51",:
1

THE STABILITY OF THE SELF-CONCEPT
AND SELF-ESTEEM

Thesis for fho Degree oI Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Thomas P. Mc Gehee
I956

 

1111.513

O~169

1111111111111 1111111111 11 11111111911181 1

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
The Stability
of the Self-Concept and Self-Esteem

presented by

Thomas P. McGehee

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_flxp__ degree in W

Carl 1'. Frost

Major professor

 

Date MarCh So 1956

 

THE STABILITY OF THE SELF-CONCEPT

.L‘ID SELF-ESTEEVI

B y

THOMAS P. MCGEHEE

A DISSERTiTION

Smeitted to the School of Graduate Studies
of
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1956

“'clig/5"7

'?I&§3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his indebtedness to Doctors Donald
M. Johnson and Alfred G. Dietze, members of his Guidance Committee,
for their aid and encouragement in the pursuit of this research.

Special thanks are due to Dr. Albert I. Rabin who initially
chaired the committee and under whose direction the pilot study was
undertaken and to Dr. Fredrick:Wickert who replaced Dr. Rabin as
chairman and was instrumental in guiding the study over the many
hurdles involved in the construction of the measuring instruments and
the collection of the data.

And last but scarcely least, Special thanks are due Dr. Carl
Frost for his willingness to undertake the guidance of a study already
given form and direction by others and for his many tactful yet
incisive criticisms and suggestions which have contributed much to
giving the manuscript what polish it may possess.

The author is indebted to Dr. Leo Katz for his willingness to
give a little of his limited time to discuss statistical problems
related to the design of the study.

Dr. John J. Brownfain offered valuable suggestions relative to
the design of the study.

Mrs. Marsha.Metcaff Bungo most welcomely assisted in the
preparation of the scatter diagrams.

Finally thanks are given to the principal, teachers and students
of Jackson High School who, by their wholehearted cooperation, made
this study possible.

sassasssesa

ii

A SPECIaL ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer is deeply indebted to his friend and fellow student,
Mr. Irving Katz, whose assistance at critical points in the study
deserves a detailed acknowledgment.

In repeated conversations the present writer and Mr. Katz found
that, in certain respects, their research interests coincided. It
was therefore decided to pool our experience and research tools and
use a common pool of subjects to the end that the research of each
would be supported by the findings and efforts of the other. 'we
worked out a design that would enable both to study their separate
areas of interest and yet be mutually supporting.

It is regretted that because of other demands upon his time
Mr. Katz found that he was unable to continue the close working re-
lationship after the initial scoring was completed. Thus his
association with this study came to an end at the point where the
initial scoring of the inventories was completed and where the
statistical work had yet to begin.

iii

 

" 1
The Stability of the Self-“oncept and Self-Esteem
Thomas P. McGehee

ABSTRACT

The present research was designed to investigate the relationship of
self-esteem to stability of the self-concept. In order to carry out this aim
it was necessary to study the effectiveness of various methods of measuring
the variables of self-esteem.and stability. .As a consequence of this study
it was hoped to provide a clearer delineation of what it is that is measured
by these devices. As a part of this problem an effort was made to develop
a.measure of self-concept stability that would be functionally independent
of self-esteem.

Three hypotheses were tested by the research. The first hypothesis
stated that self-esteem is the primary psychological dimension measured by
Brownfain'e index of self-concept stability. The second hypothesis was
a formulation of the relationship of self-esteem to self-concept stability.
It stated that those persons who have introjected or internalized contra-
dictory systems of valuation will have unstable self-concepts. The third
hypothesis dealt with the influence of ego-defensiveness on measures of
self-esteem. It was proposed that the measure of self-esteem.least influenced
by ego-defensiveness will be the most effective measure of self-esteem.

.Measures of the stability of the self-concept, of self-esteem, of
ego defensiveness, of disturbance in family relationships and sociometric
measures of adequacy in interpersonal relationships were administered to
81 graduating high school seniors. Information was also obtained concerning
the intellectual ability, scholastic competence and adjustment of the students
and the socio-econcmic status of the parents of the students. The above
variables were intercorrelated and the resulting matrix of intercorrelations
analyzed. Prior to collecting the data predictions were made as to the
direction of the relationships for each correlation obtained from the

intercorrelation of all the major variables. In addition hypotheses I and

III involved the making of predictions as to the relative.magnitudes of
the relevant correlation coefficients.

TWO measures of the stability of the self-concept were developed
that were completely free from contamination by the variable of self-esteem.
These were the measures of temporal stability and intraparent discrepancy.
The former is a.measure of the amount of change in the ratings.made of the
actual self over time. The latter is a measure of inconsistency of parental
attitudes toward the child. It is a.measure of the discrepancy between the
concept the student believes his mother has of him and the concept the student
believes his father has of him.

The three hypotheses the research investigated appeared to be strongly
supported by the results obtained. .As a by-product of the study support was
also found for the theoretical preposition that the stability of the self-
concept is a dimension of personality closely related to feelings of self-
esteam and to adjustment and interpersonal adequacy. An interpretation of
self-esteem.consistent with the results of the study was offered.

Because measures of self-concept stability which are based in part upon
a rating of the actual or true self seem.to be seriously contaminated by
self-esteem, the results of the study seemed to Justify question the adequacy
of the Rogerian self ideal-self discrepancy as a measure of self-concept
stability.

Ego defensiveness as measured by the K scale was not a critically
important variable in the study. There are hints however that there may be
some form.of defensiveness not measured by the K scale but related rather to
scale-economic status which entered into certain of the measures of self-esteem.
The results seem also to suggest the possibility that individual test-retest
measures of reliability of paper and pencil tests of personality may be good

measures of personality in their own right.

THEEOFCWWMHS
CHAPTER Page
I. Il‘ITItODUC'rIOPJoeoeeooeeoeooeeoeeeeeeeo eeeeeeee eeeeeeeeee 1-

The Problem and Its Theoretical Background.......... 2
The Self and Self-Concept Theory....... ....... ... 2
Definitions of the Self-Concept......... L
DevelOpment of the Self-Concept............... 9

The Stability of the Self-Concept............. lO
Self-Esteem and Self—Esteem Theory............... 15
Definitions of Self—Esteem.................... 15

The Development of Self-Esteem........... ..... l7

Ego Defensiveness and Neurotic Self-Inflation. 21

II. PRESENTATION OF THE HYPOTHESES...........

0.0.0.0000... 20

III. PRmmJRESoeeeoeooooooeoooooe0.0000000000000000...I... 33

The Procedures in Summary........................... 33
The Poeulation...................................... 3h
Description of the Instruments...................... 35
The Self-Rating Inventory........................ 35
The Self Drawings and Unconscious Self-Esteem.... hO
The Self-Esteem Scale............................ L1
The Self Evaluation Scale Part II................ h2
The K Scale...................................... hh
The Sociometric MeasureS......................... ht
Socio-economic Statue............................ LS
Kuder Vocational Preference Inventory............ 6
Information Obtained from the School Records........ h?
Statistical Treatment............................... h8

IV. liESIJLTS....C......COOOOOOOOOOOOO 51

v; DISCUSSION OF RESULTS................................. 53
VI. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS nu) mums mmmrrmnsuunnu 55

The K Scale........................................ 66

Origin of Self-Esteem.............................. 68

Additional Findings in Terms of Measuring
InstrumentS..................................... 72
Grade Point average and Differential Aptitude

TeSt.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.00... 1...

School Adjustment and Marital Status............ 73

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

C RAPPER Pa»

Coding of the Kuder Vocational Interest Profiles.
Self Evaluation Scale Part II....................
Other Implications of the Findings..................
Sources of Error...............

......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

VII. SUI-MARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

BIBLIOGRAPHY...

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . .

O00.00..........OOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOO

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

en
With the growing interest in phenomblogical theories of person-

ality and more particularly the self-concept has come a need for
better measures of the self-concept. One prerequisite for the con-
struction of better measures of the self-concept would be a clearer
delineation of what it is that is measured. Generally some one
aspect of the self-concept is selected for study. Thus the self-
concept has been studied in terms of its perceived location, its
stability, its divergence from the ideal self and of the value placed
upon it by the individual. Probably the dimension of the self-
concept most frequently selected for study has been that of stability.
The dimension of value--termed "self-esteem” (positiveness or nega-
tiveness of feelings about one's self)--has been extensively discussed
by the Neo-Freudians. In fact present dynamic theories of personality
owe much to the writing of such peOple as Fromm, Sullivan, Herney
and Frieda Fromm-Reichmann who have emphasized the role played by
self-love in enabling one to relate to others in a healthy and pro-
ductive manner.

This study developed out of an interest both in the stability
of the self as treated in phenoézlogical personality theory and in
self-esteem theory as presented by the Neo-Freudians mentioned above.

The problem gained its specific formulation as a consequence of the

results of a Master's study in 1952 (22) and an exploratory study

in 1953:li One of the results of these studies was to reveal the
great degree in which self-esteem entered into (and contaminated)
current measures of stability, eSpecially that develOped by Brownfain
but also the method of measuring stability based upon ”Q techniques."
Because of this and other apparent defects in these techniques the
question was asked, have we a good measure of self-concept stability?
Indeed has stability, as such, been shown to be an independent
psychological entity? That is, does it have a status independent of
measures of self-esteem? Consequently a study was designed to con-
sider critically the nature of the dimension of stability of the
self-concept with special emphasis upon its relationship to self-
esteem. Let us consider those aSpects of self-concept and self-
esteem theory pertinent to this study.

These concepts have been discussed by other writers. Both Taylor
and Fitts present rather completely the background and history of
phenomglogy and self theory (39,13). Rdbinson in his dissertation
reviews exhaustively the concept of the 'ideal self” and the process
of neurotic self-glorification (30). Morris Robert Short has reviewed

the concept of self-esteem and its history (35).

The Problem and its Theoretical Background

 

A. The Self and Self-Concept Theory
The following paragraph is intended as a summary introduction

to this section.

 

a
The Stability of the Self-Concept and its Correlates

Self-concept theory, which has its contemporary roots in the
writings of Mead, James, Calkins and its recent revival in the work
of Lecky, Raimg,8nygg and Combs, Rogers, Gordon Allport, Murphy and
many others, emphasizes the importance of the person's concept of
himself for understanding and predicting the behavior of individuals.
One dimension of the self-concept that has been selected for intensive
study has been that of the stability of the self-concept. The stabil-
ity of the self-concept could be described in many terms. A measure
of self-concept stability would, speaking roughly, indicate how con-
sistently a person views himself. That is, a measure of stability
would indicate how sure he is of how he really stands on various
personality traits in relation to others. Stability could also be
thought of as something that could be measured by the amount of
change in one's Opinions about oneself over a period of time. It is
assumed that those more sure of themselves would change less than
those less sure of themselves who would have greater fluctuation in
their self-concepts from day to day. ‘The dimension has been most
commonly measured by the willingness of the subject to make divergent
ratings of himself under different instructions. The assumption
underlying this method is that the greater the uncertainty about the
self, the larger will be the discrepancy between the two kinds of
ratings that will be obtained. In the following passages of this
.section the self—concept is defined and self-concept theory dis-
tinguished from role taking theory. The self-concept then is dis-
tinguished from the concept of body image and, finally, the develop-

ment and measurement of the self-concept is discussed.

Definitions of the Self-Concept
In recent years a variety of definitions of the self-concept
haVe been offered. These definitions do not as a rule differ greatly
from one another. This is generally true of those who like, Rogers,
Snygg and Combs, Murphy and Allport are in the main stream of con-
temporary non-philOSOphical psycholOgy. There is however one dif-
ference in definitions of some consequence. Rogers defines the self—

concept as follows:

The self-concept, or self-structure, may be thought of
as an organized configuration of perceptions of the self which
are admissible to awareness. It is composed of such elements
as the perception of one's characteristics and abilities; the
percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and
to the environment; the value qualities which are perceived as
associated with experiences and objects; and goals and ideals
which are perceived as having positive or negative valence

(31 p. 135-137).
Notice however that Raimy defines the self-concept in such a way

as to include the possibility of unconscious or partly conscious

elements:

The Self-Concept is the more or less organized perceptual
object resulting from present and past self observation...(it
is) what a person believes about himself....The self-concept
is regarded as a learned perceptual system which functions as
an object in the perceptual field....as an object in the per-
ceptual field it is constantly used as a frame of reference
when choices are to be made. Thus it serves to regulate
behavior and may serve to account for observed uniformities
in personality....since in whole or part the system is subject
to symbolization or abbreviation, portions of it may be un-
verbalizable immediately or may be subject to the process of
repression....(28 p. 15h).

Thus Raimy (also Stephenson, Taylor and others), includes in the
self-concept certain unconscious or relatively unconscious elements.

Taylor does not think this one difference is of great importance.

He resolves the issue pragmatically in the following way. Taylor
cites Horney as pointing out that a repressed impulse, as of
hostility, may not only still affect behavior, but be available to
the individual in some deeper level of consciousness. "we observe
ourselves better than we are aware of doing." 'Materials which are
unverbalizable may still be at least dimly admissable to awareness
and effective in influencing perception and behavior, including the
self—descriptive behavior involved in a personality...[or self-
rating] inventory! (39 p. 6).

Allport uses the term, ”Self-Image," to refer to the self-
concept: 'The image has two aspects: the way the patient regards
his present abilities, status, and roles and what he would like to
become" (1 p. h?). lllport sees it as one of several 'propriate"
functions of the self. Yet the self-concept is something more than
a bare self-image. It is, as Fitts defines it, "the phenomenological
configuration of self-reflexive, affective-cognitive struction'

(13 p. 16). The self-concept is, as Brownfain and Taylor say, also
an affective structure. It is the individual's perception of himself
and his feelings and evaluation of those perceptions.

Snygg and Combs postulate both an inclusive ”Phenomenal Self"
and an exclusive "Self-Concept." The later has much in common with
the conceptions of Raimyg Fitts, and Taylor used in this study.

The phenomenal self is defined as including all those parts of the
phenomenal field which the individual experiences as part or character-

istic of himself. It is not a functioning unit but an exceedingly

"complex function" composed of all the meanings which the individual
has about himself and his relation to the world about him. However,
"it is a highly organized function which operates in a consistent
and predictable fashion” and is ordinarily quite stable and resistant
to change. Thus the phenomenal self, is a broad term and includes
aspects and relationships that are only infrequently or weakly in
the phenomenal field (Allport's I'Prtaprium" is a non-phenomenological
version of this self). The self-concept refers to the elements in
the field which most strongly and frequently affect behavior. It is
defined as follows: 'The self-concept includes those parts of the
phenomenal field which the individual has differentiated as definite
and fairly stable characteristics of himself" (36 p. 112).

In general self-concept theory differs considerably from role
taking theory. Self-concept theorists are impressed with the con—
sistency of behavior and postulate a relatively stable inner core of
personality. Role taking theorists tend to be situationists and,
like Sarbin or Sullivan, tend to minimize individuality. This is
not to say that all persons act consistently upon all occasions.
is lllport points out we do put on an appearance for the occasion
(take a role in response to a situation) but "we know too that such
appearance is a masklike expression of our persona and not central
to our self-image. Much of our so-called 'role behavior' is of this
sort” (1 p. 77).

The term, ”self-concept," should be distinguished from another

term, the "body image” or "body schema,‘ which is sometimes used in

very similar contexts. The concept of the body image was originally
developed by men in psychiatry and clinical neurology. Schilder
(who uses the term "body image") and Head (who uses the term "body
schema") come to mind in this connection. is used by Head the term
refers to something like a plastic model of the individual's own
body having spacial and temporal attributes and derived from visual,
tactile and kinaesthetic cues. Bender similarly calls it ”an
integrated pattern biologically established by the laws of growth
and constitutionally fixed" (2). Schilder expanded the concept to
make it include libidinal drives and sociological factors. Used
strictly in the sense of Bender and Head, as a physiological concept,
there is only a limited relationship between the two. Thus Allport
considers the self-concept and the body image to be just two of
several separate functions of the PrOprium: 'Some psychotherapists
are occupied chiefly with the self-image (what the knowing function
makes of the remainder of the proprium)....some psychologists are
concerned only with the coenesthetic components" (the body image)
(110. 57).

Overlap between the two concepts does appear to the extent that
the body image is viewed broadly as Scott does in his definition:
"That conscious or unconscious integrate of sensations, perceptions,
conceptions, affects, memories and images of the body from its
surface to its depths and from its surface to the limits of Space
and time" (3b). This confusion seems to arise most often in the

minds of those who use the human figure drawing as a projective

technique. The confusion may well arise because in this test both
the person's conception of his own body and his feelings about him-
self as a person contribute elements to the drawing produced.
Apparently for this reason Brown (5) suggested that if the draw-aw
person test were administered to blind-folded subjects more of the
unconscious, internal factors (more of the body image?) and less of
the conscious ego and superego activity (self-concept?) would emerge
in the drawings.

Because human figure drawings are used as the source of one of
the main variables in this study, Machover's discussion of this same
point will be presented. She feels that the human figure drawing
represents the "expression of the self, or the body, in the environ-
ment." The drawing that is produced reflects the body image. She
defines the body image as "the complex reflection of self-regard--
the self-image." She seems, then, to conceive of the body image
broadly. Thus she says, "The body image-~in broader terms, the
self,-tends to deve10p slowly" and "is plastid‘showing fluctuations
as the individual's personality varies (21 p. 3&8). Thus she uses
the two terms, "self" and "body image" interchangeably. She describes
the self as an organization of central attitudes derived from experi-
ence, identifications, projections and introjections. Her discussion
indicates that the self which is projected in these drawings is a
composite of "social images," images from one's private eXperience
and from the racial or genetic past or deep unconscious. She feels

that the stability of the self and the stability of the body image

vary together. Thus she says, "With the increasing individuation,
consolidation, and stability of the sense of self, body image pro-
jections become more stable and elaborated..." nThe toying during
adolescence with many selves that is seen...is reflected in vari-
ability of drawing projections. And she adds that self confident
individuals--those who have accepted themselves-~show stable drawings

(21 p. 351).

Development of the Self-Concept

A variety of ways of looking at the development of the self-
concept have been offered (29, 38, 3, 9). They have in common the
idea of some process of internalization, introjection or identifi-
cation and all are based in one way or another on the thinking of
the person whose views are next to be discussed.

Probably the Social Behaviorist, George Herbert Mead (26) con-
tributed more than any other single person to the development of a
non—metaphysical concept of self-that is, the concept of self basic
to current usage. Using only the methods of empirical naturalism,
Mead set out to show howrmind and self are social products. This
opened the way for a scientific study of these entities and enabled
those interested in these concepts to side step the problem of mind-
body dualism. Mead stated that the individual comes to experience
himself only indirectly; that is, from the particular standpoints of
other individual members of his social group or of the larger social
group of which he is a member. He thus becomes an object to himself,

develops an awareness of self, only by taking the attitudes of other

individuals toward himself within a social environment in which both
he and "they" are involved. In the behavior provided by the process
of communication involving significant symbols (that is, communication
which is directed not only to others but also to oneself) the indi-
vidual learns to become an object to himself. The self (defined
eMpirically as that which can be an object to itself) arises then

out of social experiences.

Others have explained this process of internalization, as Taylor
points out, in terms of Gestalt psychology, field theory, cognitive
theory or psychoanlytic theory. A concise summary of this process
of development is given by Taylor (39). He holds that: one, the
self-concept is a product of the reflected attitudes and appraisals
of others and that, two, the self as well as the self-concept, are
gradually and continually differentiated from the remainder of the
phenomenal field throughout the course of life. As Snygg and Combs
say "...this concept can only be a function of the way he is treated
by those who surround him. is he is loved or rejected, praised or
punished, fails or is able to compete, he comes to regard himself
as important or unimportant, adequate or inadequate, handsome or ugly,
honest or dishonest, and even to describe himself in terms of those

who surround him (36 p. 83)."

The Stability of the Self-Concept
Brownfain (6) proposed that the self-concept, being a social
product and consisting of the system of central meanings an indi-

vidual has about himself, may be regarded as more or less stable

ll

and that the degree of this stability has an important relation to
adjustmeht. Some support for the study of the stability dimension
of the self—concept appears in the writings of Rogers and Snygg and
Combs. Actually, however, many writers have spoken in general terms
of some such concept as stability. That the degree of certainty
about oneself, how one stands, and what one is, should be related to
adjustment and success in interpersonal relations seems quite reason-
able--the idea seems to have considerable "intrOSpective" validity.

Cameron (8 p. 102) remarks: ”The basis of much frustration and
many conflicts is in this universal circumstance, that no man ever
fuses all his self-reactions together into a single, unambiguous,
coherent whole.” 1 similar notion is implied by this often quoted
passage of Rogers: I'It would appear that when all of the ways in
which the individual perceives himself—-all perceptions of the
qualities, abilities, impulses, and attitudes of the person, and all
perceptions of himself in relation to others-~are accepted into the
organized conscious concept of the self, then this achievement is
accompanied by feelings of comfort and freedom from tension which are
experienced as psychological adjustment..." (32 p. 36b).

is Snygg and Combs point out (36 p. 173), hebephrenics in particu-
lar and schiZOphrenics in general sometimes seem to have lost the
inner stability characteristic of the normal individual. They appear
to feel threatened in many aSpects of self. So much so that they
cannot accept any consistent evaluation of themselves. Lecky (and

others later) postulated a drive towards self-consistency; that is,

12

a drive to maintain the integrity and unity of the organization of
the self. It might be stated then that the less successfully this
impulses proceeds the more inner disturbance is likely to be experi-
enced by the organism. It is evident too that the effort to keep
incompatible elements of the self-concept apart is costly to the
organism.

Snygg and Combs note similarly that an integrated person can
accept all his interpretations of reality; whereas the self-concept
of the disintegrated person contains ”enduring contradictions" which
result in distorted interpretations of reality. Thus successful
therapy, for example, would result in a person who perceives himself
as more integrated.

This kind of reasoning led. to the development by the Chicago
Group of a measure of stability of the self-concept based upon the
a technique of William Stephenson. Repeated sortings of the cards
showPChanges in the self-concept through time. The directions for
administration can be manipulated to produce a large variety of self
pictures as (37 p. 256) the should self, the becoming self, mother
wanted self and, of course, the ideal self. By correlating the
results of two administrations given shortly after each other one can
get what might be considered a measure of self—concept stability.

Of these, the most commonly used measure has been based upon the degree
of similarity of the ideal self to the actual self. This measure
has been used both to judge the probable success of psychotherapy and

to predict those most likely to succeed in therapy.

Brownfain's inventory method of getting at the stability of the
self-concept is somewhat similar to the method derived from Q tech-
nique methodology. Both techniques measure one's readiness to present
divergent self-pictures at one point in time. One important differ-
ence is that in the Brownfain method both self descriptions are sup-
posed to be "realistic" self-evaluations. But we are ahead of our-
selves here. Brownfain's contribution needs to be discussed in some
detail. Brownfain (6) in his dissertation presented a technique for
operationally measuring the stability of the self-concept. In outline,
the original research instrument consisted of a number of rating
scales on which the subjects were to rate themselves four successive
times in four different frames of judgment. The two frames of judg-
ment used to obtain the index of stability were the "positive self"--
a rating of the self slanted positively-~and the "negative self"--

a rating of the self slanted negatively. He found that those with
stable self-concepts were better adjusted and he found that, as would
be predicted from self-concept theory, a major correlate of the stable
self is a high level of self-esteem. He concluded that an individual
with a stable self-concept is an individual "who accepts himself,

who values himself highly, who feels secure about himself" (6 p. 9h).
He also found that when certain aspects of the self were rated down

a compensatory accentuation of other aSpects of the self occurred.
This tendency to make the upward rating he called, "idlerian compen-
sation."

Vb have seen then in the Brownfain and Stephenson techniques a

kind of self-concept stability measured operationally by one's

tendency to give different pictures of one's self under differing
instructions or "sets." McQuitty (25) has developed another method
of measuring stability or integratedness within the self structure.
He developed a method which is based upon the statistical analysis
of reSponses to a type of personality inventory. "Disintegrated"
personalities tend to mark an inventory in an inconsistent way.

That is, they "give successive answers which are characteristic of
diverse categories of peOple." He has devised a mathematical

scheme which gives in one figure an index to the integration of the
self-concept. Mczuitty, in discussing the ”disintegrated person,"
notes that he would have "contradictory acceptance-~rejection atti-
tudes about many opinions of himself. he seems to mean that a person
unsure of who and what he is will fluctuate from minute to minute
(and of course from day to day) in his attitude towards similar
inventory items and that this uncertainty or inconsistency can be
detected by an analysis of the pattern of responses on a personality
inventory. This latter idea is actually not very different from the
concept Brownfain had of stability (namely, that the greater uncer-
tainty an individual has about himself the greater can two realistic
estimates of that self be expected to differ).

Lecky (20) held that the high reliability coefficients often
reported for personality inventories were evidence that a person's
conception of himself tended toward stability. Taylor sought to find
out through a comprehensive study just how stable the self—concept
really was (39). His findings suggested that the self-concept has a

great deal of stability.

H
\Jl

B. Self-esteem and Self-esteem Theory

The following paragraph is a summary—introduction to this
section.

The second area of personality theory that has contributed to
this study has not been research oriented but has nevertheless pro-
duced much clinically fruitful theorizing about emotional health,
productivity, maturity and interpersonal adequacy. Those identified
with this area (Fromm, Sullivan, Horney, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann)
make much of the concept of self-esteem. Every child either gets off
to a good or bad start in life depending upon the amount of self-
esteem he accrues in the primary mother-child relationship. Adequate
amounts of self love assure that the individual will weather the
later storms and trials without deve10ping a crippling neurosis--will
assure that the individual will have the capacity to accept and love
others and to handle successfully his interpersonal relationships.
One can also increase one's self-esteem by one's own efforts at

mastery--that is, by one‘s achievements.

Definitions of Self-Esteem
Short feels strongly about the importance of the concept of
self esteem and, in concerning himself with this concept, has formu-
lated a definition that emphasizes this importance. Short begins his
dissertation on the ethical significance of self-esteem with the
following passage:
Self-Esteem is a continuing need in the life of each

person. In order to maintain his ability to function
effectively and appropriately under varying conditions, one

16

needs to have some good feelings about himself, preferably

feelings growing out of realistic awareness of the goodness

of his own state of being within his situation. It is true

that other things beside self-esteem can serve after a

fashion to maintain functional unity—~for example, phantasies

of glory, and hatred for others. Such things as these can
help keep a person going but in general their effect is more
destructive than constructive. When they do help keep the
person functionally organized, they do so by making his
experiences more restricted and rigid and generally less well

adapted to his general situation. They can not provide a

really satisfying way of life, as can realistic self-esteem

(35 9. ii).

Stated directly, realistic self-esteem is a prerequisite for
adjustment. Inferior brands (for example, Horney's neurotic self-
glorification) rather than lead to a productive orientation towards
the world (Fromm) or adequacy in interpersonal relations (Sullivan)
will lead to a non-productive orientation towards the world and
failure in interpersonal situations.

Short goes on to define self-esteem as "a realistic awareness
of the goodness of one's actual state of being and the goodness of
his situation." Self-esteem is distinguished from pride (neurotic
pride) in that pride is "based on unrealistic notions about oneself
and one's place in the scheme of things" (35 p. 35). Self-esteem
is "self-appreciation on a reasonably realistic basis." Brownfain
emphasizes simply the self-appreciation aSpcct of self-esteem and
not its realism. It is felt that Short‘s two—fold definition is
superior to Brownfain's because of this additional refinement.
Brownfain said, "Just how much the self is liked and how much is

expected from it is self-esteem as we define it...The self is some-

thing we like and from which we expect much" (6 p. 3). And it should

,4
NJ

be noted further that it is genuine wholehearteiness thich is char-
acteristic of a healthy attitude towaris the self. imbivalence is
characteristic of neurotic attitudes towards the self, Horney gives
us one explanation of why it is that ambiValence about the self is
characteristic of those with low self-esteem, She observed that the
person who feels both neurotic pride and self-hate will not ordinarily

be able to distinguish between the two feelings in himself (18 p, 111).

The Development of Self-Esteem

Agreement is well nigh universal concerning how feelings of low
self-esteem develop in the child, This basic insecurity or "basic
anxiety" is "invariably" caused, Horney states (17 p. 81), by a lack
of genuine warmth and affection from the parents. Attitudes towaris
the child's needs she notes may vary all the way from "temporary
inconsideration to a consistent interfering with the most legitimate
wishes of the child, such as disturbing friendships, ridiculing
independent thinking, spoiling its interest in its own pursuits,
whether artistic, athletic or mechanical..." Thus it seems a child
comes to have negative feelings about himself if he experiences
little love or reSpect in his early years.

Sullivan (27 p. 296), along with Ribble and others holds that
the factors forming the nucleus of the later level of self-esteem
should be sought in the very earliest mother-child interactions.
Because Sullivan's own works are so scattered we will cite Mullahy's
discussion of Sullivan's theories, "There is said to be a 'peculiar

emotional relationship' betveen the infant and those who take care

of him. Long before he can understand what is happening to him,

this 'emotional contagion or communion' between him and the signifi-
cant adult, the mother or nurse, exists." 2”This unclear mode of
emotional communication is thought to be biologica1,.,Sullivan sur-
mises its greatest importance is between the ages of six and twenty-
seven months" (27, p, 285). These earliest attitudes (of euphoria,
or good feeling about the self resulting from success in relieving
physiological tensions) which are considered to be the most "deep-
seated" and pervasive, are thus acquired unthinkingly, Note also the
following: 'By empathy, facial expression, gestures, words, deod
they convey to him the attitudes they hold toward him and their
regard or lack of it for him,,,These he 'naturally' accepts because
he is not yet a questioning, evaluating being, If the significant
people eXpress a respecting, loving attitude toward him, he acquires
a reSpecting, loving attitude toward himself, If they are derogatory
and hateful, then he will acquire a derogatory and hateful attitude
toward himself" (27 p. 298 .

From Mullahy's discussion we conclude that the infant and child
is both biologically and psychologically helpless. Once started on
its way in these early years the personality organization (and self-
attitudes) tend to maintain its own form and direction: "...when the
self is a derogatory and hateful system it will inhibit and misinter-
pret any disassociated feeling or experience of friendliness towards
others; and it will misinterpret any gestures of friendliness from

others, The direction and characteristics given to the self in

l9

infancy and childhood are maintained year after year, at an extra-

*‘fi

ordinary cost, so that most people in this culture, because 0
inadequate ani unfortunate eXperience in early life, become 'inferior
caricatures ofvdet they might have been'..." (27 p, 29?).

Apparently, however, Sullivan is not as fatalistic as the above
passages would indicate, The somewhat contrasting contention that
self-esteem may be partly a product of one's own efforts at mastery
and that events in later life help to determine one's level of self-
esteem gains support from the following passages describing Sullivan‘s
position. "The fate of the child is not however absolutely decided
at this early age, Significant adults (teachers for example) may be
able to undo some of the harm" (27 p. 298). Sullivan elsewhere
asserts that actions (at any period of life) taken which avoid or
relieve tensions are experienced as continued or enhanced self-respect
or self-esteem. Sullivan also feels that by achieving power or ability
in interpersonal relations, one comes to reSpect oneself and therefore
others, To quote Mullahy again: “While the attitude toward the self
is first determined by the attitude of those who take care of the
child, his subsequent attitude toward others is determined by the
attitude he has toward himself. 'If there is a valid and real atti-
tude toward the self, that attitude will manifest itself as valid and
real toward others'" (27 p, 285). This latter statement has had a
great deal of impact upon contemporary thought, is expressed by
Fromm-Reichmann: “...one can respect others only to the extent that
one reSpects oneself...one can love others only to the extent that

one loves oneself," "Where there is low self-esteem there is low

20

esteem of others and fear of low appreciation by other people,"
Of the Neo-Freudians, Fromm was the first to give this formulation
its proper emphasis (15).

It would seem to be a matter of great significance whether
realistic self-esteem were conceived as originating primarily in the
early empathetic relation to a mother figure or whether self-esteem
may not be conceived as something that, within fairly wide limits,
may rise and fall with experiences of success and failure in later
childhood, adolescence and adult life. The former assumption fits
the clinical observation that neurotic compensatory strivings often
seem insatiable and that no matter how successful the neurotic
character orientation seems to be the individual remains as neurotic
as ever. Let us see how success in later life can lead to increased
feelings of self-esteem.

According to analytic theory, the nursing mother is the first
.EEXSE of narcistic supplies to the infant. However, with the internal-
ization of the superego, it becomes the source (giver) of self-esteem
to the individual, Thus, according to Jaeger (19 p. th), "The super-
ego is composed of the introjected parental figures....pleasing the
superego is necessary to maintain self-esteem. when the individual
is plagued with frequent failures, severe frustrations or chronic
stress, he feels abandoned by his SUperego, like the child abandoned
by the parents, and becomes subject to depression" (feelings of low
self—esteem). Self-esteem comes from pleasing one's parents. That
is, living up to one's own (the introjected) standards gives rise

to feelings of increased self-esteem.

21

The two different views of self-esteem discussed above can be
synthesized if we conceive of self—esteem as a general level of
goodness of feeling about the self that is more or less stable and
primarily formed in the first years of life and that, further, this
habitual level of self-esteem may be momentarily yet significantly
heightened whenever the individual has a success experience. The
resulting intense feeling should be called "euphoria," It is also
likely that a person's general level of self-esteem varies somewhat
from day to day depending upon the ebb and flow of vital forces

related to the general health and overall metabolism cf the organism.

Ego Defensiveness and Neurotic Self-Inflation

Hilgard (16) remarked that the Freudian defense mechanisms seem
to function to bolster one's self-esteem through self-deception.
It follows then that those who would mark a personality inventory in
a manner indicating a high level of self-esteem would be of two kinds--
well adjusted persons and not so well adjusted individuals whose
defenses operate effectively. It is suggested then that, althoughtde
latter persons would so mark the conventional personality inventory as to
suggest they regarded their selves warmly, indirect measures of
self-esteem would show a truer picture of their actual level of self-
esteem,

Verner‘VOlff (h2) developed various techniques that seem to be
able to measure this deeper aSpect of the self-concept, Typically
wolff would present a subject with some form of his expressive

behavior (the sound of his voice, handwriting presented tachistoscopically

or in a mirror reflection and so on) along with similar expressions
from several others. although the subject generally would not
recognize his own production, strong emotional reactions were evoked
by his productions which gave evidence concerning his own deeper
self-feelings. .

The results of Cowen's study (11) also suggest that a disguised
measure of self-esteem may be more meaningful than a direct measure,
Cowen correlated the Brownfain stability measure with that obtained
from the inventory developed by Bills, Vance and McLean. He found
that the "high" negative self score derived from Brownfain's inventory
correlated higher with the various measures of adjustment used in the
study than did any of the other measures derived from either inventory.
He concluded that the power of this measure was "almost surprising."
He thought that perhaps "the poorest rating that a person admits to
on an inventory of this type may be actually the way he feels about
himself," He felt too that the measure would be potentially most
meaningful and discriminating when embedded in the context of a series
of other self-ratings. It seems that Cowen has discovered a very
good measure of the way a person feels about himself--that is, a good
measure of a person's level of realistic self-esteem.

In order to make clear how this problem of unconscious self-
feelings should be handled by a self theory of personality, Hilgard
(16) offers the term, "inferred self." Hilgard feels that for a
complete understanding of the personality, something more than the

conscious self attitudes must be known--that is, "the genotypical

23

pattern of motives ("material excluded from self awareness") must
(also) be inferred," The healthy self, he says, has an "integrative
organization" but is not "integrated" in a rigid, maladaptive,
defensive sense. This latter state is a product of defense mechanisms
preventing the awareness of threatening self-evaluations. Thus he
states that the goal of psychotherapy would be to bring together the
self present in awareness with the inferred self so that, ideally

the ”self of which one is aware comes to correSpond to the inferred
self” or the self "as an informed other person sees him,"

It is very evident then that any study of the stability (or
intergratodness) of the self-concept and any study which deals with
self-esteem must contain features designed to c0pe with the fact that
the subjects tend to keep from awareness threatening self-perceptions
and negative self-evaluations.

Horney would eXplain the presence of the rigidly stable self on
the basis of the fact that the actual unity is achieved within the
idealized image which becomes neurotically identified (confused)
with the true self. The degree of neurosis is proportional to the
degree of discrepancy of the idealized image from that of the real
self. Thus "the idealized image serves as a substitute for realistic
self-confidence and realistic pride." actually, "the person feels
weak and contemptible' (18 p. 100). The neurotic must therefore
inflate his feeling of significance and power. You will recall that
this Adlerian-like process of compensation was conceived by Brownfain

to be the principle upon which his measure of self-concept stability

2h

Operated. Horney continues to explain the function of neurotic
self-inflation:

Having placed himself on a pedestal, he can tolerate his
real self still less and starts to rage against it, to despise
himself and chafe under the yoke of his own unattainable de-
mands upon himself. He wavers then between self-adoration and
self-contempt, between his idealized image and his despised
image with no solid middle ground to fall back on. The fear
of humiliation comes from an injured self-esteem,.,both the
creation of an idealized image and the process of externali—
zation are attempts at repairing damaged self-respect, but as
we have seen, both only injure it still further. In the course
of a neurotic deve10pment the level of realistic self-esteem
falls, up comes an unrealistic pride (18 p, 112).

Horney observes that the consequence of his idealiZation is an
alienation from the self: ”we cannot suppress or eliminate essential
parts of ourselves without becoming estranged from ourselves, The
perSOn simply becomes oblivious to what he really feels, likes,
rejects, believes--in short, to what he really is" (18 p.111).

Fromm also speaks of alienation or astrangement from the self
but sees it as a cultural phenomenon. He also sees the sense of
personal worth, in our culture, as dependent in certain ways upon
external factors. Quoting from his latest book: ”we do not submit
to any-one personally; we do not go through conflicts with authority,
hut we have also no convictions of our own, almost no individuality,
almost no sense of self" (lb p, 102). Continuing: "That is the way
he experiences himself, not as a man, with love, fear, convictions,
doubts, but as that abstraction, alienated from his real nature,
which fulfills a certain function in the social system, His sense

of value depends on his success; on whether he can sell himself

favorably, whether he can make more of himself than he started out

with, uhether he is a success.“ ll'If the individual fails in a
profitable investment of himself, he feels that 23 is a failure;

if he succeeds, h: is a success. Clearly, his sense of his own
value always depends on factors extraneous to himself, on the fickle
judgment of the market, which decides about his value as it decides
about the value of commodities" (1h p.1h2), It might be added that
since such a person has little true sense of self, his feelings of
worth must be rather superficial and transient also.

In closing this section, let us turn to Allport's discussion
of "conscience." He also describes self-esteem in terms of "success"
yet here there is said to be an inner core to the personality and
success is conceived in terms of conforming to this inner or "true
self." Allport also points out that for the mature individual this
inner core need not be simply the introjected parental standards to
which Jaeger referred. He writes: ,According to most current psycho—
logical theories the essence of conscience is a 'must'--a dread of
punishment if one commits or omits an action. As we have seen, the
early conscience of the child is undoubtedly of this order, But
when conflicts and impulses come to be referred to the self-image
(self-concept) and to prOpriate striving we find that the sense of
obligation is no longer the same as a sense of compulsion; ought is
not the same as must," 'Vhenever I make a self-referred value
judgment--as if to say, 'This is in keeping with my self-image, that
is not'--then I feel a sense of obligation that has no trace of

fear in it." (It is this) “wholly positive and immediate sense

of obligation, of self-consistency, that is clearly primary“I (l p. 72).

CHAPTER II
PhESENTiTION CF THE HYPOTHESES

Having presented in the first chapter the background material
necessary for an understanding of the concepts and procedures of the
study, the most relevant of those points will now be brought together
and related directly to the hypotheses of the study,

In using the Brownfain self-rating inventory in earlier research,
the great significance of the downward contribution (the negative
self-rating) to the final stability score was observed. The possible
significance of this observation appeared to be confirmed by Cowen's
findings concerning the value of the negative self as a personality
measure in its own right. It was therefore concluded that Brownfain's
measure of self-concept stability might be primarily a measure of
self-esteem. Since this defect appeared to be present in Brownfainls
method of measuring stability (and by analogy might possibly be
present in the Rogerian self ideal-self discrepancy measure of
stability), the question was asked, have we yet a good measure of
self-concept stability? Indeed it is questionable whether Brownfain
had shown that the dimension of stability was an independent psycho—
logical entity,

Brownfain's positive-self,'negative-self discrepancy and the
alternate-self ideal-self discrepancy did not seem satisfactory as

measures of stability. The latter measure of stability has been

27

criticized because it is said that the "maladjusted" and those who
simply (or mainly) have high aSpirations and achievement needs for
themselves are lumped together at the unstable end of the trait
continuum. Results of studies by Chordokoff (10) and Bills (h) have
tended to support this criticism, This feature of the measure might
not be a liability if one were simply interested in predicting moti-
vation for psychotherapy,

In view of the above it was wondered whether perhaps Mczuitty's
approach might be more fruitful; or, again, it might be better to
follow Lecky's own suggestion. He felt, it will be remembered, that
the reliability coefficients found for most personality inventories
showed that the human personality had a stable core and that there
must therefore exist an inner drive, or tendency, towards self-
ccnsistency. From this it was reasoned that, if a reliability co-
efficient could demonstrate personal consistency, might not it also
be a measure of instability--instability of the self-concept?

This leads us to a statement of the first hypothesis

HYPOTHESIS I

Self-esteem is the primary psychological dimension

being measured by Brownfain's index of Self—Concept

Stability

It is necessary to explain what is intended by the phrase "primary

psychological dimension." It is meant that self-esteem is the active
component "in" the Brownfain measure of stability, And by "active
component" is meant a psychological variable that is meaningful and

potent. a meaningful variable is one that can be shown to be related

28

to other peychological variables in ways that are predictable from

the postulated nature of the variable-~is one that can be shown to
encompass a meaningful or "real" psychological dimension. By “potent"
is meant the centrality and generality of the dimension.

It is deduced that Cowen's negative self measure of self-esteem
will be shown, when compared to Brownfain's measure of stability of
the self-concept, to be a more meaningful and potent measure. Thus,
it is predicted that, given a variety of measures theoretically
related to self-esteem, the negative self will, as a measure of self-
esteem, be found to correlate with these measures in the theoretically
expected direction and the correlations will be greater than between
these same variables and Brownfain's stability. Since it is postulated
that the upward rise (defensive-compensatory rise) will have little
relationship to self-esteem, the negative self will correlate higher
even though it is hypothesized that Brownfain's measure is actually
mainly a measure of the individual's tendency to rate himself downward
when encouraged by the directions; that is, a measure of the negative
self,

Hypothesis I can be stated in two alternate but essentially
equivalent forms.

Form A: Brownfain's measure of stability is a contaminated
measure of self-esteem

The hypothesis in this form needs no further explanation as
it has been discussed in the preceding sections,
Form B: Brownfain's discrepancy measure of stability is a

measure of self-concept stability which is con-
taminated by self-esteem

h)
\L

It was the hypothesis in the latter form (Form B) that lead to
the questioning of whether an independent dimension of stability
had been measured (and shown to "exist") by the studies of Brownfain
and the Rogerians,

Theoretically it would be very desirable if a measure of stabil-
ity could be developed that would be free from direct contamination
from the individual's level of self-esteem. Thus as one of the out-
comes of this study, it hflfi hoped that such a measure of stability
would be found. Consequently the following question was formulated
to be answered by this study:

Can there be found a measure of stability that is
functionally independent of self-esteem?

In our earlier discussion suggestions were given for a formulation
of the relationship of self-esteem to stability, It will be recalled
that this relationship was explained in terms of the presence or
relative absence of negative, threatening, unacceptable or contradictory
elements within the self-picture which it is postulated would result
in inability to wholeheartedly accept oneself and to ambivalence and
uncertainty about who one really is (it is assumed few want to firmly
accept the proposition that they are in certain respects "no good"),

The assumption is made, following Taylor, that negative self
feelings, uncertainty and ambivalence about the self, even if they
are not clearly in awareness will tend to influence the manner in
which the subject will respond to a sophisticated (and somewhat dis-
guised) paper and pencil self-rating inventory, Thus the second

hypothesis deals with the relationship of stability to self-esteem,

HYPCTHESIS II

Those persons who have introjected or internalized
contradictory systems of valuation will have un-
stable self-concepts

£425; .;‘_2..._ . 3:13:48“; W“

~‘fle- ____——.‘-*

It is deduced that those who have been exposed to relatively
greater inconsistency in upbringing in terms of reflected self
appraisals will have relatively more unstable self-concepts than
those reared in an atmosphere of more or less consistent valuations.
The individual with a very unstable self-concept will have much in !
the inferred (or unconscious) self that is not acceptable to himself.

Hypothesis II thus implies that stability of the self-concept is a

 

function of the discrepancy between the inferred and conscious selves, N

is Hilgard stated, inferences are made about the contents of ?
the inferred self from observation of the individual from an external ' 5
frame of reference, Thus, to illustrate, it can be inferred that, i

when an individual expresses a desire to achieve one aim and acts in

 

a way that defeats that aim or achieves an opposes aim, there exists
a significant discrepancy between his self-concept and his inferred
self. Similarly, if an individual views his parents as conceiving of

himself in a way different from the way he conceives of himself there

 

is likely to exist such a discrepancy. And the same would apply if
he conceives of his peers as viewing himself differently from the
\way he views himself. The same also could be asserted if he perceived
one parent as viewing him (and thus reacting to him) in a way different
from that which the other parent views, and reacts to, him.
.

a stated divergence from, or rejection of, parental (early,

unconsciously introjected) valuations might also be a sign that such

 

 

an unierlying discrepancy exists ~nd that, consequently, it could be
predicted that the individual would have an unstable self-concept,

One might conceive of an individual who comes to develOp an un-
stable self-concept yet had experienced a relatively secure and
anxiety free early childhood (immigrant in a new culture, a child
reared by parents of divergent cultural or religious backgrounds),
is a rule, however, valuations which are not tinged with negative
emotional overtones could be relatively easily integrated into the
self-picture. In other words, unless they in some way carried withtdmm
the threat of rejection or punishment they would not need to be forced
out of awareness and thence into the inferred self, This is one reason
why theoretically low self-esteem and an unstable self-concept are
so closely related.

Rarely would a child be exposed to negative, critical and belittl-
ing appraisals from those around him and not also be exposed to some
positive (and hence conflicting) valuations, This is to say that
what is called, "ambivalence" is the characteristic emotional atmos-
phere of the unhealthy (rejecting) family environment, in unvaried,
extremely inhibiting, belittling and deflating atmOSphere would be
likely to result in a psychotic adaptation,

The third and final hypothesis deals with the influence of ego-
defensiveness on measures of self-esteem, The reader may have sur-
mised from the earlier discussion of self-esteem and neurotic pride
(the reference is especially to Horney) that self-esteem would be a
difficult variable to use in a study because one could never be entirely

sure how much his measure of self-esteem actually reflects! the

 

presence of neurotic pride and ego-defensiveness, Recall that
Hilgard said that the ego defenses serve; to maintain feelings of
"self-esteem," Some workers seem to hav, ignored this possibility

in their studies (7). In order to study this confounding of genuine
self-esteem by ego~iefensivcness, five measures of sel -esteem vere
included in the study which seemed to vary along a continuum of
directness, It was felt that there might be an inverse relationship
between their directness and their effectiveness, Thus the following

hypothesis was formulated.

HYPCTHESIS III

The measure of self—esteem least influenced by ego-
defensiveness will be the most effective (‘potent")
measure of self-esteem

 

ChiPTEfi III
PRCCEDUIES
The Procedures in Summary

The following steps were involved:

Step one: the development of instruments appropriate
to the purposes of the study.

Step two: obtaining a population and administration
of the test battery.

Step three: the analysis of the data,
Step four: interpretation of results.

Measures were needed of the stability of the self-concept, of
self-esteem, of ego-defensiveness, of disturbance in family relation-
ships and of adjustment, or better, adequacy in interpersonal relation-
ships. Planned as supplements to these were measures of intellectual
ability, scholastic competence and adjustment and socio-eeonomic status
of the parents of the subjects.

The above variables were intereorrelated with each otzer and the
resulting table (or matrix) of intercorrelations was analyzed.
Following directly from the theoretical formulations discussed in
chapter one of this study, predictions were made as to the direction
of the relationships for each correlation obtainel from the intercorre-
lation of all the major variables. In tie case of the negative self
and the Brownfain stability index not only was the direction of the

relationship between these two variables and the others predicted but

3h

also it was predicted that the negative self would correlate higher
with each of tie other variables in the matrix than would Brownfain's
stability measure. Similarly, the relative magnitude of the corre-
lations of the self-esteem measures with the other major variables
was predicted .

By an inspection of the magnitude and direction of the correla-
tions obtained and of the consistency of the anticipated interrelation-
ships among the variables, the questions asked of the data could be

answered.

The Population

The battery of measures designed for this study were achainistered
to four high school physical education classes. The subjects were all
graduating seniors (graduation took place less than a week after they
were administered the battery). The average age of the subjects, all
males, was 18.29 years. The measuring instruments themselves were
administered to the students during their regular class periods in
two, fifty minute sessions three days apart. With the help of the
school counselor (and group test administrator) the cooperation of the
students was obtained. In the explanation to the students, anonymity
of the results was stressed. It was eXplained that initials were
necessary simply to enable the eXperimenters to match the various
papers later.

Males were chosen as subjects both because this would facilitate
theoretical analysis of the results and because it was required for

the sociometric measures. In addition, the earlier work with

 

35

Brownfain's inventory suggested that the stability measure might be
sensitive to sex differences.

There were 81 subjects. The four sections of senior boys were
made up reSpectively of 17, 21, 19, and 2h students. Due to the
scheduling of graduation activities on the same days as the testing,
absences were minimized. There was no attrition among the subjects.
That is, no students tested at the first session were absent for the
second testing session. There were three or four students who had
not been present for the initial session who were present at the
second. The material gathered from these students was discarded.
Even though, in three or four cases, it appeared that the validity
of a particular measure from a subject might be questioned, no piece

of data was omitted from the final calculations.

Description of the Instruments
3. The Self-Rating Inventory

The self-rating inventory is an adaptation of brownfain's original
self-rating inventory. Although the inventory was revised once, before
being used in the pilot study and later revised again, it remains
essentially similar to the inventory Brownfain developed in his dis-
sertation.

It will be noted (see Appendix A) that the inventory consists of
twenty traits or characteristics and that the extremes of each trait
are described in two or three short sentences. The subjects are
instructed to rate themselves on each item of the inventory according

to a 10-point scale and told that the ratings would be made several

36
times following different instructions each time. A self rating of
"10' is the highest or most desirable point on the scale and "1" is
the lowest or least desirable point. In evaluating themselves, the
subjects were instructed to compare themselves to the other students
in their high school class (the senior class). The subjects were
provided with six rating sheets upon which to record their responses.
it the top of each of these rating sheets were the specific instructions
as to the way in which the self-ratings were to be made.

Rating sheet "one" asked them to rate themselves on the twenty
items of the inventory as they really think they are-to give their
most accurate estimate of how'they see themselves. Rating sheet "two‘l
asked them to rate themselves the highest that they realistically
thinkttheymare on each trait. They were to indicate how they saw
themselves, giving themselves the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
Rating sheet number 3 asked them to rate themselves the lowest that
they realistically thought they were on each of the traits. They were
to take an unfavorable view of themselves and were asked not to give
themselves the benefit of any reasonable doubt. On rating sheet
number b they were asked to rate themselves as they believed the other
boys in their class would rate them. The fifth time they rated them-
selves they estimated how they thought their mothers would rate them
on each trait, and on the sixth and last rating how their fathers
would rate them.

From this inventory ten different scores were obtained. These

ten are listed and described below;

 

37

l. The Private Self: The most accurate estimate of his self
as he really believes it to be.

This score is the sum of the twenty self-ratings obtained from
rating sheet number 1.

2. The Positive Self: The self as he really hoped it might be.

This score is the sum of the twenty self-ratings obtained from
rating sheet number 2.

3. The Negative Self: The self as he was afraid it really
might be.

This score is the sum of the twenty self-ratings obtained from
rating sheet number 3.

h. Temporal Stability: Ambivalence and uncertainty about the
self as a function of time.

This score is the sum of the absolute differences between two
measures of the private self taken three days apart. A change or
difference score is Obtained separately for each of the twenty items
and summed, without regard to direction, to obtain the temporal
stability score.

5. Brownfain Stability: ambivalence and uncertainty about the
self as a function of readiness to alter one's self-descrip-
tion when asked to rate oneself in terms of two different
yet "realistic" frames of judgment.

Brownfain's index of the stability of the self-concept is defined
operationally as the absolute difference between positive and negative
self-ratings on each item summed over all the items of the inventory.
Thus it is a score that combines the amount the subject increased his
self-ratings in response to the instructions on rating sheet number 2

and the amount he lowered his estimates of himself in response to

the instructions on rating sheet number 3.

 

6. Peer Discrepancy: The discrepancy between the individual's
private concept of himself and the concept he believes
others (his classmates) have of him.

Brownfain called this discrepancy score the "social conflict
index." It is operationally defined as the difference between private
and peer self-ratings on each item summed over all the inventory items
without regard to sign.

7. Mother Discrepancy: The discrepancy between the individual's
private concept of himself and the concept he believes his
mother has of him.

This discrepancy score is operationally defined as the difference
between private and mother self-ratings on each item summed over all
the inventory items without regard to sign.

8. Father Discrepancy: The discrepancy between the individual's
private concept of himself and the concept he believes his
father has of him.

This discrepancy score is operationally defined as the difference
between private and father self-ratings on each item summed over all
the inventory items without regard to sign.

9. Intra Parent Discrepanqy: The discrepancy between the con-
cept he believes his mother has of him and the concept he
believes his father has of him.

This discrepancy score is operationally defined as the difference
between father and mother self-ratings on each item summed over all
the inventory items without regard to sign.

10. Self Range: A measure of variation within the self-concept.

The Self Range is operationally defined as the difference between
the highest and the lowest self-rating given by an individual followb

ing the instructions to describe his private self or self as he really

believes it is.

 

39

Brownfain's original index of stability had a split half
reliability of .93. On the basis of this reliability figure (and of
reliabilities computed earlier) it can be said that the discrepancy
scores have odd-even reliabilities in the low .90's (.91 to .93).
The separate "self" scores must have even higher reliabilities.

The following table presents a categorization of the variables

in the study according to their primary characteristic.

TABLE OF VARIABLES

 

 

 

 

Stability Self-Esteem
Brownfain Stability Private Self
Temporal Stability Positive Self
Peer Discrepancy _ Negative Self
Mother Discrepancy Self Evaluation Scale
Father Discrepancy Part I
Intraparent Discrepancy Unconscious Self Esteem
Self Range
Kuder Interest Profile Adjustment
Control Measures Sociometric II
Sociometric IV
K - Scale Parental Marital Status
Socio-economic Status School Adjustment
Intelligence Quotient Self ENaluation Part II
Grade Point Average a) Conformity to Personal
Detroit Aptitude Test Standards
b) Conformity to Parental
Standards

0) Conflict of Standards
d) Conformity to
Standards (a + b)

 

Certain comments are necessary concerning the above Table. we

are hypothesizing that Brownfain stability is better considered a

to

measure of self-esteem. There would be some justification for view-
ing subscales (a) and (b) of Part II as measures of self-esteem.

me could also have grouped together the variables which measure the
degree to which contradictory systems of valuation have been intro-
jected or internalized by the subject. If this had been done, Mother
Discrepancy) Father Discrepancy, Intraparent Discrepancy and Conflict
of Standards would have been grouped together. In other words, it is
meant simply that there is.a certain arbitrariness in the setting up
of categories. The table is presented at this point rather than at
the conclusion of this section in the hope that the reader, by referring
to it, will find it easier to remember and keep separated in his mind

the various measures discussed.

B. The Self Drawings and Unconscious Self-Esteem

From the analysis of the results of the pilot study it appeared
that self-picture drawings reflected some characteristic of the
individual which was also being measured bthrownfain's index of self-
concept stability. It was hypothesized that this common characteristic
might be self-esteem. Soon after the drawings were obtained and
before the Brownfain inventory or any of the other measures were scored,
the writer and Mr. Katz separately judged the drawings for the amount
of self-esteem they reflected.

A five point rating scale was used. A rating of "five” indicated
a judgment of unusually high self-esteem and a rating of "one," a
judgment of unusually low self-esteem. Before the judging three general

criteria of self-esteem were jointly decided upon. These were size of

 

bl

the figure drawing, the expressive quality or energy quality of the
drawing as indicated by firmness of line, and the stance of the
figure. Thus, of two figures of the same size, the one drawn in
firm, sweeping, bold strokes would be judged as expressing a higher
level of self-esteem than one drawn in light, shaky, hesitant strokes.
And similarly a figure drawn with an upright and solid stance would
be rated higher than one with a weak and drooping or unstable stance.
Keeping these three criteria in mind, the judges, who both had
used the Drawel-Person Test regularly in their clinical training,
were to decide rather quickly upon the level of self-esteem reflected
by the drawing. The judgments were absolute and not relative in
nature, That is, the drawings were not compared with one another.
Each was judged solely upon its own qualities. The ratings of the
two judges were combined to form the final estimate of self-esteem,
or as it was called "unconscious self-esteem.” Later the correlation
between the two judges' ratings was computed. It was found to be

.701--a fairly high correlation in view of the intuitive nature of

the task.

C. The Self-Esteem Scale

The self-evaluation scale Part I (see Appendix B) was slightly
adapted from a similar scale developed by McPartland and described
in his dissertation which was concerned with the utility of the self-
concept in sociological theory (2h). McPartland reported that it
was a scale which satisfied Guttman's criteria for a pure scale. Its

coefficient of reproducibility was .912. As used it contains 11

 

1:2

series (or items); a twelfth was eliminated in order to reduce the
length of the inventory and because of McPartland's suggestion that
the elimination of this series might increase still further the
purity of the scale. The questions in the scale are of the following
nature: Row'often are you ashamed of yourself? How often are you
displeased with yourself? How often are you proud of yourself? How
satisfied with yourself are you?

The subject is to check one of four or five alternative state-
ments such as "I am never displeased with myself," 'I am rarely dis-
pleased with myself," 'I am displeased with myself pretty often" and
so forth. A self-esteem score was obtained from the scale by crediting
a score of h (sometimes ”five") for an answer indicating the most
favorable attitude towards the self down to a score of "one" for
checking the least favorable alternative provided. A subject's final

self-esteem score was the sum of these eleven item scores.

D. The Self Evaluation Scale Part II

The self evaluation scale appeared in two sections as administered.
The first section was McPartland's self-esteem scale described above.
Pertinent to the present study are three subscales within this second
scale composed of three items each (there was also included in the
scale a variety of miscellaneous items of an exploratory nature).
These three sets of items were modeled after those in McPartland's
scale and asked the subjects in various ways just three questions.

The first sub-scale contained the following questions:

1. How often do you live up to your own standards for your-
self?

 

h3

2. {ow closely do you feel you have lived up to your own
standards for yourself?

3. How consistently do you follow the standards and ideals
you hold for yourself?

The second sub—scale contained the following questions:

1. How often do you live up to your parents ideals for

A

you:

2. How closely do you feel you have lived up to your
parents ideals for you?

3. How consistently do you follow the standards and ideals
Your parents hold for you?

The third sub-scale contained the following questions:

1. How much conflict do you feel exists between your own
standards and ideals and these your parents follow?

2. How much are your own ideals and standards in harmony
with those of your parents?

3. How different are your own ideals and standards from
those your parents want you to have?

A fourth subscale was created out of the first two after the scale
was administered. It appeared that the word, "consistently," in the
first two subscales caused the item in which it appeared to be reSponded
to in a way different from the manner in which the other two items
were responded to. The fourth scale, then, consists of the first two
items from the first two subscales. The two questions containing
the word, l'consistently" have been dropped. The method of scoring
differed slightly from that of the structurally-similar McPartland
scale. .A check placed in a response category infrequently chosen was
given a weight proportionally heavier than a check placed in a category

very frequently selected. The score obtained from each of the three

 

hh

items was then added. The four scales are titled in order:
Conformity to Personal Standards, Conformity to Parental Standards,

Conflict of Standards, and Conformity to Standards.

E. The K Scale

The K scale of the MMPI has long been used as a measure of test
taking defensiveness. A more precise statement of what the K scale
measures will not be undertaken because of the complexities entailed.
For the purposes of this study the K scale is assumed to measure, at
the high end, defensiveness against psychological weakness. That is,
a defensiveness which motivates the subject to describe himself as
more ”normal“ than he, at one level, feels he is. Similarly a low
K score will be taken as indicating that the subject is open to self-
criticism, is overly candid, and would tend to judge himself rather
severely. The K scale was independently administered. Two filler
items were added at the beginning of the scale, making a total of 32

items in all.

F. The Sociometric Measures

Studies which utilize phenomenological concepts and measuring
devices particularly need an anchor in the non-phenomenological world.
The anchors of this study were two measures of sociometric status.
It was believed that interpersonal adequacy (and hence "adjustment")
is most concretely measured by an individual's ability to establish
friendly relationships with his peers.

The presence of a sociometric measure in this study is due to

the efforts of Mr. Irving Katz. Mr. Katz will describe more fully

 

hS

in his own dissertation the nature of this instrument. The particu-
lar method of Obtaining and treating the sociometric data is based
upon the work of Dr. Leo Katz.

It will be recalled that the battery of tests was administered
to four senior high school classes. Most of these students had
known each other for at least four years and during the past year
had a chance to get to know each other more intimately through attend-
ing the same relatively small physical education classes. Out of
classes of roughly twenty, the boys were asked to pick five with whom

they would like to be friends and five with whom they would not want

 

to be friends. Two indices of sociometric status were obtained from
this measure. One, called in this study Sociometric II, was based
upon the total number of choices as "desired friend" he received from
the rest of his classmates. The other measure, called Sociometric IV,
was based upon the number of choices he received as ”wished friend"
minus the number of negative choices or rejections he received; that
is, the number of times he was picked as a "wished not friend." Each
measure has a certain distinctive significance of its own but for

the purposes of this study they were both considered to be simply
measures of interpersonal adequacy and, of course, indirectly, adjust-

ment.

G. Socio-economic Status
A questionnaire based upon the'Warner method of measuring socio-
economic status was given the subjects to be filled out by them.

The questions were objective in nature and should have been answerable

 

"T-’

he

on the basis of a modest acquaintance with their own households.
There were seven questions in all. The subjects had to indicate by
checking the appropriate space whether their household possessed a
telephone, whether the family owned or rented its house, whether the
family owned one or two automobiles and whether they were new or
used, how far the chief wage earner went in school, and finally they
had to describe briefly the chief wage earners occupation. The later
description was scored by referring it to the warner occupational

classification to which it was judged to belong.

H. Kuder Vocational Preference Inventory

Wiener (hO) developed a system for coding Kuder Preference pro-
files in a way parallel to Hathaway's coding system for the MMPI.
It was thought that one consequence of a highly organized and integrated
self-concept might be highly developed, or organized, patterns of
interest. 1 person who has uncertainty about what kind of a person
he is might also possess scattered interests or be ambivalent about
his interests. Such an individual might therefore show a relatively
undifferentiated pattern of vocational interests. It was observed
that people in occupations requiring a considerable amount of initiative
and drive (a high degree of life organization around the pursuit of
specific goals) tend to have patterns with several peaks of interest.
On the other hand unskilled workers and workers in occupations calling
for no special combination of skills seemed to have occupational
profiles with few or no peaks. It was thought that, on the basis of

the Kuder vocational interest profiles, the subjects could be divided

 

into two groups according to whether they showed differentiated or
undifferentiated interest patterns. Following the practice of
Wiener, cut off points at the 75th and 25th percentiles were used

to establish the number of "peaks" (or valleys) in the interest
pattern. The average number of peaks per record was calculated and
the subjects were then sorted into one or the other category depend-
ing upon whether they showed a lesser or greater number of "peaks'

than the average.

Information Obtained from the School Records

The following items of data about the subjects were obtained
directly from the files of the high school: grade point averages,
intelligence quotients (test used was the California Test of Mental
Maturity--and in a few cases, the Stanford Binet), the Differential
Aptitude Test, parental marital status and the Kuder Vocational
Interest Profiles discussed above.

The grade point averages and intelligence quotients require no
further comment. Of the eight scores on the differential aptitude
test only two were used. The scores from the subtests measuring
verbal and numerical reasoning were averaged to Obtain the score used
in the study. A comment appeared on the student's record if the
parents were divorced, one parent deceased, or the student under a
guardianship. If such a comment was noted the subject was placed in
what was called the "Broken Home" category.

at the end of each year a note is placed in the student's record

containing his teacher's comments about him as a student. The comments

 

1‘.—
C0

generally were of the following nature: “Is an industrious, hard
working, quiet boy," 'Lazy, causes trouble in class," “Timid, a
dreamer," 'Causes trouble for others," "Pleasant, well liked."

From these comments the students were rated as to their school
adjustment. 1 five point scale was used. Comments that reflected
poor motivation for school work or difficulty with the school authori-
ties were given ratings of 1 or 2. Such comments as "average" or
"ordinary" were taken as evidence for a neutral rating (3). Favorable
comments related to willingness to cooperate with the programs and
activities of the school were considered evidence of good school

adjustment.

Statistical Treatment

It will be recalled that the design of the study required obtain-
ing intercorrelations between the major variables of the study (the
measures of stability, self-esteem and interpersonal adequacy).
Dr. Leo Katz of the Mathematics Department of Michigan State University
was consulted as to the legitimacy of this design. After evaluating
the kinds of measures used, he expressed the opinion that the Pearson
product moment correlation coefficient would be an appropriate statistic.

The assumptions which underlie the use of Pearson product moment
correlation coefficient depend to some extent upon the interpretations
placed upon the obtained correlations. The method of interpretation
which deals with the fact that r is associated with the rate at which
one variable changes with another assumes that the regression line so

interpreted is linear. There is one other interpretation of the

correlations that will be utilized in this study. r2 can be

interpreted as giving the proportion of variance in Y predictable
from, or attributable to, variation in X. This interpretation also
assumes linearity for the regression of Y on X and, as McNemar notes,
"requires caution in assuming the direction of cause and effect"
(23 p. 120). Thus it is seen that the use of the product moment
correlation coefficient depends in this study upon the assumption of
linearity of regression. The tenability of this assumption is to be
tested through theaploting of scatter diagrams of the relationships
between the major variables.

The correlations were computed by means of the gross score
formula. The particular formula used was that given by McNemar
(23 p. 96). The .05 level of confidence was used to establish the
significance of the obtained correlations. The table appearing in
Edwards' text (12 p. 502) was used for this purpose. According to
this table, for a one tail test of significance with a df of 80, the
correlation should be .183 or greater to be significant at the .05
level. With the same df, a correlation had to be of the magnitude
of .256 or greater to be significant at the .01 level. The one tail
test of significance was chosen because it is the appropriate test
when a-priori predictions (derived from a definite theoretical
rationale) about the sign of the obtained correlations are made.

In view of the large number of correlations obtained in the study,
a certain number could be expected to attain a significant size by

chance. Fortunately this problem in the interpretation of confidence

levels failed to arise. The reason for this is seen when it is
revealed that of the ninety correlations obtained between the major
variables in the study, only three for which predictions were made
in terms of the hypotheses of the study failed to attain a magnitude

of .183 or higher.

 

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The results of the study are presented in TABLE I which follows.
In the table are contained all the correlations computed in the

study.

51

1" IIIO'IIIII

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 1112131415161718192021222324252627231‘
33 (’3 E3 F711:
is g: a a a a :2:
E E E 3: m5 T me as a:
4 s a H H g In: a; g 6 35 e}
as a a g: E: e» as aa a,
as fie is a as is as as a:
mum: SELF 1 I .836! .161 ‘ -.405‘-.4zs |-.289‘ -.4457-.599 «482
posmzvz SELF := .005 -.318 .m‘-.251 -.541 “-5446 -.56:
4
NEGATIVE SELF 5 -.564 -.691 -.441 -.5s9 -.611 «574.
TEMPORAL 6 .
STABILITY 7 .425 .74.? .664 .664 .609
BBOINFAIN 8
STABILITY 9 .«7 .437 .382 .393
PEER ll]
DISCREPANCY n .763 .684 .597
MOTHER I:
DISCREPANCY 1:; .894 .725
FATHER 14
DISCREPANCY 15.595
INTRA-PAR. “5
DISCREPANCI ‘7
lo’
SELF RANGE 19
PART I 20
s. B. S. :1
UNCONSCIOUSss
SELF 35mm :3
SOCIO- :1
METRIC Iv
CONFORMITY 26
PERSON. swmzv
CONFORMITY 3* '
FARENT.STAND.3"
CONFORMITY 3U
STANDARDS :=1

CONFLICT 3:3
0F STANDARDS 3-"

.1}

'x' SCALE .-::,
SOCIO-ECON. w
SCHOOL ADJ. ”7

I. Q. 3‘

..-.\‘
Bhll—N‘

,g'
..-I ~.. 12 :: 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222321a

2m 40 4142 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

fl 3 O

'3 2:} H

7: a t

.7) m :a

>} 0

£3 5
5 h 8 E;
.705 .3z9 '
~348 .312
.570 .444
‘1413 -.266
‘ol48 -.2“
-0‘11 -.zso
-.419 -.302
~ 417 -.545
’ 45% -0258
- 413 -.317
'211 74245
.898

3 ° ' 2:... °..
g a? g5 2% as
s E' ‘3' E3 21%”
8: 8E 85 as as
.536 - ' -.440'-.405!-.385;
.262 -.376 -.346‘-.333
.404 -.1797 -.354 -.289 -.299
-.262 .175 .155 .172
-.273 -.021 .085 .035 .066
-.318
-.318 .232 .150' .243
-.336 .215 .204 .268
-.240 .177 .150 .214
-.287 .142
.254 -.150 »-.504 -.571 -.408
.344 -.097 -.151 -.108 -.086
-.241 -.191 -.103
.615 .279
.452

l

g '6' 3611.6

.059

.114

-.246

-0096

-0196

-0200

-0133

-0080

-0 238

.151

.004

-.180

-0067

g! SOCIO-ECON.
STATUS

'§

-.004

-0152

'i

-015‘

-0191

.353

.039

.115

-0224

-0185

-0210

.167

.259

SCHOOL
A ADJUSTMENT

.092

.054

- -0078

.072

.197

58 5960 6162 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 77-5

GRADE PT.
ANERAGE

I. Q.

.151 .060 1

.011 .119

Tu Bl]

D. A. I.

.078

.038

CHAPTER V
DISXJUSSION OF RESULTS

It was deduced from Hypothesis I that Cowen's negative self
measure of self-esteem will be shown, when compared to brownfain's
measure of stability of the self-concept, to be a more meaningful
and potent measure. It will be recalled that a meaningful psycho-
logical variable is one that can be shown to be related to other
psychological variables in ways that are predictable from the postu-
lated nature of the variable. By "potent" is meant the centrality
and generality of the dimension. In order to see if this deduction
is true we should consider the correlations of the negative self
and Brownfain stability with the other variables of the study.
Remember that a correlation of .183 or greater is significant at the
.05 level.

Table II reveals, as predicted, that the negative self is a
measure exceeding in potency the Brownfain stability measure. In only
one of the total of 17 comparisons did the Brownfain stability measure
correlate higher with another variable. Brownfain stability corre—
lated with peer discrepancy .hé? where as negative self correlated
with the same variable -.hhl (comprehension of the directional nature
of the relationships tall be facilitated if it is kept in mind that
measures of self-esteem should correlate negatively with measures of
stability and positively with other measures of self-esteem). The

negat1Ve self, as Predicted, does correlate in this way. However two

53

 

TABLE II

-1 C(IiPAhISON OF THE REIATIVE I‘iEiNINGFULNESS Alli) POTEQCY OF THE.
BROWNFAIN MEASURE OF STAHILITY ANT) THE NEGATIVE SELF SHCMING
ITHICORRELATION OF THESE TWO VARIABLES‘WTTH OTHER
VARIABLES IN THE STUDY

 

 

 

Brownfain Negative

Stability Self
Private Self -.L28 .751
Positive Self .lSh .503
Temporal Stability .LZS -.56h
Peer Discrepancy .h67 -.hhl
hother Discrepancy .h3? -.569
Father Discrepancy .382 -.611
Intra-Parent Discrepancy .399 ~.?7h
Self Range .363 -.S65
Self Evaluation Part I -.093 .393
Unconscious Self Esteem -.1h8 .370
Sociometric IV -.268 .hhh
Sociometric II -.273 .hOh
Conformity to Personal Standards -.021 -.l?9
Conformity to Parental Standards .085 -.3Sh
Conformity to Standards .035 -.28
Conflict of Standards .066 -.299
School Adjustment .OSh .092

—. A M A.—

of the correlations of Brownfain stability with the variables are in
the unanticipated direction. These are the correlations with conform-
ity to personal standards (-.021) and school adjustment (.OSh). It
can also be seen however that neither of these correlations is
statistically significant.

It might be thought that the correlation of positive self with
Brownfain stability is in the wrong direction (although here also not
statistically significant). However, when it is remembered that

Brownfain stability is a measure (assuming the private self as base line)

\JI
\Ji

resulting from a tendency to rate the self downward and a compensating
tendency to rate the self upward (positive self) it can be seen that
a rise in positive self above the base line of the private self yields
a larger self-concept discrepancy (Brownfain stability score). Thus
one could expect a large positive self score to be associated with a
large Brownfain stability score even though the positive self is a
easure (a poor one) of self-esteem. That the positive self is a
measure of self-esteem is clear when we consider that its magnitude
is dependent also upon the height of the base line (size of the
private self) as well as measuring the tendency to change self ratings
upward in response to instructions. The obtained correlation is quite
in line with the deduction made from Hypothesis I that the upward
rise (defensive-compensatory rise) will have little relationship to
self-esteem. In fact, when it is noted that the positive self corre-
lates lower with the negative self than does the priva 3 self (.751
versus .605) it can be surmized that the relationship between com-
pensatory rise and self-esteem is negative.

The above discussion leads directly to a consideration of hypothe—
sis I as seated in alternate forms i and B. But first one additional
correlation needs to be presented from Table I. The negative self
correlates with Brownfain stability .691 and we have already seen that
the positive self correlates with Brownfain stability .lSh. Hypothesis I
Form A was to the effect that Brownfain's measure of stability is a
contaminated measure of self-esteem. The correlation of .691 suggests

that Brownfain stability is a measure of self-esteem. We have just

L. Intra-Parent Discrepancy with: Temporal (.609),
Brownfain (.399), Peer (.597), Mother (.725), Father (.696),
Self’Rangéfittg7C).

 

\Jl

. Self Range with: Temporal (.681), Brownfain (.3621, Peer
(.662), Mother (.611), Father (.699), Intra-Parent (.670).

 

6. Temporal Stability with: Brownfain (.h2s), Peer (.7L7),
Mother (.66h), Father (.6Sh), Intra-Parent (.609).

 

It is seen that in every case it correlates lowest with the other
measures of stability.

Brownfain had assumed that the contribution of the negative and
positive self-ratings to the "limits index" (Brownfain stability)
would be approximately equal. That this actually is far from the case
is shown by the correlation of positive self with Brownfain stability
of .lSh and the correlation of negative self with.Brownfain stability
of .691. Squaring the two correlations, it is seen that instead of
each contributing equally to the total variance, the positive self
contributes .02h of the variance while the negative self accounts for
19 times as much or .h77 of the total variance. Thus Brownfain's
explanation in terms of idlerian compensation of the rationale behind
why this measure could be viewed as a measure of self-concept stability
does not seem correct.

Hypothesis I Form 3 stated that the Brownfain stability measure
is a contaminated measure of self-esteem ani Hypothesis I Form B
stated that it was a measure of stability contaminated by self-esteem.
It is, as we have seen, neither a particularly efficient measure of
stability or self-esteem. Hypothesis I you will remember stated that

self-esteem is the primary psychological dimension being measured by

El
(1)

the Brownfain index of stability. Thus we saw that whatever merit
the Brownfain stability measure has is due to its close association
in terms of the operations involved in its measurement with the
negative self-~a measure of self—esteem.

This brings us to a consideration of the question posed for this
research. Namely, can there be found a measure of stability that is
functionally independent of self~esteem?

Two different methods of measuring self-concept stability were
found that are operationally free from contamination by self-esteem.
These are Temporal Stability and Intra-Parent Discrepancy.</The former,
you will recall, is a stability score based upon the sum of the abso—
lute differences between two measures of the private self taken three
days apart. In other words, the test-retest reliability of the
private ("actual") self-rating) The latter (intra-parent discrepancy,
is the discrepancy between the concept he believes his mother has of
him and the concept he believes his father has of him. It was defined
operationally as the difference between father and mother self-rating
on each item summed over all the inventory items without regard to
sign. It is seen, in summary, that the question posed for the re-
search_is answered in the affirmative. There can be found measures
of stability which are functionally independent of self—esteem.;)

How effective (potent) were these independent measures of stabil-
ity? Again referring to Table I, it is seen that the correlation
between the two measures of stability was .609. On page 56 we saw

what was the nature of the relationship of these two variables to

the other measures of stability. Below it can be seen how these two
variables are related to the measures of self-esteem and inter-

personal adequacy.

TiBLE III

CORRELATION OF TEMPORAL STABILITY AND EXTRA-PARENT DISCREPANCY
ZJI'I‘H MEASURES OF SELF ESPEEM AND ADJUSTMENT

 

 

 

Temporal Intra-Parent

Stability Discrepancy
Positive Self -.318 -.365
Private Self -.h05 -.h82
Negative Self -.56h -.S7b
Self Evaluation Part I -.156 -.313
Unconscious Self-Esteem -.hl3 -.b53
Sociometric II -.262 -.2h0
Sociometric IV -.265 -.238

 

The correlations are all in the expected direction and signifi-
cant with the exception of the correlation between self evaluation
part I and temporal stability. Table III shows that measures of
stability which are functionally independent of self-esteem correlate
significantly with measures of self-esteem and with measures of the
capacity to develOp friendly human relationships. Thus it can be con-
cluded that the theoretical proposition that stability of the self-
concept is a dimension of personality closely related to feelings of
self-esteem and to adjustment and interpersonal adequacy is supported.

The other measures of self-concept stability (peer discrepancy,
mother discrepancy, father discrepancy and self range) also correlated

significantly with the variables of self-esteem and adjustment in all

60

cases--again with the exception of three correlations with self
evaluation part I. These results could also have been cited to
support the above theoretical proposition. However, these measures
have in common with the Rogerian self ideal-self discrepancy measure
of stability the characteristic that they are not completely inde-
pendent measures of stability of the self-concept. To illustrate
this point, one component of the peer, mother, father and Rogerian
discrepancy scores is the private or actual self-rating. In other
words, these discrepancy measures include a measure of self-esteem.
The very fact that the reSpondents have negative feelings about
themselves is going to increase their discrepancy scores. we saw
that the correlation between the negative self and the private self
was .751 .

For a somewhat different reason the self range score may be
contaminated with self-esteem. Here the lower the subject rates him-
self generally the more likelihood there is that he would obtain, as
measured, a wider self range. This is not to say necessarily that
because the above measures of stability have this theoretical limi-
tation they are not in the main effective measures of uncertainty
and ambivalence about the self. The manner in which they correlated
with the other variables in the study shows that they are effective.

The surprising effectiveness of the temporal stability measure
needs to be considered further. These results seem to suggest that
individual test-retest measures of reliability of paper and pencil

tests of personality may be good measures of personality in their

own right. It seems surprising that this has not evidently been
clearly realized before. Particularly is this so since the idea was
contained implicitly in Lecky's writings. It seems then that reli-
ability is not something ”in" or characteristic of a particular tests
but is an individual difference variable-~in other words, something
brought to the test by the subjects. Certain tests (those called
unreliable) have a greater capacity than others to elicit or measure
this individual trait of stability.

Certain of the implications of the findings related to temporal
stability have been considered. Yet to be considered, however, are
the implications of the finding that intra-parent discrepancy is an
effective measure of self-concept stability. Consideration of this
leads us to the second hypothesis; namely, that those who have intro-
jected or internalized contradictory systems of valuation will have
'unstable self-concepts. Because of limitations in the design of this
study,* hypothesis II can only be tested indirectly. Certain deductions
were made from Hypothesis II(these deductions are discussed in detail
on page 30) concerned with the making of inferences from present
behavior and self-attitudes to the nature of a subject's relationship
with his parents now and, it is assumed, also in the past.

l”hen a subject responds to the self-rating inventory in a manner

which gives him a large intra-parent discrepancy score it can be

 

*
is originally designed the study included a measure of accepting and
rejecting attitudes to be administered to the parents of the subjects.
This was an area of the study in which Mr. Katz was particularly
interested. Unfortunately school administrators declined to give
permission for this portion of the study.

concluded that the subject perceives one parent as viewing him (and
hence reacting to him) in a way different from that which the other
parent views and reacts to him. When the two significant figures in
the child's environment react to the child differentially there is

a strong likelihood that "contradictory systems of valuation" will

be internalized. Thus it is concluded that, because the intra-parent
discrepancy measure of stability was found to be a very successful
measure of self-concept stability, Hypothesis II is supported. If
the stability of the self-concept were not related to the introjection
of contradictory systems of evaluation, one mould be hard pressed to
explain the results obtained.

The simple three item scale, "Conflict of Standards" correlates
significantly with measures of stability and self-esteem, The scale
correlates -.299 with the negative self; -.333 with positive self;
-.385 with private self; .2h3 with mother discrepancy; .268 with
father discrepancy; .Zlh with intra-parent discrepancy; .172 (border-
line significance) with temporal stability; and -,h08 with self
evaluation scale Part I. You will remember that it was felt a stated
divergence from, or rejection of, parental (early, unconsciously
internalized) valuations might also be a sign that there existed an
underlying discrepancy between the inferred and conscious selves.
1Shen a subject tells us that his own values are in conflict with those
of his parents we can be fairly certain that he consciously rejects
certain parental values. This is additional evidence that the stability

of the self-concept is a function of the discrepancy between the

6:3

inferred and conscious selves; that is, that in the process of
personality development contradictory or inconsistent systems of
valuation have been internalized,

Finally, the significant correlations of mother and father
discrepancy with the measures of stability, self-esteem, and inter-
personal adeguacy can be viewed as supporting this hypothesis, They
could also be considered (but to a lesser extent than "Conflict of
Standards" and Intra-Parent Discrepancy) to be measures of a stated
divergence from and possibly rejection of parental valuations and
thus might point to the existence of an underlying discrepancy
between inferred and conscious selves.

It will be recalled that the third and final hypothesis dealt
with the interaction of ego defensiveness with measures of self-
esteem, The hypothesis stated that the measure of self-esteem least
influenced by ego-defensiveness will be the most effective (‘potent")
measure of self-esteem, Before we turn to Table I we should order
the measures of self-esteem used in this study in terms of their
"directness" or susceptibility to influence by test-taking defensive—
ness of the subjects. As Can be seen from an inSpection of the items,
the most obvious and direct measure was the self-evaluation scale
part I (Appendix B). Defensiveness tended to be elicited to such a
great extent that it was feared the scale would be valueless because
of massing of the responses in the most favorable categories. is a
result those scoring as “low" in self-esteem were actually those who

were just vdlling to admit they were average in certain of the

A I
\J': ,

characteristics, This scale then was considered the most direct or
surface measure of self-esteem.

The next three self-rating measures of self-esteem in order of
susceptibility to defensiveness were: 2, The positive self 3, the
private self h, the negative self.

The positive self was placed above the private self because it
encourages self-inflating tendencies, The negative self was placed
fourth because, as it will be recalled, Cowen found it seemed to disarm
the defensive subjects. The most indirect and disguised measure is
the measure, "unconscious self-esteem." Having ordered the measures
as to predicted potency, let us turn to Table I. we observe the

following correlations which are summarized in Table IV,

TABLE IV

POTENCY OF THE SELF-ESTEEM MEASURES RELATIVE TO THEIR DIRECTNESS

 

 

Positive Private Negative Unconscious

 

Part I Self Self Self Self-Esteem
Temporal Stability -,155 -,318 -.uos -.56b -.h13
Peer Discrepancy -.122 -,231 -.289 -,hhl -.hll
Mother Discrepancy -.387 -.3hl -,bh5 -,569 -.hl9
Father Discrepancy -,386 L.hh6 —.V99 -.6ll -,hl7
Intra-Parent Disc. -.313 -.365 -,h82 -.S7h -.h53
Self Range -.1es —,uou —,ros -,565 -,u13
Sociometric IV .2h5 .312 .329 ,hhh .398
Sociometric II .ZSh .262 .336 .hOh ,3hh

 

If we consider only the paper and pencil measures of self-esteem
(the first four measures of self-esteem) we see at once that the

hypothesis is substantiated, There is a progression in the size of

{3)

the correlations that coincides with the dimension of directness of
the measure (one exception to this trend is noted in the correlation
of positive self with mother discrepancy). It is felt that the
hypothesis receives strong support from the above data even though
the unconscious self fails to maintain the trend, Rather than give
up the hypothesis it seems more reasonable to assume that in the

very subtility (and subjectivity) of the measure (that characteristic
which makes it a good indirect measure of self-esteem) lies the
explanation for its failure to correlate higher than the negative
self measure. The reference is here of course to the error (revealed
in part by the correlation of .701 between the judges ratings) that
seems an unavoidable part of the intuitive process. There are several
other possible sources of error that could have lowered these corre-
lations, Some evidence concerning at least one of these sources of

error will be presented in a later section,

CHiPTER VI
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND FURTHER IMPLICATIONS
The K Scale

The K scale was included in the study because it was a measure of
ego-defensiveness and, thus, also a measure of the defensively stable
(rigid) self-concept. Findings related to stability of the self-
concept and rigidity have been contradictory. Cowen (11) found that
Brownfain stability was not related to rigidity as measured by the "F"
scale of FrenkeléBrunswick. The results of Brownfain's own study
suggested that it may not actually have been necessary to control for
"rigidity" as he had done in his design. Certainly there continues
to be much confusion in the thinking about "rigidity" and there is by
no means agreement as to how it can best be measured. No attempt
will be made to settle these issues here. Let us turn to Table V
(on page 67) which summarizes the results in terms of the K scale.

The first thing to be noticed is that all the correlations are
in the anticipated direction. That is to say, measures of stability
correlated negatively with the K scale and measures of self-esteem
correlate positively. It was assumed that measures of self-esteem
are in part measures of ego-strength (this is also an interpretation
commonly given high scores on the K scale). In other words, as
Hilgard might say, a high score on a self-esteem scale is evidence

of the adequate functioning of the ego-defenses. Those who, on the

c. ('1.

67

TABLE V

CORRELATION OF EGO-DEFENSIVENESS‘WITH OTHER VARIaBLES

 

b"-

 

 

The K Scale
Private Self .080
Positive Self .059
Negative Self .llh
Temporal Stability -.2h6
Brownfain Stability -.O96
Peer Discrepancy -.l9S
Mother Discrepancy -.2OO
Father Discrepancy -.133
Intra-Parent Discrepancy -.080
Self Range -.238
Self Evaluation Scale Part I .151
Unconscious Self—Esteem .OOh
Socio-economic Status .167
Conformity to Parental Standards -.160
Conflict of Standards -.057

 

various measures used in this study, more or less readily admit to
statements carrying derogatory implications will tend to earn rela-
tively larger discrepancy or stability scores than those who don't-
all other factors being equal. The same principle applies in reverse
for the measures of self-esteem. The one measure for which this
could not be said is that of unconscious self—esteem and here as
would be expected we see that there is no relationship (a correlation
of .OOh). In general the actual magnitude of the relationship of
ego-defensiveness to these measures is not very large. Only four of
the correlations are significant at the five percent level. Since
all the major variables with the exception of unconscious self-esteem
show some slight tendency to vary with an individual's level of ego-

defensiveness, one may wonder what would be the nature of the

relationships between the variables if this factor were held cons-
tant. If the partial correlation technique is applied to the two
variables most affected by ego-defensiveness, it is found that the .
correlations are not significantly reduced. Thus, the correlation
between temporal stability and negative self with ego-defensiveness
partialed out is reduced from -.Séh to -.V57 and the correlation
between temporal stability and self range is changed from .681 to
.663. It is concluded that, although the obscuring influence of
ego-defensiveness can be traced in various ways by its effects on the
measures used, it is not a critically important variable in this
study.

An explanation for the above conclusion in regard to ego-
defensiveness may lie in the fact that, although phenomenological
measures were used, the scoring on all the scales was of a relative
rather than an absolute nature. That is to say, the subjects'
statements about themselves were in no case taken at their face value
but were used instead to rank the subjects along the dimension in
question. This procedure would tend, to some extent, to reduce the

effect of ego-defensiveness.

Origin of Self-Esteem
There are two additional "control" measures that could have
theoretical significance. These are socio-economic status and intelli-
gence. Both may have pertinence to the two opposed views of the origin
of self-esteem discussed earlier. Let us consider first socio-

economic status. Looking at Table I it is seen that ten variables

69

correlate significantly with this measure. Socio—economic status
correlated .22h with negative self, .301 with positive self, .33h
with private self, -.2h2 with temporal stability, -.l9l with self
range, .353 with self evaluation scale part I, -.22h with conformity
to parental standards, -.185 with conformity to standards, -.210
with conflict of standards, and .259 with intelligence.

The correlation of socio-economic status with intelligence needs
no comment. It is seen from these results that there is some rela-
tionship between one's socio-economic status, one's self-esteem and
the certainty with which one views one's self. This is perhaps not
surprising in our "marketing oriented" culture. To quote again Fromn:
I"Min has transformed himsglf into a commodity, experiences his life
as capital to be invested profitably; if he succeeds in this, he is
'successful,' and his life has meaning; if not, 'he is a failure.‘
His 'value' lies in his salability, not in his human qualities of
love and reason or in his artistic capacities. Hence his sense of
his own value depends on extraneous factors, his success, the judg-
ment of others" (lh p. 30).

Fromm then feels one's feeling of self-esteem lies in the
external signs of "success"--in social recognition as an "important"
person. That is, in this view self-esteem hinges upon external
social and economic marks of status whose attainment is only partly
in the control of the individual him elf. hhen one considers how
much more rewarding our materialistic culture is to those higher in

socio-economic status how much easier it is for them to succeed in

J

7O

terms of the economic goals of the culture because of the additional
advantages their high status gives them, then this interpretation
seems reasonalle.

However, it is observed also that the most subtle measure of
correlates not at all(.O39)

self-esteem unconscious self-esteem

3 2

with socio-economic status. It seems then that self-esteem as re-
vealed by expressive behavior may be a more fundamental kind of self-
esteem. These findings are consistent path the synthesis of the two
notions of self-esteem offered on page 21. It will be recalled

there was postulated 1 characteristic level of self-esteem which

may vary within limits depending upon current influences. This
synthesis will be recognized as an integration of the genetic or
historical approach of psychoanalytic personality theory and the field
theoretical approach of Lenin and the contemporary phenomenologists

(such as Syn?" and Combs, Rogers).

-ib

There is other evidence that leads us to make this complex
interpretation of self-esteem. Because of this interest in the
question of the origin of self-esteem the three subscales concerned
with conformity to standards were devised. These scales should measure
conscious feelings of mastery and be a reflection of current success
experiences. Those who received a low score score on these scales
felt that they were doing successfully the things that they had set
themselves to do. Such success shrvld be experienced as a feeling

of enhanced self-esteem. The results show that indeed these pérumn

do tend to he hieh in self-esteem and are significantly better

0

UT
U1

resulting from a tenlency to rate the self flounward and a compensating
tendency to rate the self upward (positive self) it can be seen that
a rise in positive self above the base line of the private self yields
a larger self—concept discreoancy (Brownfain stability score), Thus
one could expect a large positive self score to be associated with a
large Brownfain stability score even though the positive self is a
measure (a poor one) of self-esteem, That the positive self is a
measure of self-esteem is clear when we consider that its magnitude
is dependent also upon the height of the base line (size of the
private self) as well as measuring the tendency to change self ratings
upward in response to instructions. The obtained correlation is quite
in line with the deduction made from Hypothesis I that the upward
rise (defensive-compensatory rise) will have little relationship to
self—esteem. In fact, when it is noted that the positive self corre-
lates lower with the negative self than does the private self (.751
versus .605) it can be surmised that the relationship between com—
pensatory rise and self—esteem is negative.

The above discussion leads directly to a consideration of hypothe-

Q

is I as stated in alternate forms a and B. But first one afiditional

L")

correlation needs to be presented from Table I. The negative self
correlates with Brownfain stability .691 and we have already seen that
the positive self correlates with Brownfain stability ,le. Hypothesis I
Form A was to the effect that Brownfain's measure of stability is a
contaminated measure of self-esteem. The correlation of .691 suggests

that Brownfain stability is a measure of self-esteem, we have just

shown that it is also a measure of something related (negatively) to
self-esteem. Thus we can conclude that Hypothesis I Form B is com-
pletely supported by the obtained correlations.

The correlation of .691 also suggests that, as Hypothesis I
stated, self-esteem is the primary psychological dimension being
measured by Brownfain's index of self-concept stability. The reader
may question this latter statement since, as McNemar pointed out, the
presence of a correlation does not tell us the direction of the causal
relationsh p. It tells us only that there is concomitant variation.
It might be argued that since the measure was developed to measure
stability it should be closely associated with self-esteem, as
Brownfain found, but it should not be viewed, just because of this,
simply as a measure of self-esteem. This point might have some
validity if it were found that the variable actually were a good
measure of stability. Analysis of the correlations shows however that
this is not the case. Out of the seven measures of stability in the
intercorrelational table it stands out as the poorest. It is "poorest"
in terms of correlating lower with the other measures of stability.
Careful study of Table I will show this quite clearly. Observe the
following sets of relationships.

1. Peer Discrepancy with: Temporal (.7h7), Brownfain (.L67),

hotheg (.763), Father (.68b), Intra-Parent (.5977, Self Range
.662 .

 

2. Mother Discrepancy with: Temporal (.Séh) Brownfain (.h37),

Peer $763), Father (.8910, Intra-Parent (W , elf an}?
(.611 .

3. Father Discrepancy with: Temporal (.65h) Brownfain (.352),
Peer $.68h), Mother (.89h), Intra-Parent .696Y,—SelffiRange
(.699 .

 

it" 'I ‘II q.‘ :

h. Intra-Parent Discrepancy with: Temporal (.609),
Brownfain (.399), Peer (.r97), Mother (.725), Father (.696),
Self Range—T5370) .

 

5. Self Range with: Temporal (.681), Brownfain (.361), Peer
(.662), Mother (.611), Father (.699), Intra-Parent (.670).

 

6. Temporal Stability with: Brownfain (.b2s), Peer (.7t7),
Mother (.66h), Father (.6Sh), Intra-Parent (.609).

 

It is seen that in every case it correlates lowest with the other
measures of stability.

Brownfain had assumed that the contribution of the negative and
positive self—ratings to the "limits index" (Brownfain stability)
would be approximately equal. That this actually is far from the case
is shown by the correlation of positive self with Brownfain stability
of .1Sh and the correlation of negative self with.Brownfain stability
of .691. Squaring the two correlations, it is seen that instead of
each contributing equally to the total variance, the positive self
contributes .OQh of the variance while the negative self accounts for
19 times as much or .h77 of the total variance. Thus Brownfain's
explanation in terms of ldlerian compensation of the rationale behind
why this measure could be viewed as a measure of self-concept stability
does not seem correct.

Hypothesis I Form 1 stated that the Brownfain stability measure
is a contaminated measure of self-esteem and Hypothesis I Form B
stated that it was a measure of stability contaminated by self-esteem.
It is, as we have seen, neither a particularly efficient measure of
stability or self—esteem. Hypothesis I you will remember stated that

self~esteem is the primary psychological dimension being measured by

\R
no

the Brownfain index of stability. Thus we saw that whatever merit
the Brownfain stability measure has is due to its close association
in terms of the operations involved in its measurement with the
negative self-~a measure of self-esteem.

This brings us to a consideration of the question posed for this
research. Namely, can there be found a measure of stability that is
functionally independent of self-esteem?

Two different methods of measuring self-concept stability were
found that are operationally free from contamination by self-esteem.
These are Temporal Stability and Intra-Parent Discrepancy.</The former,
you will recall, is a stability score based upon the sum of the abso-
lute differences between two measures of the private self taken three
days apart. In other words, the test-retest reliability of the
private ("actual") self-rating.) The latter (intra-parent discrepancy,
is the discrepancy between the concept he believes his mother has of
him and the concept he believes his father has of him. It was defined
operationally as the difference between father and mother self-rating
on each item summed over all the inventory items without regard to
sign. It is seen, in summary, that the question posed for the re-
search is answered in the affirmative. There can be found measures
of stability which are functionally independent of self-esteem.;>

How effective (potent) were these independent measures of stabil-
ity? Again referring to Table I, it is seen that the correlation
between the two measures of stability was .609. On page 56 we saw

what was the nature of the relationship of these two variables to

the other measures of stability. Below it can be seen how these two
variables are related to the measures of self-esteem and inter-

personal adequacy.

TABLE III

CORRELATION OF TDIPORAL STABILITY AND DIEM-PARENT DISCREPANCY
EJITH MEASURES OF SELF ESTEEM AND ADJUSTMENT

 

 

Temporal Intra-Parent
Stability Discrepancy

Positive Self -.318 -.365
Private Self -,hOS -.h82
Negative Self -,56h -,S7h
Self Evaluation Part I -.156 —.313
Unconscious Self-Esteem —.h13 -.h53
Sociometric II -.262 -.2h0
Sociometric IV —,265 -,238

 

The correlations are all in the expected direction and signifi-
cant with the exception of the correlation between self evaluation
part I and temporal stability, Table III shows that measures of
stability which are functionally independent of self-esteem correlate
significantly with measures of self-esteem and with measures of the
capacity to deve10p friendly human relationships, Thus it can be con-
cluded that the theoretical proposition that stability of the self-
concept is a dimension of personality closely related to feelings of
self-esteem and to adjustment and interpersonal adequacy is supported.

The other measures of self-concept stability (peer discrepancy,
mother discrepancy, father discrepancy and self range) also correlated

significantly with the variables of self-esteem and adjustment in all

60

cases--again with the exception of three correlations with self
evaluation part I. These results could also have been cited to
support the above theoretical proposition. However, these measures
have in common with the Rogerian self ideal-self discrepancy measure
of stability the characteristic that they are not completely inde-
pendent measures of stability of the self-concept. To illustrate
this point, one component of the peer, mother, father and Rogerian
discrepancy scores is the private or actual self-rating. In other
words, these discrepancy measures include a measure of self-esteem.
The very fact that the reSpondents have negative feelings about
themselves is going to increase their discrepancy scores. we saw
that the correlation between the negative self and the private self
ms .751 .

For a somewhat different reason the self range score may be
contaminated with self-esteem. Here the lower the subject rates him-
self generally the more likelihood there is that he would obtain, as
measured, a wider self range. This is not to say necessarily that
because the above measures of stability have this theoretical limi-
tation they are not in the main effective measures of uncertainty
and ambivalence about the self, The manner in which they correlated
with the other variables in the study shows that they are effective.

The surprising effectiveness of the temporal stability measure
needs to be considered further. These results seem to suggest that
individual test-retest measures of reliability of paper and pencil

tests of personality may be good measures of personality in their

61

own right, It seems surprising that this has not evidently been
clearly realized before, Particularly is this so since the idea was
contained implicitly in Lecky's writings. It seems then that reli—
ability is not something "in" or characteristic of a particular tests
but is an individual difference variable--in other words, something
brought to the test by the subjects. Certain tests (those called
unreliable) have a greater capacity than others to elicit or measure
this individual trait of stability.

Certain of the implications of the findings related to temporal
stability have been considered. Yet to be considered, however, are
the implications of the finding that intra-parent discrepancy is an
effective measure of self-concept stability, Consideration of this
leads us to the second hypothesis; namely, that those who have intro-
jected or internalized contradictory systems of valuation will have
'unstable self-concepts. Because of limitations in the design of this
study,” hypothesis II can only be tested indirectly, Certain deductions
were made from Hypothesis II(these deductions are discussed in detail
on page 30) concerned with the making of inferences from present
belavior and self-attitudes to the nature of a subject's relationship
with his parents now and, it is assumed, also in the past.

‘'Then a subject responds to the self-rating inventory in a manner

which gives him a large intra-parent discrepancy score it can be

 

&
is originally designed the study included a measure of accepting and
rejecting attitudes to be administered to the parents of the subjects.
This was an area of the study in which.Mr. Katz was particularly
interested. Unfortunately school administrators declined to give
permission for this portion of the study.

concluded that the subject perceives one parent as viewing him (and
hence reacting to him) in a way different from that which the other
parent views and reacts to him. When the two significant figures in
the child's environment react to the child differentially there is

a strong likelihood that "contradictory systems of valuation" will

be internalized, Thus it is concluded that, because the intra-parsnt
discrepancy measure of stability was found to be a very successful
measure of self-concept stability, Hypothesis II is supported, If
the stability of the self-concept were not related to the introjection
of contradictory systems of evaluation, one would be hard pressed to
explain the results obtained,

The simple three item scale, "Conflict of Standards" correlates
significantly with measures of stability and self-esteem, The scale
correlates -.299 with the negative self; —.333 with positive self;
-.385 with private self; ,2h3 with mother discrepancy; .268 with
father discrepancy; .Zlh with intra-parent discrepancy; .172 (border-
line significance) with temporal stability; and -,h08 with self
evaluation scale Part I. You will remember that it was felt a stated
divergence from, or rejection of, parental (early, unconsciously
internalized) valuations might also be a sign that there existed an
underlying discrepancy between the inferred and conscious selves.
1'Jhen a subject tells us that his own values are in conflict with those
of his parents we can be fairly certain that he consciously rejects
certain parental values. This is additional evidence that the stability

of the self-concept is a function of the discrepancy between the

63

inferred and conscious selves; that is, that in the process of
personality development contradictory or inconsistent systems of
valuation have been internalized,

Finally, the significant correlations of mother and father
discrepancy with the measures of stability, self-esteem, and inter—
personal adequacy can be viewed as supporting this hypothesis, They
could also be considered (but to a lesser extent than "Conflict of
Standards" and Intra-Parent Discrepancy) to be measures of a stated
divergence from and possibly rejection of parental valuations and
thus might point to the existence of an underlying discrepancy
between inferred and conscious selves.

It will be recalled that the third and final hypothesis dealt
with the interaction of ego defensiveness with measures of self-
esteem, The hypothesis stated that the measure of self-esteem least
influenced by ego-defensiveness will be the most effective ('potent")
measure of self-esteem, Before we turn to Table I we should order
the measures of self-esteem used in this study in terms of their
"directness" or susceptibility to influence by test-taking defensive—
ness of the subjects. As Can be seen from an inSpection of the items,
the most obvious and direct measure was the self-evaluation scale
part I (Appendix B). Defensiveness tended to be elicited to such a
great extent that it was feared the scale would be valueless because
of massing of the responses in the most favorable categories, is a
result those scoring as "low" in self-esteem were actually those who

were just willing to admit they were average in certain of the

Li
\.3.

characteristics. This scale then was considered the most direct or
surface measure of self-esteem.

The next three self-rating measures of self-esteem in order of
susceptibility to defensiveness were: 2. The positive self 3. the
private self h. the negative self.

The positive self was placed above the private self because it
encourages self-inflating tendencies. The negative self was placed
fourth because, as it will be recalled, Cowen found it seemed to disarm
the defensive subjects. The most indirect and disguised measure is
the measure, "unconscious self-esteem." Having ordered the measures
as to predicted potency, let us turn to Table I. We observe the

following correlations which are summarized in Table IV,

TABLE IV

POTENCY OF THE SELF-ESTEEM MEASURES RELATIVE TO'THEIR DIRECTNESS

 

 

Positive Private Negative Unconscious

 

Part I Self Self Self Self-Esteem
Temporal Stability -.156 -.318 -.hos -.56b -.b13
Peer Discrepancy -.l22 -.23l -.289 -.hhl -.hll
Mother Discrepancy -.387 -.3h1 -.bh5 -.569 -.bl9
Father Discrepancy -.386 L.hh6 -,S99 -.6ll -.hl7
Intra-Parent Disc. -.313 -.365 -.h82 -.S?h -.hS3
Self Range -.168 -.h0h -.VOS -.565 -.hl3
Sociometric IV .2L5 .312 .329 .th .398
Sociometric II .2Sh .262 .336 .hOh .3hh

If we consider only the paper and pencil measures of self-esteem
(the first four measures of self-esteem) we see at once that the

hypothesis is substantiated. There is a progression in the size of

O‘
\Jl

the correlations that coincides with the dimension of directness of
the measure (one exception to this trend is noted in the correlation
of positive self with mother discrepancy). It is felt that the
hypothesis receives strong support from the above data even though
the unconscious self fails to maintain the trend. Rather than give
up the hypothesis it seems more reasonable to assume that in the

very subtility (and subjectivity) of the measure (that characteristic
which makes it a good indirect measure of self-esteem) lies the
explanation for its failure to correlate higher than the negative
self measure. The reference is here of course to the error (revealed
in part by the correlation of .701 between the judges ratings) that
seems an unavoidable part of the intuitive process. There are several
other possible sources of error that could have lowered these corre—
lations. Some evidence concerning at least one of these sources of

error will be presented in a later section.

CHiI’Tfl‘I VI
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND FURTHER IMPLICKTIONS
The K Scale

The K scale was included in the study because it was a measure of
ego-defensiveness and, thus, also a measure of the defensively stable
(rigid) self-concept. Findings related to stability of the self-
concept and rigidity have been contradictory. Cowen (11) found that
Brownfain stability was not related to rigidity as measured by the "F"
scale of FrenkeléBrunswick. The results of Brownfain's own study
suggested that it may not actually have been necessary to control for
"rigidity" as he had done in his design. Certainly there continues
to be much confusion in the thinking about ”rigidity" and there is by
no means agreement as to how it can best be measured. No attempt
will be made to settle these issues here. Let us turn to Table V
(on page 67) which summarizes the results in terms of the K scale.

The first thing to be noticed is that all the correlations are
in the anticipated direction. That is to say, measures of stability
correlated negatively with the K scale and measures of self-esteem
correlate positively. It was assumed that measures of self-esteem
are in part measures of ego-strength (this is also an interpretation
commonly given high scores on the K scale). In other words, as
Hilgard might say, a high score on a self-esteem scale is evidence

of the adequate functioning of the ego-defenses. Those who, on the

as

TABLE V

CCRRSLATICN OF EGO-DEFENSIVENESS'WITH OTHER VAhIaBLES

 

- y‘-~m“-

 

The K Scale
Private Self .080
Positive Self .059
Negative Self .llh
Temporal Stability -.2h6
Brownfain Stability -.O96
Peer Discrepancy -.19S
Mother Discrepancy -.200
Father Discrepancy -.133
Intra-Parent Discrepancy -.080
Self Range -.238
Self Evaluation Scale Part I .151
Unconscious Self-Esteem .00h
Socio-economic Status .167
Conformity to Parental Standards -.160
Conflict of Standards -.05?

 

various measures used in this study, more or less readily admit to
statements carrying derogatory implications will tend to earn rela-
tively larger discrepancy or stability scores than those who don't-
all other factors being equal. The same principle applies in reverse
for the measures of self-esteem. The one measure for which this
could not be said is that of unconscious self-esteem and here as
would be expected we see that there is no relationship (a correlation
of .00h). In general the actual magnitude of the relationship of
ego-defensiveness to these measures is not very large. Only four of
the correlations are significant at the five percent level. Since
all the major variables with the exception of unconscious self-esteem
show some slight tendency to vary with an individual's level of ego-

defensiveness, one may wonder what would be the nature of the

relationships between the variables if this factor were held cons-
tant. If the partial correlation technique is applied to the two
variables most affected by ego-defensiveness, it is found that the .
correlations are not significantly reduced. Thus, the correlation
between temporal stability and negative self with ego-defensiveness
partialed out is reduced from -.56h to -.“57 and the correlation
between temporal stability and self range is changed from .681 to
.663. It is concluded that, although the obscuring influence of
ego-defensiveness can be traced in various ways by its effects on the
measures used, it is not a critically important variable in this
study.

An explanation for the above conclusion in regard to ego-
defensiveness may lie in the fact that, although phenomenological
measures were used, the scoring on all the scales was of a relative
rather than an absolute nature. That is to say, the subjects'
statements about themselves were in no case taken at their face value
but were used instead to rank the subjects along the dimension in
question. This procedure would tend, to some extent, to reduce the

effect of ego-defensiveness.

Origin of Self-Esteem
There are two additional "control" measures that could have
theoretical significance. These are socio—economic status and intelli-
gence. Both may have pertinence to the two opposed views of the origin
of self-esteem discussed earlier. Let us consider first socio-

economic status. Looking at Table I it is seen that ten variables

c9

correlate significantly with this measure. Socio-economic status
correlated .22h with negative self, .°Ol with positive self, .33h
with private self, —.2h2 with temporal stability, -.191 with self
range, .353 with self evaluation scale part I, -.22h with conformity
to parental standards, -.185 with conformity to standards, -.210
with conflict of standard , and .259 with intelligence.

The correlation of socio-economic status with intelligence needs
no comment. It is seen from these results that there is some rela-
tionship between one's socio-economic status, one's self-esteem and
the certainty with which one views one's self. This is perhaps not
surprising in our "marketing oriented" culture. To quote again Fromm:
aMan has transformed himself into a commodity, experiences his life
as capital to be invested profitably; if he succeeds in this, he is
'successful,‘ and his life has meaning; if not, 'he is a failure.‘
His 'value' lies in his salability, not in his human qualities of
love and reason or in his artistic capacities. Hence his sense of
his own value depends on extraneous factors, his success, the judg-
ment of others" (1h p. 30).

Fromm then feels one's feeling of self-esteem lies in the
external signs of "success"--in social recognition as an "important"
person. That is, in this view self-esteem hinges upon external
social and economic marks of status whose attainment is only partly
in the control of the individual himself. hhen one considers how
much more rewarding our materialistic culture is to those higher in

socio-economic status, how much easier it is for them to succeed in

70

terms of the economic goals of the culture because of the additional
advantages their high status gives them, then this interpretation
seems reasonable.

However, it is observed also that the most subtle measure of
self-esteem, unconscious self-esteem, correlates not at all(.039)
with socio-economic status. It seems then that self-esteem as re-
vealed by eXpressive behavior may be a more fundamental kind of self-
esteem. These findings are consistent vdth the synthesis of the two
notions of self-esteem offered on page 21. It will be recalled
there was postulated 1 characteristic level of self-esteem which
may vary within limits depending upon current influences. This
synthesis will be recognized as an integration of the genetic or
historical approach of psychoanalytic personality theory and the field
theoretical approach of Lenin and the contemporary phenomenologists
(such as Syngg and Combs, Rogers).

There is other evidence that leads us to make this complex
interpretation of self-esteem. Because of this interest in the
question of the origin of self-esteem the three subscales concerned
with conformity to standards were devised. These scales should measure
conscious feelings of mastery and be a reflection of current success
experiences. Those who received a low score score on these scales
felt that they were doing successfully the things that they had set
themselves to do. Such success should be eXperionced as a feeling
of enhanced self-esteem. The results show that indeed these person

‘—

do tend to be high in self—esteem and are significantly better

71

adjusted in terms of their success in intwrpcrsonal relations.
"Corffirmity to pirontal standards" correlated -.3Sh with negative
self and -.2hl with sociometric IV. The combined scale, "conformity
to standards," correlated with legative self -.289 and -.l9l with
sociometric IV. Hor* will be said of these scales later.

We turn now to the control variable of intelligence. It is

scan from Table I that the correlations of intelligence with negative
self and Brownfain stability (.151 and .011) were not significant.
It is also seer, however, that the McPartland measure of self-estecn
and unconscious self-esteem are significantly related to intelli
This is also true of the measure cf interpersonal adequacy. The
crrrelations are, reSpective ": .200, .257, and .27h.

It seems that intelligence as well as socio-economic status are
rather oomplexly related to self-esteem nd 'djustment. It is dif-
ficult to know whether one should consider these correlations evidence
of tie impurity of the measures or not. This dilemma is best illus-
trated by pointing to the correlation of .2“? between intelligence
and unconscious self-esteem. This correlation could reasonably
suggest that Mr. Katz and the present writer were being, to some
extent, influenced by the drawing skill of the subjects (and this
truld not be the first time such a finding has been reported).
However, it could also be reasonably asserted that some relationship
is to be expected between the two variables since academic and social
achievement are in part depe dent upon intelligence (general adequacy,

ego capacity). ie have just seen in the preceding paragraphs some

~J
f\)

{vidence that prints in this direction. Thus to sore extent self-
esteem is gained in our culture by achievement--whether JCbl°V9W fit
in terms of social (material) status or sim or the student, in
terms of good grades, This interfretation becomes unavoidable when

it is seen that interpersonal adequacy ('success" in interpersonal
relations) is also related to intelligence, The conclusion we are

faced with is that intelligence and nocio-economic status seem to

have a relationship to both ego-defensiveness and real adesuacy and
genuine self-esteem, Certain of Brounfain's results can be so
interpreted, It may well be that in terms of "getting along" the
important thing is self—esteen and that the padding of the fundamental
self-este:m with superficial or less fundamental attitudes of self-
liking can help the individual sppeir flirlf adequate and well adjusted,
In the case of the correlation of intelligence with unconscious self-
esteem, however, there is other evidence (the lack of correlation of
unconscious self-esteem vdth socio-economic status) which suggests

that the raters did allow themselves to be influenced by features of

the driwings which reflected intellectual capacity, This may have

been the other source of error mentioned in the discussion of
Hypothesis III that prevented the measure of unconscious self-esteem

D
J.

rom being the most potent measure of self-esteem,

Additional Findings in Terms of Measuring Instruments
A Grade Point lverape and Differential Antitude Test
0 Q J,
Although three measures of irtellectual functioning were included

in the study it was decided, for reasons of economy, to deal

73

extensively with only one. Intelligence was chosen instead of the

aptitude test because of its status as a psychological variable and
because it correlated highest with the negative self. It was reasonoi
that the measure correlating highest with the negative self would
have the greater likelihood of also correlating significantly with
the other variables in the study if it turned out that intellectual
functioning was in any way related to the variables in the study,

It is of interest to note that correlation of intelligence with

grade point average is only ,h32, It is seen that even in the case
of a strong and fairly direct psychological relationship one doesn't
obtain extremely high correlations because of the confounding effects
of error and the operation of other factors (in this instance, of
course, motivation would be one of these). It is these troublesome
"other factors" which make the relationships founi in human behavior

so complex and difficult to studv,

B. School Adjustment and Marital Status

The measure of school adjustment which was developed failed to
correlate significantly with the negative self. For this reason it
was concluded that it was probably too gross and inaccurate a measure
to be worth considering further. The reason why it failed to corre-
late with the negative self could be attributed either to the low
validity of the teacher's written comments about the students or to
the experimenter's incorrect judgments as to hovrmuch these rather

general comments reflected poor school adjustment,

Early in the analysis of the data it was realized that the
index of parental marital status was also a failure, Only lg_of the
81 subjects fell into the "Broken Home" category, It was therefore
felt that this measure could not serve as an accurate index of dis-
ruptive factors in the home environment, Hence its relationship to

the other variables was not studied,

C, Coding of the Kuder Vocational Interest Profiles

You will remember that information derived from the Kuder pro-
files was to be used as another independent measure of stability of
the self-concept, Since only categorical information was obtained
from this coding ('differentiated" and "undifferentiated" profiles)
it could not be included in the matrix of intercorrelations, The
individual scores on temporal stability and negative self were each
divided into two groups on the basis of whether the subject who earned
that score possessed a differentiated or undifferentiated Kuder
interest profile, The "t" test was used to discover if the means of
the two groUps differed significantly from one another, The mean of
the undifferentiated Kuder profile group on temporal stability was
18.387 and for the differentiated group 20.3L2. It is seen that the
difference found is in a direction Opposite from that predicted,
It was not tested for significance, The same procedure yielded the
following means for the two grOUps on the negative self measure:
undifferentiated 117.70; differentiated 122.57, This time the dif-
ference was in the predicted direction and the "t" of this difference

was 2,966 significant at the .01 level of confidence. Even though

the difference was significant it can be seen that it is not large,
The difference between the two means would had to have been con-
siderably larger before the Kuder differentiation variable could

have been considered a success.

D. Self Evaluation Scale Part II

It is necessary to consider the greater effectiv~ness of the
three item subscale, Conformity of Parental Standards, as compared
to the effectiveness of the Conformity to Personal Standards sub-
scale. In structure the tan scales are very similar, It was already
mentioned that in scoring these scales it was observed that the third
item in each scale contained the word, "consistently," which appeared
to cause a differential reaponse to that item. For some reason it
was only the item as it appeared on the subscale, Conformity to
Personal Standards, that showed these extremely prominent deviations.
Some but less effect was observed on the item in the parental standa ds
subscale. ind the functioning of this latter scale seemed not to be
adversely effected by the phenomenon. why the three item scale con-
formity to parental standards should be so much more effective than
the conformity to personal standards scale is difficult to explain.
The failure of the later scale is only partly to be blamed on the
ambiguous item, Thus it is seen that the subscale, conformity to
standards, which was based equally upon the two scales (with the two
apparently ambiguous items eliminated) does well in terms of corre-
lating significantly with the other variables but does not do as

well as conformity to parental standards alone,

76

‘ Apparently there seems to be for adolescents a unique import-
ance just in the fact that it is parental standards that are or are

not lived up to, It might also be that adolescents more readily

admit they do not live up to their parents standards and values for
them than admit they fail to live up to their own, It was found

both in the pilot study and in this study that a larger proportion

of the subjects tend to admit failure to conform to parental standards
than will admit failure to live up to personal standards. Thus the
"parental" subscale may tend to elicit more honest reSponses,

There is one other plausible explanation of this paradox. The
two subscales, conformity to parental standards and conflict of
standards, both relate to the parent-child interaction. Just as the
findings concerning mother and father discrepancy support hypothesis
II, so may this finding. The fact that the sUbject does not feel he
lives up to his parental standards may be evidence (inferential
evidence) of conscious rejection ofzmui ambivalence about parental
standards, This is, of course, the kind of parent-child interaction
that, as has been hypothesized, leads to a large discrepancy between
the inferred and conscious selves,

It is interesting to observe that the measures of current "success"
(the conformity to parental standards and conformity to standards
subscales) correlated with the measures of stability, paper and pencil
measures of self-esteem and interpersonal adequacy but did not corre-
late significantly with the deeper, projective measure of self-esteem.

And consistent with this it is seen also that the conformity to

77

standards scale correlates higher with private and positive self

than with negative self. These two subscales correlated —."8b and
-.571 with McPartland's self-esteem scale (Part I) and -.lSl and
-.108 with unconscious self-esteem. we again, possibly, see evidence

for a two factor theory of self-esteem.

Other Implications of the Findings

It is felt that the findings of this study (such as the quite
substantial correlation of negative self with interpersonal adequacy)
give support to the phenomenological approach to the study of
personality. A person's statements about himself seem to give us
very useful information about the real interpersonal world in which
he moves.

It was seen also that the projective measure, unconscious self-
esteem, correlated .398 with sociometric measure IV (number of choices
for friend). This, for one of the least validated of clinical tools,
is felt to be a real achievement. Certainly this finding gives support
to the projective approach to the study of personality. The unexpectly
good results were eSpecially gratifying because this particular pro-
jective technique has been, on occasion, harshly criticized by non-
dynamically oriented psychologists. It would seem that one reason
for the failure of this tool in the hands of others can be traced to
their taking an atomistic approach to its validation. Perhaps it would
also have been found in this study that no single measure of line
length, height of figure or what have you would have succeeded. This

is not to say that the draw-a-person test has not been used succ,sofully

1 v

t)

in research before. One need only refer to the recent studies of
Nitkins £3.5l- (bl). It would seem to be a reasonable conclusion
that both phenomenological measures (the persons own self-report)
and deeper projective measures are required for a thorough under-
standing of the human personality.

It is felt that the results of this study justify questioning
the adequacy of the ROgerian self ideal-self discrepancy as a measure
of self-concept stability. It is felt that had each of the many
studies reported from Chicago used instead of the self ideal-self
discrepancy, a good measure of self—esteem (for example, the negative
self) they would have increased the significance of the results
obtained. Their stability measure, like the Brownfain measure, may
be essentially a measure of self-esteem plus some error (it is
guessed that the error in the Rogerian measure may not generally be
excessive because of the presence of ratler stable and definite
cultural values that tell us what the "ideal self" should be like.
If, instead, the ideal self measures, as Horney states, neurotic self-
inflation or if it measures, as certain studies have concluded, a
high level of aspiration, the error involved in considering this
discrepancy a measure of self-concept stability becomes greater.

It should finally be observed that the two "good" measures of
self-esteem (hypothesis III) correlated with the criterion variable of
interpersonal adequacy higher in each of the four cases (.hhh, .hOL;

‘9

CO

, ,3hh) than did any stability measure in the study. It is

\)

hypothesized from this observation that, all things considered,

self-esteem is a somewhat more central p:r sonality variable than

have better measures of self-esteem than stability.

What do these four correlations suggest to us? Th might hypcthc
siae that a perso 's fundamental liking and respect for himself is
noted by others consciously or unocnscirusly and that it is the
recognition of this attitude by others that determines the amount of
success he will have in gaining the love, confidence and “63pfct of
others, Few would see reason to lihe someone who can not find sound
reasons for liking himself,

in eXplanation of tho relationsfip 3f self—cone opt stability
to interpersonal adequacy can also be offered. (Neither the
explanation to be given or the one ayovs is offered as the (Lefir witix
one, There t:;sts a varietJ: f mutual y conHanolw and interrelated
interpretations of these two sets of findings). It may be that
person vdth an unstable self-concept vmuld probably be inconsistent
in the ways he reacted interpersonally-—rti ght be

p :7 ' .- : ‘4
’ ....(‘r ‘- 4i¢m£le ’ a

‘

social "chameleon"--ano this characteristic would reduce his ability

to form deep and lasting human relations.

Source es of Error
The interpretation of correlation coefficients is not an easy
matter. For one thing, two variables may be related to each other
for reasons other than those supposed by the experimenter. In this
study the high degree of internal consistency of the results seems
to be evidence that in most case-s the relationships that are revealed

reflect what they are said to reflect.

Most correlations found in psychological research are not very
high and often the researcher is happy if his findings are simply
statistically significant. Low correlations betvmen two variables
may be the result of the low reliability of the measuring instru-
ments or of their low validity for the use to which they are put.

It is thought that, of the instruments employed in thisestudy, the
measure of unconscious self-esteem and the three and four item

scales are probably the least reliable. In general, however, it is
felt that low reliability of measuring instruments was not a major
source of error in the study. In contrast to the reliability of the
measures, the validity of the measures of self-esteem and stability
is relatively little known. It is assumed that their less than
perfect validity has caused the correlations obtained to be under-
estimates of the strength of the relationships between the various
variables, The great many significant correlations obtained in the
study do, of course, suggest that the measures employed are of at
least adequate validity, It is thought that the sociometric measures
have probably the most validity (were the most direct measures) while
the measures of stability and of parental inconsistency (mother and
father discrepancy, intra-parent discrepancy, conflict of standards
scale) were probably least valid because of their relative indirect-
ness.

Failure to meet the assumption of linearity does not seem to have
been a significant source of error, In no case did inspection of
the scatter diagrams reveal evidence of nonlinearity of regression,

There was, however, evidence in many cases that the variation about

81

the regression line deviated to some extent from normality and homo—
sceiasticity,

Tendencies toward lack of homoscedasticity were more evident
in some kinds of relationships and less (or not) evident in other
kinds, Thus, for example, the scatter diagrams of the relationships
of the several measures of self-esteem to each other appeared to be
relatively normal whereas there was a slight but definite funneling
effect seen in the scatter diagrams of the relationship of the Brownfain
inventory measures of self-esteem to the measures of self-concept
stability, Those high in self-esteem as measured by the private,
positive, and negative selves quite consistently possessed stable
self-concepts whereas those low in self-esteem somewhat less con-
sistently possessed unstable self—concepts, It is thought that this
tendency for the relationship between self-esteem and stability to
become somewhat weaker at the low end of the self-esteem continuum
is an artifice of measures of self—esteem derived from the Brownfain
inventory, Measures of self-esteem not derived from this inventory
(the McPartland scale and the figure drawing test) were fairly normally
related to the measures of stability,

Not yet fully understood and requiring further study are the
relatively very high correlations of McPartland's self-esteem scale
(self evaluation scale, part I) with the three subscales of self
evaluation scale, part II and socio-economic status and the private
and positive selves, These varirbles all appear to have something in
common with each other which may possibly be some kind of defensive-
ness--a kind of defensiveness however which is not related to the

test taking defensiveness measured by the K scale,

It should be kept in mind that the findings of the study have
direct application only to comparable populations of male high
school students. It is conceivable that certain of the findings--
for example, that of the correlation of intelligence with the socio-
metric measure of interpersonal adequacy--might be fairly specific
to the age group studied. However, in view of current educational
practices, a high school population will be in general a more
representative (more heterogeneous) sample of normal individuals
than are the college populations generally used in studies of the

normal personality.

CHAPTER VII
SUTJII’IARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present research was designed to investigate the relationship
of self-esteem to stability of the self-concept. In order to carry
out this aim it was necessary to study the effectiveness of various
methods of measuring the variables of self-esteem and stability. As a
consequence of this study it was hoped to provide a clearer delineation
of what it is that is measured by these devices. is a part of this
problem an effort was made to develop a measure of self-concept
stability that would be fUnctionally independent of self-esteem.

Three hypotheses were tested by the research. The first hypothesis
grew out of the results of a pilot study which seemed to reveal the
great degree to which self-esteem entered into (and contaminated)
current measures of self-concept stability. This first hypothesis
stated that self-esteem is the primary psychological dimension measured
by Brownfain's index of self-concept stability. The second hypothesis
was a formulation of the relationship of self-esteem to self—concept
stability. It stated that those persons who have introjected or
internalized contradictory systems of valuation will have unstable
self-concepts. The third hypothesis dealt with the influence of ego-
defensiveness on measures of self-esteem. It was proposed that the
measure of self-esteem least influenced by ego-defensiveness will be

the most effective measure of self-esteem.

83

8b

Measures of the stability of the sel -concept, of self-esteem,
of ego defensiveness, of disturbance in family relationships and
sociometric measures of adequacy in interpersonal relationships were
administered to 81 graduating high school seniors. Information was
also obtained concerning the intellectual ability, scholastic compe—
tence and adjustment of the students and the socio-economic status
of the parents of the students. The above variables were inter-
correlated and the resulting matrix of intercorrelations analyZed.
Prior to collecting the data predictions were made as to the direction
of the relationships for each correlation obtained from the inter-
correlation of all the major variables. In addition hypotheses I and
III involved the making of predictions as to the relative magnitudes
of the relevant correlation coefficients.

Two measures of the stability of the self-concept were developed
that were completely free from contamination by the variable of self-
esteem. These were the measures of temporal stability and intra-
parent discrepancy. The former is a measure of the amount of change
in the ratings made of the actual self over time, The latter is a
measure of inconsistency of parental attitudes toward the child.

It is a measure of the discrepancy between the concept the student
believes his mother has of him and the concept the student believes
his father has of him.

The three hypotheses the research investigated appeared to be
strongly supported by the results obtained. is by-product of the

3

study support was also found for the theoretical preposition that

85

the stability of the self-concept is a dimension of personality
closely related to feelings of self-esteem and to adjustment and
interpersonal adequacy. It was also concluded that both the projective
and phenomenological approaches to the study of personality gain
support from the results of the study, The results have implications
for a general theory of self-esteem. Accordingly an interpretation
of self-esteem in terms of the results of the study was offered.
Because measures of self-concept stability which are based in
part upon a rating of the actual or true self seem to be seriously
contaminated by self-esteem, the results of the study seemed to
justify questioning the adequacy of the Rogerian self ideal-self
discrepancy asia measure of self—concept stability, Ego defensiveness
as measured by the K scale was not a critically important variable
in the study, There are hints however that there may be some form
of defensiveness not measured by the K scale but related rather to
socio-economic status which entered into certain of the measures of
self-esteem. It is felt that the relationship of socio—ecenomic
status to stability and self-esteem needs further study,
Another suggestion for further research, arising from the data,
is the possibility that individual test-retest measures of reliability
of paper and pencil tests of personality may be good measures of

personality in their own right,

IO.

11.

12.

13.

1t.
15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. Allport, Gordon W. Becoming New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1955.

. Bender, Lauretta and Silver, Archie. Body image problems of the

brain damaged child. J. soc. Issues. l9h8, h(h), 8h-89.

 

Bertocci, P A. The psychological self, the ego, and personality.
Psychol. Rev. 19h5, 52, 91-99. -

 

Bills, Robert. Self concepts and rorschach signs of depression.
J. of consult. Ps ch., l9Sh, 18, 135-138.

 

Brown, E. A. and Goitein, P. L. The significance of the body
image for personality essay. J. nerv. ment. Dis. 19h3, 97, hOl-hOB.

 

Brownfain, John J. The StabiliEy_of the _Self-Concept as a Dimension
of Personality. Doctoral Dissertation Series. Publication: 238;.
Univ. Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1951. ,

 

 

 

Calvin, J. D., and Holtzman, Wayne. Adjustment and the discrepancy
between self-concept and inferred self. J. of consult. Psyehpl.,
1953, 1?, 39"th

 

Cameron, N. The Psychology of Behavior_ Disorders. Boston:
HoughtonéMifflin,19h7.

 

Chien, I. The awareness of self and the structure of the ego.
Psychol Rev., 19th, 51, 3ou-31b

 

Chodorkoff, Bernard. Adjustment and the discrepancy between the
perceived and ideal self. J. of Clin. Psych. 19Sh, 10, 266—268.

 

Cowen, Emory L. The ”negative self concept" as a personality
measure. J. of consult. ngch., 19Sh, 18, 138-1h3.

 

Edward, Allen L., Statistical Methods for the thgviogal Sciences.
New York: Rinehart & Co., Inc., 19Sh.

 

Fitts, W'. H. The Role of_ the Self Concept in Social Perception.
Doctoral Dissertation Series, Publication: 11,133. Univ.
Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 195h.

 

r.l

Fromm, Erich. The Sane Society, New'York: Rinehart & Co., 1935.

 

. Selfishness and self-love. Psychiatry, 1939, 2,
$07-23 e

86

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

27.

28.

29.

30.

.lfilgard, Earnest. Human motives and the concept of the self.

trer PSZFIOIOFISU l9h9, U, 37U-3R9.

Horney, Karen The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. New York:
-' .Norton & Co., 1937.

 

 

. Our Inner Conflicts. New York: W} W} Norton, l9h5.

 

Jaeger, Jacob O. S. Mechanisms in depression. Amer. J. of
Psychotherapy, 1955, 9, th-hSl.

 

Lecky, Prescott. Self Consistency. New York: Island Press,
l9uS.

 

Machover, Karen. Drawing of the human figure: a method of
personality investigation. In H. Anderson & G. Anderson (Eds.),
Progective Techniques. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951. Pp. 3hl-
369.

 

McGehee, Thomas P. A study of the relationship between behavioral
learning and changes in self~concept. Unpublished masters thesis.
San Jose State College, 1952.

McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, l9h9.

 

McPartland, Thomas S. D. The Self and Social Structure: an
Em irical A roach. Doctoral Dissertation Series. ‘Publication:
L9 . n v. icrofilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1953.

 

McQuitty, Louis L. A measure of personality integration in
relation to the concept of self. J. Personal., 1950, 18, h61-hf2

'. Mead, George H. Mind Self, and Society. Chicago: The Univ. of

4..
Chicago Press, 193D?

Mullahy, Patrick. Oedipus, Myth and Comple§. New York:
Hermitage Press, 19KB.

 

Raimy, Victor C. The self-concept as a factor in counseling and
personality organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, 19h3.

Rand, ‘Winifred, Sweeny, Mary and Vincent, E. Grovmh and Develop-
ment of the Young Child. Philadelphia: ‘W' B. Saunders Co.,l “19h/

 

Robinson, Robert Killian. A Study _of‘the Concept of the Idealiznd

‘-..Jw

Image“ in :Relation to Similar Concepts_ and to certain Psycholo * 311

".-.—- H‘“-

Exnerwments Doctoral Dissertation Series, “Publication: 7110.
Univ. hierofilms, Ann Arbor, Nichig1n, 1953.

36.

37.

38.

39.

hO

Ll.

L2,

_‘I

'\
k
(7)

Rogers, Carl R.C11eno-oentereo Tlerap3 83 “ton Houghton
Mifflin 00., 1911

 

 

 

The organization of personality, Amer, Psrclol oqisf
”T. ,' ---—~‘
19u7, 2, 358-3U8.
Sarbin T. R. A preface to a 03 cholocical analvsis of the self.
9 . 1 b u

§'§.3'_C.}l?}.-.ffi¥.1"}1’, 1952 , 59 : 11'22-

Scott, W. Clifford M. Some embryological , neurological,
psychiatric and psycho-analytic impch ations of the body 8 w} ne
Int. J._psychoanal., l9h8, 29, lbl- 155.

 

Short, Morris Hohcrt Belf—Ds*een. a Stud; 'f th Ct1'311
Significanceo of certain aspects of the Dgnamics of Helt—osfeefi

..... -"~N

as Develooed in Psy chiatzz and Gestalt PS cho1otora1
Univ M

Dissertation Series, Pablication. .5573. icrofilms,
Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1953.

 

 

Snygg, Donald and Combs, w; Individual Behavior New York: V’
Harper & Brothers, 19L9.

 

 

Stephenson, William The Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1953.

Stern, 'William. Psychologz_of bargx_9111dhood New York:
Henry Holt, 192h

Taylor, Donald M. Consistency of tile Self-Concept Doctoral
Dissertation Series, Publication: 6bi3. Univ. Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1953.

 

Wiener, Daniel N. Empirical eCCUpational groupings of Kuder
Preference record profiles. Educ. Psychol, Measmt., 1951, 11,

273-279.

 

Jitkin, H. A et a1. Personaligz;Through_ Perception New York:
Hazper & Brothers, l95h.

Wolff, Werner Methods of experimental depth ps3chology In
H. An: erson & G. Anderson (Eds. ), Projective Techniques. New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1951 Pp. MOO-h97

 

APPENDIX A

GENLRAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELF RATING

..e want to find out what kind of person YOU hEALLY THINK YOU ARE. .36
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 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 position
on the scale on any trait, compare yourself 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 RLFER 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.

SELF RATIEG INVENTORY

Every person has a picture of himself or a way he sees himself. This
finventory consists of 2C traits which all people possess to a greater or

lesser degree.
picture of themselves.

These traits are used by persons in crder to paint this
Only the extremes of each trait are described.

The low and, "1", describes in approximate terms the students who stand
lswest on a particular trait, while the high end, "13", describes the

people who stand highest on the trait.

To simplify matters the masculine

pronoun (he) is used to refer to both girls and boys.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

7.

10w END (1)

INTELLIGENCE

Is among the least bright of his

classmates. Is not especially
quick or alert in grasping
complicated ideas and tasks.

MATURITY

In many ways is "childish" and
seems younger than actual age.
Simply is not "grown‘up" Is

among the least mature 113 the

group.

AT EASE SOCIALLY

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

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS

15 among those in the class who
are physically most homely or
plain-looking.

GENEROSITY

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

CHbERFUINESS

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

SINCLRITY
Is insincere: you can't tell
whether or’not he is kidding

or means what he says or does.

INITIATIVE

Is dependent upon others; has
trouble making up his mind;
seems to need reassurance and

"VGI‘SUS "

HIGH END (10)

Is among the most brilliant of his
class. Is alert, quick, and imagina-
tive in understanding complicated
ideas and tasks.

Acts his as. 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,
beaUt i fill a

Gives generously of possessions and
money; wants to help other people;
usually thinks first of the welfare
of others.

Is very cheerfUI 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

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

IO! END (1)

TRUSTFUINESS
Is suspicious of others and
looks for hidden reasons; might

'feel mistreated or disliked

without good reas on .
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.

3 PO RTSH Al SH I P

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

IBDIVIDUALITY

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

SELFHUNDERSTANDING

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.

UN DERSTAN DIN G 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.

~ve I‘SUS ‘

HIGH END (10)

Trusts other peeple without being
fooled by them; gives peOple the bene-
fit of the doubt without looking for
hidden motives.

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

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

Expresses 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 personality
handicaps.

Associates a great deal and talks a
lot about the opposite sex. Nell
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 peeple and shows good
understanding of their personality.

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

18.

19.

..LOHJEND (l)

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.

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

~versus ‘

HIGH END (10)

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

Works consistently, attentively and
industriously at any task undertaken
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 Sex: M Initials:

FEW lst Middle Last
Birthdate:
Mo . Day Y ear

Now, keeping the general instructions in mind, rate yourself on each of
the items making up the inventory as YOU BELLE! TrUJIK YOU ARE. Make the most
accurate estimate of H0“ IOU SE43 YOUESM and write the numerical scale value
(from 1 to 10) of this self-rating on the little line Opposite each trait name.

SELF-P. ITILG IIWLL.TORY RATING SCALE

1. Il‘iTJIuIIUEVCrJ

 

_ 2. M’I'UhITY 10 In the top 10% of your High

. School CJass
9 - In the Second 10% from the top

3. “'1‘ AL-ISE SOCIALIX

4. PHYSICAL ATIRnC‘l‘IVfl-EE'SS

 

...... 5- GHMROEJITY s '1 In the Third 10% from the top

 

6. ammonites
7 a In the Fourth 10% from the top
7. summary

 

...... 8- LITIATIVE 6 s In the 10% just above the Middle
Middle

 

9 . TRUSTI‘UIILIISS

 

5 - In the 10/5 just below the Middle

 

 

11. SPORT&.A9.'S;.IP 4 4 In the Fourth 1076 from the Bottom

 

 

12 . 11 IDIVIDUALI TY

 

5 - In the Thrid 10% from the Bottom
13. SM‘W‘WERSRLLCDLIG .

 

 

...—.14. HTMT IN 03905IT45 SJ: 2 d In the second 10% from the Bottom

 

15. DEPENDABIIITY

 

, - _ -- l s In the Bottom 10% of your High
160 UNDERSTALDIIVG 0131 OTIIIEIRS L§ChOOLClaSS 3*

J .___

 

 

1'7. :uJCIL'BTING UNI'BISLF

 

18. BOPUushITY

 

19 o PIJRSIL‘I'rNCE

 

20. SI-JLF-COIJTRUL

 

PLMSE DO NOT RIII'ER bACIt TO BRANIUDB lat'I‘IIEGS FOR GULJILTUE.

Ratilié: bileut 1:0. 2

‘MOSt 900913 are not entirely certain as to exactly Where the; Stand on these
we still want to know dcu'YCU SJE'IOUECJ;F,

traits as compared to other people.
but with this difference.
yourself.

that trait.

This time rate yourself taking a favorable view of

Give yourself the benefit of any reasonable doubt you might have on any
trait and rate yourself in the ILIu-Lbi‘ "LSAT YOU IsiJISZ-‘CVLLY ‘I-LILTI-C 'IOU .313 on

Remember, be re-liatic in your favorable self-rating.

Do not, without

careful consideration. give yourself a high rating on.every trait.

50°13 :

On some traits. you may see yourself as higher than any heater in the class.

In this case, you may use an "11" to rate gear standing as that trait'ihstead
Of a "10".

{Jim " ' “Edi-‘1’; It} Il-J v'I-il I'EU'RY

—..--,--.

9.

 

10.

 

ll.

12.

 

 

l4.

 

l5.

 

16.

 

1'7.

 

 

 

 

Rigid? 110 1:01 was I: 01%. 1‘0

Equile-ILJCE
1421.1 QILITY

.11 alibi}; SJUI.LLJ.X
I’HYLJI Um. ..‘I‘I Rm) _._ I’V‘Jin'bi;
unmAROLITY

diMdtrULimb

SIJGIE-ITY

ILI’I‘IJLI E

ZEUS assumes

Alain-51.8

{3 0123511. .I‘I (a. .II’

I...) IVIDUALITY

bile? - IRSUERIaggDI-Ii
EC’Ent-IL‘I‘ I1? OIDI’OSI’I’J 1L.
usfisl‘.D-.J'I.LI'I-'Y
‘thJJiuST.at'DI-;C OI" 0‘11..ij
..CCJQ’TEEU 013.56.31.13"

.5030 ...}C‘lY

IJARSI‘I-"InTIICIJ

{2.41.130 .1311 i 01.

iatTEJU SW I I”

10‘

idddle

., ,9” ..---
. '11.; J lvUL)

In the
30.13201

In the

the

“A- A A...
f

top 10% of your high
Class__

Second 105 from the toy

Third 10% from.the top

 

In the

 

hburth 10% from the top

 

In he

107:; just cat-cits the kiddie

 

In the

In the

In the

I

In

an
0.10

10% just below thelmiddle

Fourth lOfi from the Bottom

A__ __ AL A A

Third 10m from the Bottom

Second 10k from the Bottom

 

1‘

In the

 

2-1112105 FOR C'UIDAITCB

A cum-m-

 

v“

Bottom.10fi of your high

males-s. - ..-.-- -

 

.1

“:.£ “ ‘.

N ~v-+=,W':Zn‘.it

r???

Rating bneet Jo. 3

This time, unen you are unce tain as to
as cougared to other people in the Lioup, re
of yourself. Do not .ive ;ourse lf t benef
have on any trait. Instead, r te ;ou self
ILIKKZIOU'JLJ on tnat trait. But reuember t

careful consideration, hive .ourself a 13w r

LFOIJ: On some it-ns, f a
In tJis case,
Of a "l".

LJ-..B -3;.-.‘l ILL“: I. Tv‘L-L‘TLUKI

jou may see gourso
you Jay use a zero (0) to rat

-‘T...

.;.- . $.44- -.L

l. (14.0.13

2 O . ~— -.o:l'\...L-‘.I rm

C” a. -<‘

I

- ..., _ ....
J3»... L. JV'L.LL..L.[

(L...
9
4. :fibIoJJ JIQAJCIIVJgnLS
”
5. uJJJ-ObZIY 8

. 1"f- 7‘ '-" v C'
V.Lfl—4¢JU.J‘.J~U

6
1.151le

.' T -— Y:""\" 1
J... o.LJ-.L“L¢L VAL

8.

Lf'.‘ .gv'L I '-’ .' C
.L.L‘LUL.« .LJJUU“ ain‘t-U

9.

5

 

l0. std.unJJihL
ll . S. L. ..‘b'. L Lib; .I.’ 4

-- . --. -_- -.. ..., ‘7'
*AU.~J.~AJU—LJ‘L.L).

....

c ,. :77 “ .- ' -
U¢J¢LM.'-VA'IJJ——LLLU-—u-DL$0U

--Tp ,
.L...J......L ._Jt. ._

.... "‘.)"C'T",_‘- C -
.Ll.‘ U...‘..UL.--.L.-.J L...»

DJ...L._J.L.;..I1'Y

‘ " r ; ' f‘.‘ L 1' r'; 1f_(
bAl—IJé-‘ka‘uto. ...LJJ..\\J OJ." Vl-L.a.‘J.LLLJ

17. -u) 4.1.“...1JIU' Lima». .414...
10. L;UJ.)Q.-<.~L J: :31

;; ,_L.-.-<_2 -, an
.L.._J.LJV.LL—'.L-J.-UJJ

’1 ' " ‘r‘u‘ I 1'_ *~ ‘
VAL; "U U. . -J.LU-'~..

L ‘1 1. ._ ' ~
LLJJJ ..JLL “LU-. ..U

-. , - . ' r1
.L’-.....u....'. .LJU ..yl

..., ,. T S 7." 1, -- -
-.I\...V..'.Uv $k "L-,... -

1.,

exactlJ where you stand on each trait
te ourself t“kinu ai unfavorable View
iv 0f “611.7 re 80. 1.10.1.8 CLOL‘bt 1011 Iii Oht
t1 .9 JJOLJJLL --....l‘ LuU LHJnhLJJ-L/L‘Uoh—LI

o no realistic. Do nos, Litnout
atin on every item.

.LV.
one

in
i'em

3 1.0.1: I

lower tlan any
y ur standing

group.

o
r :t instead

4-' '-\

U- 1'
! .....- .‘ .- ‘

Ri$L51U LEV-5.1.111!

—— --

top 105 of
Class

In the
School

.' Y- o .1
JOLLI‘ $41411

 

.... ”...-.~ .I --.

In tne becond 10$ iron the to}

 

 

 

 

- In th ihird lop firm. the top
«flu the xourth 10m fr . the top

 

 

In the iust stove tLe Diddle

U

10p

 

— av.-- -..—.m... m—*

.1-
So

In the lufi ju below the hiddle

 

q

1 In tne

4P- *.—-‘---~..—"~ ~-- ----- “Q... m

"--‘- Ova. - --- -—'- .-...- O". - 0-- - -..-

rourth 10m from the bottom

1 In tlc :hird 10p iron the botto-

 

--—‘ I

 

 

4 In tho becond 10$ fro“ the bottom
a In the gotten lUp of ;our nigh

 

...-5011.921; lac-a ..

 

LEE: .L‘LJIL L -.L.)-L. C... .b.

Rating Sheet No. 4

This time we want you to estimate as accur..tel;r as ~ ou can EON TEE 3'"ij

IN YOUR cuss NUJJJJ RLTE YOU on all

0;? use JG; Glut.“ would see J0“.

SJJ-RLTLiG Ileé-IOEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 .
.18.

19.

 

20.

 

ILTJLLIC‘GLLGE

AT .5 Jon} COULw
f. .1610. ..L A..T.mC 1171.11.333

‘ r.- I C”"‘"-~'
‘JJ‘J. . JhiLUL-J. .L‘.L

0.1.4.1150..be
SILCCJIQI‘I

.....

‘1 . $5.113 43.1.53

.19“?in

$30.13;). .. BEL. L?

Lil. IVIDU. (LI TY
5.31J"-U.~5J.3113i - 4.313:ij

L T'I'JlubT 1.51. 04.23%): 23.3 54$
UNDfiLZ'xQIU Ill} 0.: 0T: ...... \S
i’QUJQTI-Ku 013.222.4411

BOPU In. L: .LY

.‘Jlifil b L .41.. 3.3

SJJL-C ONi‘I-OL

the i toms .

This how ;.ou believe LIKE-E)"

ktgl'LJG SCI-.12.}

‘ -h- ‘___ -——. A - AHA

 

9 -4121 the ascent! 10.5 from the top

03

LAAAgm . ...- “LA‘A' ‘_ A M - A- I A ‘
w.—

in the Third 10.; from the 1:09

1%“; A ...J

##A‘ ‘_ .-

In the Fourth 1075 from be top

- . ,_ _ .‘ A -_____L_.._.._L# LA LA

In the 1053 just above the .10.;13.

...—...... “Oman-“......“ ”----

 

H. I

l . .
,In the 10,0 just below the 1461de

put—..-

 

4. 00“..-“ .

 

min the Fourth 10,3 from the Dotted

1W.” -m-‘u‘mw ......- “V“

In the Third 10-,3 from the Bottom

AA
‘ v——- ‘—

v

1111 the Second 1028 from the Bottom
1

In the Bottom 1073 of your High

 

 

.7 m

'3- ‘ g ‘ .' ~.-.- * fizw'fif‘ . 1* ; ‘ f""11'“."." ’ :7‘.""‘-(\ I‘ ‘N *‘P~ «'31
Lino—Juli. .LJU HUT ital‘lbl'i Mb... EL) -‘ILUJ'LLUUb I...L-.LLULJ 10K GUJJJ-1..V.L;:0

Rating bheot E0. 5

This time we want you to estinete
upset Ldld IOU on all the itens. Ibis

JOEHER sees it.

1"

i; ALE-i - x if. :6 1.9114 l' 0'53
1. I fglLIUQJQE
2. .WAIULITY
. FL; $.le bUCi-w;
..4' JJYLICHL.ATIL UilVgLEbS
5. ufihdloolff
D. u...L-J.’.LUQ§~.L£b
7. fileJEITf
8. ILIIIAIIVJ
9 o ‘1‘} JUL . FU‘Lflubfi
__lO 0 z sun. 5".i'--s.-'_).L.L1§

ll 0 S.-U.Lll 61¢. 4335.41...)

 

13 . LJJJJ'IULuQI TY

 

13. sig7-L“.~rn;31¢fz--. ULG

 

14. LQIJQLT III- ufi. yEJ:T.; 5.4.;

- P - --fi' fi' ‘1 r“. V “3”" 7 1 - {:3 --.‘--’,~
lo 0 \4L"-U;J;.LIJ.-L‘6U.L1VLF 03 U J.“ mfg.

 

”,1-

17. ...;J; 'i‘lifC- OLLSISJ

18 . l’ol’U,-_.n-;I If

" '3 ”)1". 3‘ WV“
1‘." . lglwlp $.1wa

 

2O . Slim -o01?£hUL

' 1 (. . \‘_’\ '.‘° ‘f". '4. w ,1"- v‘ rfi- f. . 3'“ .r.. ....
L’lgfihtog .L/U (v.04. 4'.._J£._J;. '51.;le LU ..fanV..\/L»S

accure'oly as you can IDd' OUR HOTLER
your self-picture as you believe your

‘ r "‘ ' (- u --‘.1
lhxli-z‘J aaUxLLD

 

10- In tne top 10p of your Ligh
behool eluss

 

- --‘ ..‘ro-m.

In the Lecond 10$ from.the to.

J.

{.0
I

 

-.- ..." b-.----- --.-n...-

8 . In the Third 10/22 fro;.1 the ’00:)

 

--Q- “Q C

7 1 In the Iburth 10p from the top

1%“

 

 

I'm ...- -- ’m

 

6 + In the 10p just above the middle

 

-V‘ *m”._

CH
1

In the lot Just below the middle

~~ w ... -~ “fi—‘fl

 

4 - In the reurth 10m from the Bottom
......“ .... ---.---._._. ----.. ---- ......

3 fl In the ihird 10m irom.the bottom
45-..__ ...----“-.m-” -.-... ---. ... ...—......—

2 1 In the becond 10m from tne Bottom

lb.- m- —.- “-1.- --.-.- ......- .——-.- -.-—*m

1 A In the Dottom.lOfi of your ui¢h
School 0133s

 

 

_ ‘.' ..‘-“

‘ ‘ . IT.” ._ '7. ‘7‘ “r.” r ' -.fl'f‘ - v" "-3
J. L‘La..-\ JL.’ .L' 4.1 ULJ.A..LJA'1-LIULO

Rating 54“

t 4-00 6

)-.‘
J»!

Tnis tine we want you to estinete as accur\tely es you can no" IVUI JLILLR

"oUID LAII IoU on all the

fininnn sees 1t.

Jour

' +~ .
1UU1.iSo

1 1 wri,‘ " " ‘ ' ‘ r13"?
SAM-L\-LL.:...IU .L-vv...:...J.U.'.‘LJ.

4:.
5.

 

 

12.

 

'2
U.

14.

 

l5.

 

 

 

"7 J c ' . ‘ ‘1 ', ‘mt; ‘ - : '
£1.14-th3 UV ;.\}.l IL._'J.L'..'J.LL AJeLVL- .LU

--

I; . 16.1.7444 -.'_Jl;UE)

$ ‘1‘; U1. \l‘iY

AL .413» 41.: EJOUIALHJJB.

~“ , '.‘ . ' . ..e:- cc
.."Iilblvlw lell'uxvll‘lm.wu

GIL-L.,:mu. SIT!

. “1 ' .‘T " ‘.
‘UILL-.IL.L' Uusdbo

'. ‘7’ ,. 'rr.
gluonnfl

I. . 1115.1:ng

r": r .. ‘ Q"
lisUbLi'U-L—AIJJJLJD

~ V .1
{31.1-14.’ 4.an

0.. Unit; M Q-IELLIB

I. .UI v IJUgIQI‘i' ;

DALI-g . DEAL-'1. -1171) I. {1"
InTfinnLI IQ OgfieLIIn 5J3
ULDJLLIJLDILG Or vinnhb
Ado “M I; .U m ”3;; 4,4}
-.:UJ.IU»‘L[ L- TI

bJLfi-Qufiinon

lhis is YOUr self-gicture

10

as you believe

 

‘5‘“.

In the top 10p of your hi3h
behool Uldss

 

I"- ...“-

In tne second 10m frog the top

 

-I‘““~h—u * -u ...-a...“

In the third low from tne t0)

 

.. -...

 

In tne neurth lop Iron t43 tog

 

m “r” -~---..n -v“ ——

In tne 10M just above the hifiale

 

In tne 10p just t.e Lidule

 

I.“

e In the beCOnd 10m from the notton

 

In the

 

In the Lhrid 10p from the Bottom

 

" --m- -.

 

4-..- m *I

 

l

_ --—-~--.—.o.—vb ‘—-“---

In the Jottom 19p of your nigh

 

School.gggss

-”.m—- -—--.-.~--~---~ e..-

V - . ..e .-‘f .> r .....- ..:
.JILAWJ.-UUL1 luau..- W .L'Uifi 'x;‘b_,_J.'x..\/I_xo

memnu B

SJLF JVnnU.TION SCaLE
Part I
Initials ___.
lst middle
Sex: MALE
FVflaLE Birthdate

Ia’oTDav

In answering these questions about yourself, please just CREEK ONE of

answers to each question.

1.

2.

4.

5.

6.

7.

How pleased are you with yourself?

am.almost never pleased with myself.

I am not often pleased with myself.

I am.pleased with myself about as often as I am diSpleased.
I am.usually pleased with.myself.

I always think well of myself.

H

 

 

 

 

 

How intelligent are you?
I have a first rate mind.
I have very high intelligence.
I have only average intelligence.
I have less than average intelligence compared to my classmates.

 

 

 

 

How talented are you?
I have few talents.
I have only ordinary talents.
I have a good deal of talent in some fields.
I have very unusual talents.

 

 

 

How often are you ashamed of yourself?

am.never ashamed of.myself.

am.ashamed of myself only rarely.

am.ashamed of myself sometimes, but not often.
often feel ashamed of things I have done.
am.always ashamed of.myself.

ijiki

 

H

 

H

 

what kind of a family do you come from?

my family is below average.

I come from an average family.
I come from a good, but not exceptional family.
my family is an exceptionally good one.

 

 

How often are you displeased with yourself?

I am.never displeased with myself.

I am rarely diapleased with.mysolf.
I am displeased with myself pretty often.
I seem.to be always displeased with myself.

 

 

How often are you proud of yourself?

I am never proud of myself.

I am.seldom proud of myself.

I am proud of'myself about half the time.
I am.proud of myself most of the time.

I am.always proud of myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iast

 

year
the

.42..

8. How does your personal appearance compare with others?

9.

10.

I have an excellent personal appearance.
W personal appearance is better than average.
My personal appearance is as good as the average.
W personal appearance is something of a handicap to me.

 

How satisfied with yourself are you?

I am never satisfied with myself.

I am seldom satisfied with myself.

I am satisfied with myself sometimes, but not often.
I am usually satisfied with myself.

I am always satisfied with myself.

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you live up to your capabilities?

I always live up to my capabilities.

I usually live up to my capabilities.

I seldom live up to my capabilities.

I always seem to fail somehow to live up to my capabilities.

 

 

 

 

How often are you disappointed with yourself?
I am always disappointed in myself.

I am usually disappointed in myself.

I am rarely disappointed in myself.

I am never disappointed in myself.

 

 

 

 

LOOK BACK TO AIME. SURE 1m YOU HAVJS ChuflCKED ONLY 0131:} AliSuER TO EACH
A4330 or”) Sum "IOU imVn.’ Cit—£10m AN ANS..£R FOR .L’VLIRY “Ulisil'IOE‘Io

SELF EVMILEIOI; some;
Part II Initials ____ ____ ____
Sex Ma... F____ let 1me LAST
Birthdate .___
bio. Day Year
Note: On this part, if each of your parents had really different ideals about
what you should be like (what standards and ideals you should have), answer the
following questions according to the view of the parent you feel (or felt) clossest
to. Pmlnfil’; QIJCK 01-111 9:19: .I‘SJJH FOR moi- ,Uii‘ldl‘i.

I. How strong a desire do you have to live up to the standards and ideals of your
parents? (Check only one)
I have a very strong.desire to live up to the standards and ideals of my
parents.
‘__I have considerably more than an average desire to live up to my parents
standards and ideals for.me.
I have an average desire to live up to my parents standards for me.

I have little desire to live up to my parents standards for me.

I have no desire what ever to live up to the ideals and standards my
par nts have held for.me.

2. How often do you live up to your own standards for yourself?
I almost always seem to fail to live up to my own standards for myself.

I seldou.am able to live up to my own standards for myself.
I usually am able to live up to my own standards.
I almost always am.atle to live up to my own standards for myself.

3. How important an influence are your standards and ideals in the things you do?
The standards I hold for.myself are always an important influence in the.
things I do.

The standards I hold for.myself are usually an important influence in
the things I do.

The standards I hold fro myself are seldom.an important influence in the
things I do.

The standards I hold for myself are almost never an important influence
in the things I do.

4. How strong a desire to you have to live up to the standards and ideals of
your high school class?

I have a very strong desire to live up to the standards and ideals of
my class mates.
I have considerably more than an average desire to live up to my
class mates' standards and ideals.
I have an average desire to live up to the standards and ideals of my
class mates.
I have little desire to live up to .to the standards and ideals of my
class mates.
I have no desire what ever to live up to the ideals and standards of
those in my high school class.

-2-

How often do you live up to your parents ideals for you?

I always seem to lose sight of the ideals and standards my parents heped
would follow.

I seldom live up to the standards and ideals my parents have tried to give
me. .
‘about one half the time I live up to the standards and ideals my parents
have for me.
I usually live up to the ideals and standards my parents have held for
me.
I almost always live up to the standards and ideals my parents have held
for me. ‘

How much meaning do the words, "ideals and standards“, have for you?
I have a very clear idea of the kinds of things these words refer to.

I have a rather good motion of the general;meaning of these words.
I am.rather uncertain as to what these words really mean.
I have almost no idea at all about what these words refer to.

How.much conflict do you feel exists between your own standards and ideals
and those your parents follow?
my own ideals and standards are in very little conflict with those of
my parents.
My own ideals and standards are in some, but really not very much, conflict
with those my parents hold.
my own ideals and standards are in considerable conflict with those
belonging to my parents.
my own ideals and standards are in great conflict with those belonging
to my parents.

How often do your parents standards differ from those of your age group
(your high school class)?
my parents standards never differ from.my age group's standards.

my parents standards seldom differ from.my age group's standards.
my parents standards differ about half the time from.the standards
and ideals of my age group.

my parents standards differ from the standards of my age group
(class mates) most of the time.

my parents standards always differ frmm the standards and ideals
of my age group.

How much importance does a personal code of standards and ideals have for you?
They have a very deep and personal meortance to me.

‘hey have considerable personal importance to me.
They have not very much personal importance to me.

They have almost no personal importance to me.

.3-

10. How consistently do you follow the standards and ideals you hold for yourself?
I am.extremely consistent in following my own ideals and standards.

_____I am very consistent in following the standards and ideals I hold for.myself.
I am fairly consistent in following my own ideals and standards.
_____I am.only a little consistent in following my own ideals and standards.
I am.not at all consistent in following my own ideals and standards.
ll.a How different are your own ideals and standards from those your parents
want you to have?
_____pompletely different
_____Yery different
___§omewhat different
_______A little diffs ent

Not at all different

llb. How strongly do you feel about this?
Very strongly

_____Iairly strongly

_____Not so strongly

________Not strongly at all
"To answer

12. How closely do you feel you have lived up to your parents ideals for you?
Very closely

Rather closely
Somewhat
______Only a little

_____pot at all

13a. How often do you feel one should follow one's ideals and standards?
Should be strictly followed in all situations. '

Should be strictly followed in.most situations.
Should be strictly followed in some situations.
Should be strictly followed in very few situations.

13b. How strongly do you feel about this?
No answer .
Not strongly at all
Not so strongly
fairly strongly
Very strongly

 

 

 

 

l4.

-4-

How similar are your own standards and ideals to those of your parents?
Not at all similar .

___A little similar
Somewhat similar
Very similar

Completely similar

15.a Do you feel there is a difference between the kind of person you would like to

be like and the kind of person you feel you ought to be like?

The kind of person I would like to be like and the kind.of person I feel

I ought to be like are very similar.

The kind of person L would like to be like and the kind of person I feel

I ought to be like are fairly similar.

The kind of person I would like to be like and the kind of person I feel
I ought to be like are fairly different.

The kind of person I would like to be like and the kind of person I feel

I ought to be like are very different.

15.b How strongly do you feel about this?

16.

 

 

Very strongly

Fairly strongly

Not so strongly

Not strongly at all

No answer

How much are your own ideals and standards in harmony with those of your
parents?
.a great deal of harmony exists between my standards and ideals and those

of my parents.

Considerable harmony exists between my own standards and ideals and those

of’my parents.
Some harmony exists between.my own standards and ideals and those of my
parents.

Little harmony exists between my own standards and ideals and those

of my parents.

Almost no harmony exists between by own standards and ideals and those

of my parents.

17. which of your parents has had the most influence on your character? (Check one)

“

.Mother Father Both the same Some one else had more

influence (who?

 

18. How consistently do you follow the standards and ideals your parents hold

for you?
I am extremely consistent in following the ideals and standards my

parents have wished me to have.

I am.very consistent in following the ideals and standards my parents hold

for me.

I am fairly consistent in following the ideals and standards my parents

have held up for me.

I am only a little consistent in following the ideals and standards my

tun—zit:

:11,-

M'm‘

c-v

-5-
19. Which of your parents do you feel closest to? (Check one)
_______Father ______Iviother _______Both the same ____Don;t feel close to either
20. How closely do you feel you have lived up to your own standards for yourself?
____Very closely
_____Rather closely
“Somewhat
_______0nly a little
_______Not at all
21. Which of your parents is the dominant member of the family? (Check one)

mother Father Both the same _ Some one else tends to
dominate the household.

LOOK BACK TO ...‘.4KE SURE. THAT YOU ILLVE CllECKfl) UNIX QUE ANS .n‘R T0 rIACrI gbnSTION.
ALSO BE SURE. YOU IL-sVE CllflCKED AN ANS» ER FOR :JVERY Uri-TIOIH.

HHHII!

{C {33.3 G3 7.5" t5 '"J
.

!--!

H

APPENDIX C

 

 

lft Iiddle LPLt

 

A. wri“e in the succe below, the nunbers of five boys from
the list tnst you would choose for your five be:t friends.

B. Write the numbers below of the five keys, frow the a've
list, who you vould be lea t likely to choose :3 r iiiend.

A
;..J
V
A
'0
v

(7’3) (4.) (E)

at of Clrxummite:

iiederrnnn, Fred lO. Palmeter, Allen
nrcitusite, Dave 11. Ssz38, Robert
Hrochie, Gerald 12. Shedley, lilec
Creery, Albert 15. Stetler, iillicm
Derter, Gerald l4. Verepoor, John
iNernrd, Jerry 15. Waller, Crrl
everett, Drvid 16. Meterhouee, Larry
Georgopoulo:, Bill 17. hillievc, Jack
’elsou, Glen

Ho

 

C. hhich boys in the list of Ch133mfltes do you think would
include you in their answer to Question A? .ezt to there
boys place a-r sign in the so ce thick is provided to the
left of their names.

D. Which boys in the List of Cluesrstes do you think =ouli
include you in their answer to Question B? Vere to these
boys place a - sign in tie epoce fiiich is provided to the
left of their nrree.

2. Write on 0 Sign next to those boys that you feel would
neither include you in their answer to fiuestion A nor
Question E.

C'QL‘K 'i‘O 91.»; $13.13 ‘.'..'—.C*_‘ fiC; ELK? 11111:: R + , -, CR 0 1.3:.

Tue K Scale
Initials:
Sex: Male lst hiddle Last

 

 

Female Birthdate:

to. Day 'Year

This inventory consists of a number of statements. Read each statement and

decide whether it is true §§_apelied tgfiygu.or false as anplied to you. If a
statement is ThUE oanQLTLY TLUE, as applied to you, CIRCLE the letter "T" at

the behinniné of the statement. If a statenent is FL“ 3 or ECT USUaLLI TRUE, as
applied to you, CIACLE the letter "I“ at the beginning of the statement. Renenber
to Dive YQUh.buN opinion of yourself and also be sure to give an answer to every
statanent.

1.

3.

5.

4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.

12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.
22.

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

29.
50.

I!

Eli-3

616680-51 r—JP—IiE!

Hit-3P3

FEM-3 Brat-386*]

Eli-366F538

P3 F]

+3

+3

F

ease

new

’21 ”J ”9 be *1; hi

"d '1.

r1

 

I enjoy social gatherinbs just to be with people

I wish I were not so shy.

I think a great many people exaggerate their.misfortunes in order to 5ain
the sympathy and help of others.

It takes a lot of aréunent to convince most people of the truth.

I have very few quarrels with members of A“ family.

host people will use somewhat unfair neans to gain profit or an advent 3e
rather than to lose it.

Often I can't understand why I have been so cross and grouchy.

at times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could speak them.
Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly.

I certainly feel useless at times.

It makes me impatient to have peeple ask my advice or otherwise interrupt
me when I an working on something important.

I have never felt better in my life than I do now.

what others think of me does not bother me.

It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a garty even when others
are doing the sane sort of things.

.nt times I feel like swearing.

I find it hard to make talk when I meet new people.

I am.aéninst giving money to beggars.

I frequently find myself worrying about something.

I get mad easily and then get over it.

when in a group of people I have trouble thinkin; of the right things
to say.

.at times I an all full of energy.

I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special
reason.

.at times I feel like smashing things.

I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of trouble.

I worry over noney and business.

.at periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual.

Peeple often disappoint me.

I have sometimes felt that difiiculties were piling up so high that I
could not overcome them.

I often think, "I wish I were a child again."

I have often met people who were supgosed to be exeerts who were not
better than I.

I find it hard to set aside a task that I have undertaken, even for a
snort time.

I like to let people know where I stand on things.

wuestions on Household Characteristics

Initials:
lst hiddle Last

 

Birthdate: __.___
Day no. Year

 

Blease be as accurate as you possibly can in answering these questions. The

information you bive us will be held in strictest confidence and will be used only
in the making of group comqerisons. In each case, place a check by the correct

 

 

answer.

1. Is there a telephone in your home? ‘Yes_____ No_____. Is it on a private or
a party line? Private_____ Ban$I____ .

2. Do your parents own or rent their own home? Own;____ Rent;____ .

3. goes someone in your hone own an automobile? Yes No .

4. "as the car new or used when it was bought? New_____ Used____ .

5. Lees your hone have two or.nore passenger cars? Yes_____ No;____ .

6. about now far did the chief wage earner in your family be in school?
Eighth grade or less_____ Some high school but not high school 5raduate____
Completed high school but not college ,raduate_____ Completed college____ .

7. h'nt is the occupation of the chief wage earner in the household? Please

describe in two or three sentences the kind of occupation it is.

m”-

 

 

1‘- {II .|

ii,“

"‘7'E@flfl'fl@'$7fl'lmflfifllflWilma