' , .‘
l' ‘ U
.
o
. If- .
’ 1
I .
v v . . .
a ‘ . l
5 ‘ .
l
. . . A ' \
.
. ‘ D ' ‘
.
. .
. , .. . v , ,
t ' ’ , 0
V n .
. . . . .
- . . I. r
. A. .
. , v . . , ‘
. ' ‘ w ' 9
1 .
. ‘ I
. ~ . . .
4 ‘ I
- .., . . .I
. . l
I .
n I ' u ' u I
'
. . .. .. .
.~ . . o
I . . - - .
. . ...: ' , ‘
‘ . \ .1 ‘ . . A - 4 J v- . . . I
n . . ....a
, , ,. .
, ,
! ' ‘
r ‘ ', 9
. , .
. - u
. .. .
,
p
. r - ;

 

Rating Sheet No. 6

This time we want you to estimate as accurately as you can HOW YOUR FATHER

WOULD RATE YOU on all the items.

your FATHER sees it.

SELF—RAT ING INVENTORY

l.

 

2.

 

 

INTELLIGENCE

MATURITY

AT EASE SOCIALLY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
GENEROSITY
CHEERFULNESS

SINCERITY

INITIATIVE
TRUSTFULNESS

ADAPTABLE
SPORTSMANSHIP
INDIVIDUALITY
SELF-UNDERSTANDING
INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX
DEPENDABILITY
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
ACCEPTING ONESELF
POPULARITY

PERSISTENCE

SELF-CONTROL

10

This is your self—picture as you believe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATING SCALE

In the top 10% of yovr Higl
School Class

In the Second 10% from the
top

In the Third 10% from the
top

In the Fourth 10% from the
top

In the 10% just above the
Middle

In the 10% just below the
[Middle

In the Fourth 10% from the

 

 

 

 

Bottom

‘ In the Third 10% from the
Bottom
In the Second 10% from the
Bottom
In the Bottom 10% of your

High School Class

 

PLEASE DO NOT REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS RATINGS FOR GUIDANCE

a...

 

 

,"
..-
h
u-

c
n
v
.... - ..
.7 - ...-.
\
a
. . g o —
. . .-
... .....-
v
I“ - I ...
.1
“...—a"
r
1.
I

 

Initials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first middle —I;Et_
Birthdate
month day year
This time we want you to rate as you see
him on the following items.
RATING INVENTORY RATING SCALE
1. INTELLIGENCE lO - In the top 10% of your High
School Class
2. MATURITY 9 — In the Second 10% from the top
8 -'In the Third 10% from the top
3. ADAPTABLE 7 - In the Fourth 10%—from the top
6 - In the 10% just above the A
4. SPORTSMANSHIP Middle
. 5 ~ In the 16% just below the
5. DEPENDABILITY Middle___g
A - In the Fourth 10% from the
6. UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS Bottom
3 - In the Third 10% from the
7. POPULARITY Bottom
2 - In the Second 10% from the
8. PERSISTENCE Bottom
1 — In the Bottom 10% of your High
School Class

To answer the next two questions about

 

 

just circle

 

the number to the left of the rating scale item which most nearly answers the

question:

1. How well do you know him?

10. I know him better than any other boy.

9. I know him very well.

8. I know him well.

7. I know him better than most other boys in the class.

Middle 6. I know him just a little better than other boys in the class

5. I know him about the same as other boys in the class

4. I know just a little about him.

3. I know him just well enough to greet him.

2. I hardly know him

I. I don't know him at all

2. How well do you like him?

10. He is my best friend.

9. He is one of my best friends.
8. He is a very good friend

7. He is a good friend

6. He is a casual friend

5. He is neither a friend nor an enemy
4. I dislkike him a little

3. I dislike him a lot

2. I dislike him intensely

1. He is my enemy

Middle

 

Initials

Birthdate

Please place a check in one of the four columns, next to each of the

 

iiddle

Day

Last

Year

following twenty statements. On this sheet, too, try not to let your rating

of one item influence your rating of other items.

Almost Never

Once in:
A While

Often

Almost
Always

 

l. I sometimes disobey my parents

 

2. I sometimes say bad words or swear.

 

. I sometimes copy or cheat on schoolwork.

 

 

. I sometimes tell lies.

 

3
4. I sometimes am rude to other people.
5
6

. I sometimes make fun of other school—

 

mates.

7. I sometimes pretend to forget things
I am supposed to do.

 

8. I sometimes steal things when I know
I will be caught.

 

9. I sometimes fib to my classmates.

 

10. I sometimes pretend to be Sick to
get out of things. ‘

 

11. I sometimes am unkind to younger
children.

 

12. I sometimes am lazy and won't do my
work.

 

13. I sometimes tell dirty stories.

 

14. I sometimes cheat in games.

 

15. I sometimes am unruly at school.

 

16. I sometimes do not brush my teeth
on purpose.

 

17. I sometimes talk back to my mother.

 

18. I sometimes am mean to animals.

 

19. I sometimes waste my time when I
should be working.

 

20. I sometimes show off in front of
other fellows. I

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
.
.

 

. I I I c . 0
. I I k I
. . . . .. . r \ . . I ,
.
. . .. ....
o ..
~ -
... ..
I. y t
on n . . . .
.
. . 3 .
4' I
0. v .
. I .
. . a
.
i e
. l .,
.
I n
\ n
.5.
.
u r
a
I
O U
c . ._
.
I 0
.
n
I t I I I I u
v
m
. .
.
q a
- ~
I
_
u a
a
,
..

 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

We want to find out what kind of person YOU THINK YOUR SON IS. We are
therefore asking you to evaluate him on various personality traits. ‘In order
to achieve the greatest degree of accuracy, it will be necessary to follow
these instructions carefully.

, 1. You are to rate your son on each item of the inventory according to a 10—
point scale. "1" is the low or least desirable point on the scale, and "10" is
the high or most desirable point. In evaluating your sOn's position on the
scale on any trait, compare him with members of his class or his friends.

2. Please use a fresh approach on each item. Your rating on one trait should
not influence your rating on other traits. There is no reason why you might not
rate your son low on some items, high on others, and in-between on still others.
People, after all, rarely stand uniformly high or low in all qualities.

3. You are asked to rate your son twice on the inventory, each.time following
the different instructions on the rating blanks. It is important that you make
each set of ratings without referring to the others. Therefore, after you have
completed one set of ratings, please fold back the sheet and DO NOT REFER to
it again when you make your second ratings.

Your ratings will be of value only insofar as you are frank and honest in
evaluating your son. Remember, these ratings will be kept entirely confidential.
Your son is not being evaluated by me in any sense. Your evaluation serves as
a contribution to psychological research, while at the same time, it may in-
crease your understanding of your son and his self-awareness.

The results will be reported in terms of the group and not by individuals.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Rating Sheet No. 1

Please check one:
Mother
Father

Your son's initials

 

 

first middle last

Your son's Birthdate

 

month day year

Now, keeping the general instructions in mind, rate your son on each of the
items making up the inventory as YOU REALLY THINK HE IS.
estimate of HOW YOU SEE HIM and write the numerical scale value (from 1 to 10)
of this rating on the line opposite each trait name.

 

 

 

 

 

RATING INVENTORY
INTELLIGENCE
MATURITY
AT EASE SOCIALLY
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVLNESS
GENEROSITY
CHEERFULNESS
SINCERITY
INITIATIVE
TRUSTFULNESS
ADAPTABLE
SPORTSMANSHIP
INDIVIDUALITY
SELF—UNDERSTANDING
INTEREST IN OPPOSITE SEX
DEPENDABILITY
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
ACCEPTING ONESELF
POPULARITY
PERSISTENCE

SELF~CONTROL

10

Make the most accurate

RATING SCALE

 

In the
School

top 10% of your High
Class

 

In the

Second 10% from the top

 

In the

-—-

Third 10% from the top

 

In the

Fourth 10% from the top

 

In the
Middle

———..

10% just above the

 

In the
Middle

10% just below the

 

In the

 

Fourth 10% from the

 

 

 

 

 

Bottom

In the Third 10% from the
Bottom

In the Second 10% from the
Bottom

In the Bottom 10% of your

high School Class

 

Initials:

 

first Twaddle ' Lent

Birthdate:

Month

Day eer

Next to the nune oi eech boy on the following list write the number

of the ruin. ecele which indicates how well 101: think he liken [9“.

l.

2.
3.
4.
5

Hill

M.
.. 55.
56.
57.
58.

HH'

Subject'e Name
Subject'e Name
Subject'e Name
Subject'e Neme
Subject' e Neme

Subjeet'e Heme
Subject“ Nanne
Subject'eNeme
Subject'e Name
Subject'e Nme

10.

9.

7.

RATING SCALE

1 think he coneidere me his
but friend.

i think he considers me one
of Me beet friends.

I think he considere me e
very good friend.

I think he emeidere me e
good friend.

I think he coneidere me e
ceeunl friend.

I think he eeneidere me
neither e friend nor en enemy .

I think he dielikee me e little.
I think he dislikes me e lot.
I think he dislikes me intensely.

I think he coneidere me en
mmYe

ABSTRACT

Fifty-six male adolescents in the seventh through twelfth
grades of a rural school completed seven self concept rating
scales from their own viewpoint and the points of view of
parents and peers, a measure of defensiveness, and socio-
metric acceptance - rejection scales. To obtain measures of
parental acceptance forty-one mothers and twenty-five fathers
cooperated in rating the subjects from two pdints of view on
scales identical to the self concept ratings. Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficients were computed to test a number
of hypotheses operationally expressed in terms of correlations
between measures derived from the parent ratings, self concept

ratings, and sociometric scales.

The results indicate that the level and stability of self
concept ratings is significantly associated with paternal accept—
ance and to a lesser degree with maternal acceptance. Level 31d
stability of self concept ratings is also significantly associated
with perceived measures of peer acceptance but not with actual
measures of peer acceptance or with accuracy of social perception.
Actual peer acceptance also correlates with measures of maternal

acceptance while paternal acceptance is associated with measures

of expected poor acceptance and accuracy of social perception.
Level and Stability of self concept ratings is consistently and

Significantly associated with accuracy in perceiving the self
as parents and peers perceive it. Finally, high and stable self
c0ncept ratings are positively associated with congruence between

a subject's private self concept and the concepts which he believes

parents and peers have of him.

While defensiveness, as it is measured in this study, was
not found to correlate significantly with any self concept rat-
ing measures, age, and to a lesser degree, intelligence,
correlated with measures of self concept level, parental accept-
ance, peer acceptance, and measures of ability to perceive the
self from parents' and peers' points of view. However, nullifying
the effects of age and intelligence on predicted correlations by
partial correlations left the experimental findings essentially
unchanged. Measures of self concept level and stability were
compared and a tentative conclusion was reached that test-retest
reliability is a measure of intrapsychic stability while the
level of self concept ratings is a measure of interpersonal
adequacy although both are statistically and psychologically

related concepts.

Suggestions for further research dealing with hereditary
factors contributing to self concept adequacy, study of the
relationship between patterns of familial relationships and
later patterns of social interactions, study of personality
differences between the sexes in terms of single and multiple

identifications, and criticisms of the study, were presented

in the final section of the study.

"iwilim