.‘IJQ .b ‘2?) . -.....U..-... - . . . . .uMumewflumumeNL «mmqmmmuvflwww... --.. . 19.9. 1,39%...» -.. ..- ..-...fifinmu. . :A.q.um....mm.u..u.....:: 1:... . rgafiA . . . .. me. gigagmflwufl ._ . . .. ., . .. . ... 4%....1... ..mmmfihmxfla A... . n... . ., WWW . . . . .. n . ,. 99.4... 11W6u9MmWJWurxmeWM|Ww D.-1&~. v ... . .. . .. . ... . . .... JMHWWMM Rm”. .. 5...... «a... . ., . . .... . h P . Q. . s n . .. .. m...wmmfimm.....m ...... .. , . , . . mum N . x; ‘1 ..n v .4 ..., HQ‘ .. ~. r D ~. 1:! w .' v =1: ’19 . _ '4). :5. . *k U. N .11 . . y , . "1:24 . . . ...:WL. .M V.» a. p «WE... . . “34+Hhiw : ..a.. . ‘n'L‘ .o .. A v p h v r . m .. . . fluke. 9.»...Whl : . , . .. h I r . .. .. . .1 ”#95 Mb .. . . a . . . . . Y... ..h. ENNWFerwV .. .. mitt . mimw . . 1“». xiii H.359... .W. 5“. L911“. I . §aw¢>n 9 ) Oflmw ahhnfiutnw .n wr n "flamiflHr .9 ...xbsyw . «a... . 9. kn“ . . r Mirhflrzfu .flnl «Sb .. J tmTLhk .qu . . ... . ..t . nrnoirmrunuunl. 3... v29 . ufl...!.. Horus: ., . . . .5. huh?» 1 ...? . up? .. ~ . in! 9111“". 1P1 .N. . . . . . .. . nu, 9. r m. 9 . . . .vl . . ... .. . .. . _ .... ... . . . . . s .. igfi..zn¥ . . an“. . . . , . . . . .. ,. . . ha... . ._ mun... :vmmfirmhnmfl) .fixflmu. .-.-..1... 7...: .9 l «m D . 1.. .. : ... , .. .. . .. . -. .. r . a . 99¢.“ ,fir . 4. - u-«.l.uuw.1« L. . . . . . .. . . . . ... 9WW~WWWW .. . . 9 r....n9.ifl EVEN.” .9 ......z. ......mew .u. . . h. 9......" . . h 9.. .Wkw} g . . . v.7 .. . . . ha.” lam. . I H . . . . . . . .nnllw : +Nfl¢fi¥lv . .. . ‘9» .. , . . . . , . . ..NKWEWWWP! . . . . 1 c: hmékmfié draw“ .. . . .. . 4.9.1..»941: .. -..-.- .- . .wwmfiumm$v. 5.4!.“ . ... . . . I t 2*. » \(V ( 3. [1 may. . ‘. W ‘15. , 1 : '14:; “1‘9“: 9. ‘ g 5‘1}. 'r. v . . . mama...“ VJWVHVJm? . their.-. My; ‘ umi ‘ s ‘ “"339 .‘ 1: €11 r . . $49.9» . . . @an . 1 . ...... g - 99.4... . .. . 1.1.. - lilac}! r mRNWmMrWW Wfimfim . . . w i111 9Fhu. .. ..H ... ..9. [9.9: . . 9&1 . . .. . . ... . :KMPMIJH... . . “mm“...réwnmnWHHUK. . . . . . . .. H... - u 1 .. .. 9. .. . .. :ur.u.9fl.mm.rmw~nwma\wuflluov4nnd ... . . «V. .l 113”». ...WWW . 12.9%». . .. , . . ... EH9“: mum??? ... I - 4mm...» . . . .. . flukwmmw it . . .. w v. H I. 17. .. t... . «19... n . LqufvaY-ut. mm .19.. . ... .... ... u “.32.... .. 11.99.11. ., ... . ., ..., . . .. . . . . a.» u... M... . ML , . . wand . - 1...... h . ..., . «EWNWV AKIN... ,. , . ... . «A? . . v.91: ... .....I 19]... 1.1.9.9.... ..9 19.11.131.9V701WIWIHOUMWII APRIUJIHWX 119m . [wilcflnn .. . I . v.99“! 1:1:IblqunL. . .. Emma... . .. .. . . n . II A I. n n INA: . (’Nl’l‘l" | u . . . . ”@1965. a. . . . Q t .9“... . ufimku. . 7 . . l .. 1 41:19”?! .91 . . . .9. nhuk.-. . 93.19%.{93 ... . X. 4:... .nfiillllld..u91\w..flg . J... ....u 117 f alumna... - I119: .11.... .uHhhfll (Juan 9.: an PMWMwwLMMLWnflvfl gum: {ggfigfl AW: 4914 :9 1wn4uw.fiu0h.§u:ldrti 9.14““ .. .thhqu.19:ll 1 . . T m: .P .gfigflunwmflfl ..Muv. U12 ,. - inWm..H1.1-.....wmmu..u...nnwmwwm.?. T. {lziusfiqumnwflw .. ...G 99”.. I ills... 1.ifi:fluuuuflfi.§1 .19.. 1.1.. -.....HMNMWJW. . . .9 “0:19.11 1. 94.1% I F151: .H: ! .m.9.mm... . onwn “hf: Wu RM .9 h... m: ..-. .Umfiriliun... ginghyhmm1ggyhrg. . .. . rum luMu....--. 9.1991... . . -19 .u .9. . u . . . . . . . . .. . u 9: "I: .9 . .Ln .9 -.11 . .1. ... ... ... . . .. . ... . . ... i . . 4 . .9 .... A 9 Itfli‘mflfl 1%.}.mmdl -..! .-.. “huff. L. . ..hhuuu _ , q. .. . . , , . ... x . . Lu”... “NW. 1. “1..-... .ur lfixf. .9. . .. . 9.th .. ......u... . 2 . . . .. . haJn: . . at 1...ue%n.%ing(§.1il a}: ii . .....una... ......9. .. .... u...... ...]..4. . .4 .. t 9.119.999. 9:1 9 0....» 31.".J9fi..... r... 9.1": ‘ 1»: .1‘ I .. 1 v 4 A .\l..1.l9l . .. ., .. .. ”dd-1.19. .11 574.34.. .9 i .9 53314593..“111144 .. ,......n...:...9¢..........-i... ....... .. llllIIIlIlIIIIIIIIIIIII||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII F i "' \- f“ , 3129310372257 EZBRARy I Michigan Siam Univemty [j This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES OF SELF-CONCEPT, SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND LOCUS OF CONTROL IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS presented by CURTIS DEAN LEGG has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. COUNSELING 8 ED. PSYCHOLOGY degreein Don E. Hamachek Major professor l- -81 Date 5 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 fl.“ OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book retu turn to remove charge from ct rcu'lation records T a 3-K L V g \ m t- , :cpillll . up” . , A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES OF SELF-CONCEPT, SELF—ACCEPTANCE AND LOCUS OF CONTROL IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS By Curtis Dean Legg A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology 1980 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES OF SELF-CONCEPT, SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND LOCUS OF CONTROL IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS By Curtis Dean Legg The purpose of the study was to explore the relationships between the variables of self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control in children and adolescents in grades 3 through 8. Subjects were 134 students from a midwestern urban school system. The Piers-Harris Children°s Self—Concept Scale, the Bledsoe Self-Concept Scale (self—acceptance) and the Nowicki— Strickland Locus of Control Scale were administered to the students. Correlational techniques, analysis of variance and multiple regression were used to analyze the date. The following results were obtained: 1. A positive correlation was found between self—acceptance (Bledsoe) and internal locus of control (Nowicki— Strickland) scores (r:.27; p<.01). . 2. A positive correlation was found between self-concept (Piers—Harris) and internal locus of control (Nowicki— Strickland) scores (r=.38; p<.Ol). 3. A positive correlation was found between self-concept (Piers-Harris) and self—acceptance (Bledsoe) scores (r=.55: p<.01). Curtis Dean Legg 4. A positive correlation was found between grade level and internal locus of control (Nowicki—Strickland) scores (F=5.58; df=5, 128; p<.01). 5. A relationship was not found between grade level and self-acceptance (Bledsoe) scores (F=1.99; df=5, 128; p>.Ol). 6. A relationship was not found between grade level and self—concept (Piers- Harris) scores (F22.92; dfzj, 128; p>.01) . 7. A relationship was not found between sex of subject and locus of control (Nowicki—Strickland) scores (F: 0.12; df=1, 128; p>.01). 8. A relationship was not found between sex of subject and self—acceptance (Bledsoe) scores (F=O.75; df=1, 128; p .01). p).01). 9. A relationship was not found between sex of subject and self—concept (Piers- Harris) scores (F21.72; df=1, 128; P>.Ol). The correlations between locus of control and both self—concept and self—acceptance were significantly higher for the males and middle school subjects than for females and elementary school students. For all subgroupings of the subjects (i.e. by sex and grade) significant correl— ations were found between self-concept and self-acceptance. No statistically significant sex by grade level interactions were found for any of the dependent variables. Locus of control and self-acceptance were regressed on self—concept. Beta weights of .48 and .25 were found for self-acceptance and locus of control respectively. Their R2 values increased from .30 (self-acceptance alone) to .36 (when locus of control was added). That is, the Curtis Dean Legg combination of self—acceptance and locus of control accounted for approximately 36% of the total variance in self-concept. The positive relationships between self-concept, self—acceptance and locus of control were discussed within a global "competency" framework. Conceptual similarities and differences were used to account for the varying degrees to which the factors overlap. Age and sex role expectations were suggested as contributing ”to the relatively higher correlations among the variables for males and middle school students than for females and elementary school students. The shift toward more internal locus of centrol scores as the students progressed through the various grade levels was attributed to (1) changes in legal and moral expectations, (2) physical maturation and (3) increased exposure to situations they control. It was recommended that future research be designed to explore the causal aspects of the variables. To Sue ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the members of my doctoral committee for their individual contributions to my educational and personal development. Don Hamachek has been my mentor for the entirety of my doctoral program. Thanks for serving as my chairman—~guiding me through my coursework, comprehensive examinations, apprenticeship, and dissertation. Thanks also for supervising my teaching experience and for allowing me to be a part of the growth group. Thanks to Dr. Clarizio for his continued emphasis on my professional development. To Gary Stollak for sharing his truly sincere and refreshingly unique perceptions of psychology and "being with" children. To Steve Yelon for allowing me to enjoy gainful employment while learning much about educational psychology. Also, thanks go to Martha Karson for being my understanding supervisor for my internship. To the students and staff of Jackson (Michigan) Public Schools for their time and cOOperation. I have written this dissertation in memory of two people who were most influencial in my personal and educational deveIOpment. Ken Wilkinson. Mrs. Opperman. For their continued support I thank my parents, Harland and Della Legg. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION The Problem . Need for the Study . Purpose of the Study Research Hypotheses . Theoretical Orientations Development of Self— concept and Self— acceptance Theories Development of Locus of Control Theory Overview of the Dissertation II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Self— concept and Self— acceptance Self— concept . . . . Self— acceptance Self— concept and Academic Performance Modification of Self— concept Locus of Control . . . . Locus of Control and Academic Performance Modification of Locus of Control Perceptions . Relationships between Self— concept and Locus of Control . . . Sex and Age Related Factors Pertaining to Self— concept and Locus of Control Some Considerations Pertaining to Self— concept, Self— acceptance and Locus of Control Research . Summary . . . . . . . iv Page O\UI-F'UJN H \1 65 69 73 Chapter III. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The Sample Description of the Sample . Selection Procedure for Subjects Instrumentation of the Study The Piers Harris Children's Self— —Concept Scale . The Bledsoe Self— Concept Scale The Nowicki- Strickland Locus Of Control Scale Operational Definitions Self-concept Self-acceptance Locus of Control The Testable Hypotheses Design of the Study Procedure Data Reduction and Analysis Summary . . . . . . . IV. RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS Tests of the Hypotheses Hypothesis . . . . . . . Hypothesis . . . . . . . Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Relationships Between the Dependent and Independent Variables . . . Part One. Grade Level and Sex of Subjects Correlates Between the Dependent Variables . Part Two. Interactions Between Grade Level and Sex of Subject for Each of The Dependent Variables . . . Multiple Correlation Analyses Summary . . . \OmVOU‘x-P‘WNH 103 106 108 113 Chapter V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary Conclusions and Discussions Self— acceptance and Locus Of Control Self— concept and Self— acceptance Locus of Control and Grade Level Self— -acceptance and Grade Level Self- concept and Grade Level Sex and Self— concept, Self— acceptance And Locus of Control Regression Analysis of Self— concept, Self— acceptance and Locus of Control . . . Implications and Limitations Suggestions for Further Research APPENDICES A. PARENT PERMISSION LETTER B. BLEDSOE SELF—CONCEPT SCALE C. THE NOWICKI- STRICKLAND PERSONAL REACTION SURVEY . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY vi 116 116 120 120 125 127 127 128 129 130 13b. 137 137 139 141 145 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 3-1 Distribution of Subjects by Sex and Grade 3-2 Interactions of Variables to form the Research Hypotheses Q—l Internal Locus of Control Means and Standard Deviations for Elementary And Middle Grades 4—2 Multiple Regression Analysis for Self— acceptance and Locus of Control On Self-concept for all Subjects U—3 Multiple Correlations for Self—acceptance And Locus of Control Regressed on Self— concept by Sex and Grade of Subjects . . . . Figure 5—1 Representation of the Relative Predictive Power of Self—acceptance and Locus of Control for Self—concept . . Page 79 93 101 109 112 131 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I recently had the opportunity to conduct a psychological evaluation of a 14 year—old junior high school student whom I shall refer to as Lisa. Lisa had a history of appearing lethargic and helpless. Her intelligence scale scores fell within the average classification range. But, her school grades were mostly Ds and Es and her performance on an achievement test suggested a lag of about three years between her grade placement and her level of functioning. There was no evidence of neurological impairment. Projective techniques and informal measures suggested that Lisa had a negative self-concept and a low level of self—acceptance. When confronted about the discrepancy between her apparent intellectual ability and her academic performance, Lisa tended to blame forces outside of her control. She attributed responsibility for her performance to such factors as "bad genes", her astrological Sign, illness, significant others, and luck. She perceived students who did well as being "lucky" or "teacher’s pets." Lisa made no effort to change because she saw little relationship between her actions and the consequences. She viewed her life as being determined by forces over which she had no influence. Perceptions such as Lisa°s are referred to as external locus of control orientations. The phenomenon of locus of control pertains to one's perceptions of where the command of the cause- effect contingencies in that person's life lie. If the individual's self-perception is that of being in command of contingencies, that person is said to have an internal locus of control. If the command is seen as lying outside of that person, as it was with Lisa, such a locus of control orientation is said to be external. It is not unusual to find that students with low self-acceptance or with external loci of control tend to be the same ones who do not perform well academically. The Problem Interest in how people perceive and express themselves is not new. Two eminent psychologists (Carl Rogers in 1947 and E.R. Hilgard in 1949) made self-concept the tOpics of their presidential addresses to the American Psychological Association. Prominent educators have listed self—concept development as a primary goal of education (Stenner & Katzenmeyer, 1976). It has been evident by the continued large number of theoretical and research writings published pertaining to self-concept and related notions that interest in self-concept has remained high. Locus of control has been studied with increasing frequency since it was operationally defined by Rotter (1954). Attempts have been made to determine whether locus of control is correlated with almost every imaginable variable, including some related to self—concept. The research reviewed for Chapter II suggested that the relationship between self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control is more complex than many researchers apparently have believed. The results of their studies have been neither consistent nor conclusive. So, in general, the problem is that of further extending research aimed at clarifying the relationship between self— concept, self-acceptance and locus of control. Need for the Study The relationship between self—concept, self— acceptance and locus of control in children and adolescents is of interest to both educators and / psychologists. As will be seen in the review of literature, self-concept and locus of control have been shown to be associated with academic performance and various psychological factors such as happiness and competence. There is a need to better understand such associations. Such understanding is of potential theoretical and practical value to educators and psychologists. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to empirically ascertain the relationship between self—concept, self-acceptance and locus of control. Previous researchers have focused on the general notion of self-concept as a variable to be examined along with locus of control. The hypothesis was that positive self—concept (or high self—esteem) would be correlated with an internal locus of control. On the surface, such a hypothesis seemed tenable. But the research failed to determinatively prove or disprove that hypothesis. Yet, it seems safe to assume that at least one factor pertaining to self— concept must be related to locus of control orientation. This assumption is based on the similarity of characteristics which have been found to be correlated with both self—concept and locus of control. Some factor probably accounts for the commonality of these relationships. One logical choice for such a factor would seem to be self—acceptance. More specifically, it seems reasonable to suggest that those people who find their self-perceptions to be most acceptable would tend to be the same ones who have internal locus of control orientations. The major hypothesis is aimed at testing that notion. Subsidiary hypotheses dealing with meaningful interactions between self— concept, self-acceptance, locus of control, grade placement, and sex of subject should also be investigated. Research Hypotheses The objective of this study is to test the following ten research hypotheses: Major Hypothesis 1. There is a relationship between self— acceptance and locus of control. Subsidiary Hypotheses 2. There is a relationship between self— concept and locus of control. 3. There is a relationship between self— concept and self—acceptance. 4. There is a relationship between school grade level and locus of control. 5. There is a relationship between school grade level and self—acceptance. 6. There is a relationship between school grade level and self-concept. 7. There is a relationship between sex of subject and locus of control. 8. There is a relationship between sex of subject and self—acceptance. 9. There is a relationship between sex of subject and self-concept. 10. There will be interrelationships between combinations of the following variables: locus of control, self—acceptance, self— concept, grade level, and sex of subject. Hypothesis 1 is "major" in that it was interest in the interaction between self-acceptance and locus of control that originally stimulated the proposal. As will be seen in Chapter II, a review of the literature revealed no evidence of research having been done to investigate the relationship between self—acceptance and locus of control for children and adolescents. Yet, some evidence——often conflicting or inconclusive——exists pertaining to Hypotheses 2 through 9. Hypothesis 10 was included to test for more complex, multiple relationships between the variables. The hypotheses will be discussed in more operational terms in the methodology section (Chapter III). Theoretical Orientations Two considerations pertaining to self-concept and locus of control must be taken into account in order to rationalize the need, purpose and hypotheses of this study. First, the historical development of theory regarding both self—concept (along with self— acceptance) and locus of control should be recalled in order to provide a general background against which the study can be viewed. Second, the relevant research literature should be reviewed to give ther reader a perception of the present "state of the art." The elaboration of theory takes place here in Chapter I. whereas the review of literature takes place in Chapter II. Definitional concerns as they have been presented in the literature pertaining to self—concept and locus of control will also be covered in Chapter II. Development of Self—concept and Self-acceptance Theory It remains an impossibility to document the onset of self-concept theory. Diggcry, who has written a comprehensive review of the history of self—concept theory, traced the written history back to Homer (10th century B.C.) who mentioned such notions as "soul," "spirit," and "psyche" (Diggory, 1966, p. 1). In his review of "senses and intellect" Baldwin (1889) credits St. Augustine (354—430 A.D.) as a pioneer in the investigation of the "self." The 16th century phiIOSOpher Descartes stated that man's quest for truth must begin with doubt of all things. The existence of one's self was the primary concern of Descartes when he made his famous proclamation "I think, therefore I am" (Diggory, 1966, p. 3). This notion formed the basis of the 17th century mind/body controversy. Leibnitz added a third dimension, God, to this controversy. Spinoza perceived the mind/body distinction as being nonessential. Spinoza viewed the mind and body as being essentially the same entity. David Hume, on the other hand, emphasized the role of one's perceptions in realizing the concept of self. "I never can catch myself without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist." (Hume, 1739 in Diggory, 1966, p. 7). James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill, carried this notion even further. They acknowledged the importance of perception and added to it the notion of memory as a salient aspect of self or ego (Mill, J., 1829 & Mill, J.S., 1865). In this sense, self became an identity through time. William James (1890) also conceptualized self as being a combination of perceptions and memories. James saw these perceptions and memories as interacting to become "streams of consciousness." For James, a man's empirical self was . . . the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his body and his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses, and yacht and bank account. All these things give him the same emotions. If they wax and prosper, he feels triumphant; if they dwindle and die away, he feels cast down,—— not necessarily in the same degree for each thing, but in much the same way for all. (James, 1950, Vol. I, pp. 291—92) James envisioned various components of the empirical self including the spiritual, material, social, and bodily selves (Reisman, 1966, pp. 23-24). The spiritual self is how we perceive our being. As Diggory put it, the spiritual self is "the active principle in consciousness, the center around which all other aspects of it cluster; it is the source of interest, effort, attention, will, and choice" (Diggory, 1966, p. 15). The material self is represented by the "lands and horses, and yacht and bank account" mentioned above. The social self springs more from one's "wife and children, his ancestors and friends." The social self is seen as being an influence in those situations where praise and recognition are sought. The bodily self becomes most salient during adulthood when it gains status through clothing and ornamentation. James' major contribution to the field of self—concept theory has generally been thought to be his description of the various components of self, as described above. Of relevance to the proposed study is James' writings pertaining to self-esteem. Two factors, success and pretensions, interact to determine one's level of self-esteem. Success can occur in areas of importance to any of the self-concept components. James'"Law" states that: Success Self-esteem : . Pretens1ons. To increase success experiences results in increased self-esteem. Pretensions are areas within the various 10 components in which the individual perceives having some potential or probability of success. To decrease pretensions results in increased self-esteem. "_...__ “A“ Pretensions can be decreased by either gratifying them to giving them up. So, James suggested that to either have increased success experiences or to gratify or otherwise decrease pretensions will result in enhanced self-esteem (James, 1890, pp. 315-30). Despite differences in their backgrounds, the "self’ of which James wrote bears similarities to Freud's ”la-...,__N, 1.. concept of ego. Freud, too, viewed the notions of perception and memory as being salient factors in the develOpment of one‘s self. The ego was seen, especially in Freud°s earliest writings, as being a perceptual—conscious mechanism which engaged in dynamic interaction with the id and superego (Diggory, 1966, pp. 29—31). The ego was conceived as functioning as a sort of reality-oriented buffer which moderated the id‘s libidinal impluses and the superego°s socio—cultural moral inhibitions. Three conceptualizations brought forth by Jung's "psyche" have had a siginificant impact on the development of self—concept theory: the shadow, the persona, and the mana-personality (Diggory, 1966, pp. 35—37). While the anima and animus repreSent projections on to the Opposite sex, the shadow 11 represents one's relationships with the same sex. The shadow contains man's deep rooted and potentially dangerous evolutionary history. Supression of the shadow results in decreased creativity and increased conformity. The persona is an archetype which Jung related to conformity. The persona mask allows individuals to relate in an adaptive manner to both friends and enemies (Hall & Nordby, 1973, pp. 40—53). Jung distinguished mana—personality from persona in that mana-personality is a special case of persona which involves an especially powerful role (Diggory, 1966, pp. 35-36). Exploration of the unconscious is a tremulous process in that it involves confrontation_ with the fearful shadow. That archetype which serves as the organizing principle of the personality is what Jung referred to as the self. It is the major archetype of the unconscious. The ego, on the other hand, was seen by Jung as being conscious (Hall & Nordby, 1973, pp. 51—53). The process by which one's unique self becomes realized was referred to as "individuation" (Jung, 1956, p. 182). C.H. Cooley viewed individualso selves as being formed by reflections from interpersonal relations. He referred to this reflective self—evaluation as "the looking—glass self" (Cooley, 1902, pp. 20-21). Calhoun and Morse (1977) described Cooley's "self" 12 as being the most widely accepted and used definition. stating further that, ". . . we perceive ourselves as reflected in a mirror; therefore, we tend to be interested in our appearances because they are ours, pleasing or otherwise" (Calhoun & Morse, 1977, p. 318).. Cooley saw one's looking-glass self as serving the function of social role determination through competition. That is, the roles a person has adapted depend on how that person has perceived his or her relative ability to compete with others according to the characteristics demanded by those roles (Cooley, 1899). George Mead also placed much importance on social influences in his self—concept theory. Mead referred to himself as being a "social behaviorist" (Mead, 1934). He was influenced by two forces, pragmatism and functionalism (Diggory, 1966, p. 44). Hamachek described Mead's socially formed self as being, ". . . an object 9f awareness, rather than a system of process. That is, we come to know ourselves and respond to ourselves as we see others responding to us. Mead's self is a socially formed self which grows in a social setting where there is social communication (Hamachek's italics, 1977, p. 55). For Mead, feelings of inferiority grow out of subjective wants which have gone unsatisfied (Mead, 1934). 13 Phenomenalism has presented a doctrine of self in which awareness of direct appearances or perceptions are seen as the building blocks of one's self. Snygg and Combs (1949) and Combs, Richards and Richards (1976) have been proponents of the phenomenological approach of studying self-concept. The self-concept is a somewhat organized perception used for self— understanding, especially during times of choice. The self-concept serves as an economical method by which a person can reduce his vast phenomenal field to functional terms (Combs, Richards & Richards, 1976, p. 161). Carl Rogers listed the phenomenal field--along with the self and the organism——as being of primary importance in his self-theory (Hamachek, 1978, p. 59). As a matter of fact, it was a graduate student of Rogers, Raimy in 1934, who is credited with coining the term "self—concept" (Calhoun & Morse, 1977). For Rogers one's self—concept is the organized, consistent conceptual gestalt composed of perceptions of the characteristics of the "I" or "me" and the perceptions of the relationships of the "I" or "me" to others and to various aspects of life, together with the values attached to these perceptions. (Regers, 1959, p. 200) Of relevance to the notion of self-acceptance had been Rogers' theoretical and empirical work with the 11, ideal self (Rogers & Dymond, 1954). A state of congruence between one°s organism and self is said to exist, "When the symbolized experiences that constitute the self faithfully mirror the experiences of the organism . . ." (Hall & Lindzey, 1970, p. 530). Speaking further on Roger‘s conception of congruence- incongruence Hall and Lindzey said that, "If the discrepancy between self and ideal—self is large, the person is dissatisfied and maladjusted" (Hall & Lindzey, 1970, p. 530). As will be seen in the review of literature (Chapter II), this dissatisfaction and maladjustment is a common denominator for both a lack of self—acceptance and external locus of control. As has been suggested, a number of reviews of the faults and ambiguities of self-concept theory are available (Hilgard, 1949; Hall & Lindzey, 1970; and Wylie, 1974). Wright listed five points of disagreement and ambiguity: First, is the self ubiguitous, or is it relatively circumscribed in its effects? Second, is the self an active entity of dynamic process or is it an essentically passive object of knowledge and reflection on the part of the behaving person? Third, is the self so unitary that a given "self" may be considered operative in any and all circumstances or is the self so multifaceted that it is necessary to think of different "selves" as operative 15 at different times depending upon specific circumstances? Fourth, is the self internally consistent and highly integrated with respect to its various components or is the question of internal consistency inconsequencial? Fifth, is the self cognitively prominent or clearly articulated by the person or does the self affect behavior implicity or indirectly? (Wright, 1977, pp. 423-24) Wright evaluated these points in light of the available research and theory. Where faults and ambiguity still existed, Wright suggested research aimed at empirical verification. The current trend seems to be away from negative perceptions of self—concept theory and toward efforts of correcting the faults and clearing up the ambiguities. The writings of Epstein (1973), Wells and Marwell (1976), Calhoun and Morse (1977), Dickstein (1977), and Wright (1977) have been more remedial. Epstein (1973) suggested that "self-theory" better describes the notion than does self—concept. He attempted to show that one's perceptions of self fit within the classification of theory to the extent that the individual sees it as being "extensive, parsimonious, empirically valid, internally consistent, testable, and useful" (Epstein, 1973, p. 408). Although Epstein's treatment of "theory" is not as rigorous as might be desired, it does reflect the trend toward a more universally acceptable 16 definition of self. Epstein strived for a conceptualization which would be acceptable for those persons whose views ranged from phenomenological to behavioristic. One of the more positive perceptions of the present state of self-concept theory has been that offered by Dickstein (1977). She suggested that one's concept of self develops through stages or levels and that I different theories are most appropriate for certain levels. For example, the writings of Freud, White, Erickson (autonomy), Bowlby, and Ainsworth could all be applied to the first level, "the dynamic self" (Dickstein, 1977). Dickstein differentiated five levels: self as dynamic; object; knower; integrated whole, and the selfless self. She perceived few people as progressing beyond the second level. In addition to an interesting review of the history of self—concept theory, the Dickstein article reflects the recent trend to reconsider self—concept as a meaningful and viable construct. Development of Locus of Control Theory While the origins of the theoretical foundations of self-concept were ambigious and multi-faceted, the origins of locus of control theory have been relatively easy to trace. Snell (1960) 17 suggested that it was the Greek dramatists (5th century B.C.) who first viewed man as a creature who controlled his own destiny. It was during the early 1950's that the term "locus of control" was first used. ‘ Lefcourt (1976) has presented an inclusive history of the development of locus of control theory from Rotter's original inception in 1954. As will be seen in the review of literature (Chapter II), the locus of control research and development of new instruments expanded quickly following Rotter's 1954 work. Rotter conceived of locus of control as a product of social learning theory. Considering the deterministic View of man held by social learning theorists, it was ironic that this framework would yield a notion which deals with one‘s perception of the degree of control that person has over his or her destiny. Rotter later explained locus of control in terms of perceived expectancy: In social learning theory, a reinforcement acts to strengthen an expectancy that a particular behavior or event will be followed by the reinforcement in the future. Once an expectancy for such a behavior- reinforcement sequence is built up the failure of the reinforcement to occur will reduce or extinguish the expectancy. As an infant develops and acquires more experience he differentiates events which are causally related to perceding events and those which are not. It follows as a general hypothesis that when the reinforcement is seen as not contingent 18 upon the subject's own behavior that its occurrence will not increase an expectancy as much as when it is seen as contingent. Conversely, its nonoccurrence will not reduce any expectancy so much as when it is seen as contingent. It seems likely that, depending upon the individual's history of reinforcement, individuals would differ in the degree to which they attributed reinforcements to their own actions. (Rotter, 1966, p. A comprehensive review of the theoretical foundations of locus of control theory as it has evolved from social learning theory has also been developed (Rotter, Chance & Phares, 1972). Lefcourt (1976, pp. 130—34) was concerned with the issue of generalizability across persons and across reinforcement areas. After reviewing literature which investigated differences between black and white students' responses to locus of control measures, Lefcourt concluded that, "These findings obtained with black students reveal some limitations in the generalizability of control expectancies" (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 131). Generalizability across reinforcement areas also suggested Situationally specific generalizability. That is, locus of control seems to have both unidimensional and multidimensional characteristics. Rotter's (Rotter, 1966) scale is usually perceived as being a "generalized" or unidimensional scale, whereas 19 the Crandalls' Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire was designed to assess locus of control as it pertains to academic achievement (Crandall, Katkovsky & Crandall, 1965). Limitations do exist in generalizability across persons and reinforcement areas. An early theoretical criticism of locus of control was raised by Gurin et al.(1969). Their concern centered on an issue similar to generalizability. There has been a tendency to perceive internality as being more valued than externality for all people. One's history of success experiences may influence this perception. Lefcourt explained it as follows: For individuals who are favored with success experiences internal control expectancies could result in a sense of pride, positive affects, and assertive, striving behavior. However, for individuals who are more likely to experience setbacks and failures, an internal locus of control could result in depression, self—denigration, and a surrender of ambition. (Lefcourt, 1978a, p. 11) For persons whose life experiences are beyond their control (as with concentration camp prisoners or critically ill patients, for example) an internal locus of control may have a self—destructive nature. Another problem in the conceptualization of locus of control has to do with what Lefcourt 20 (1978a, p. 14) referred to as "defensive externality" as opposed to veridical externality. Some peOple, especially those who are fighting for a cause, objectively believe they will have little influence in determining outcomes and consequently they have scored toward the external pole. Yet, by the nature of their willingness to fight, they have appeared subjectively to see cause—effect contingencies between their actions and outcomes. The extent to which these theoretical considerations are relevant to different studies varies. Researchers interested in the response patterns of specific groups of people or in specific situations have addressed the issue of generalizability. Most locus of control theorists now recognize the need for such measures for multidimensional use. Continued research, especially in areas related to helplessness, is necessary to determine the relative personal value of internality and externality. More research is indicated aimed at clearing up the complexities regarding "defensive externality." Lefcourt concluded his review of these theoretical issues by stating that: Locus of control has proven to be a useful construct in predicting the manner in which persons confront challenges. However, there are limits within which locus of control may function as a variable. 21 The reinsertion of the construct into the schema from which it first developed should make it a more powerful and useful variable (Lefcourt, 1978a, p. 18) The schema alluded to by Lefcourt was, of course, social learning theory. Rotter (1975) has also addressed these problems and possible misconceptions pertaining to locus of control theory. Overview of the Dissertation Chapter I began with the specification of the need, purpose and hypotheses related to the stated problem. The previous discussion had cultivated the notion that self—concept and locus of control theories have produced workable constructs. While the development of self—concept theory has involved a lengthy and varied history, locus of control theory is a relative infant with a more clearly defined theoretical orientation. Chapter II is a review of the relevant literature pertaining to self—concept, self- acceptance and locus of control. Because of the diversity of definitions available in the research, additional attention is given the manners in which the constructs are used in the research literature. Emphasis is also placed on those studies which have 22 attempted to examine possible relationships between self—concept, self-acceptance, locus of control, academic performance, and modification of both self- concept and locus of control. Chapter III includes a description of the methodology used to assess the relationships between self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control. Specifically, the sample, instrumentation, operational definitions, testable hypotheses, design of the study and the method of data analysis are described. Chapter IV is devoted to reporting the results of the study and to present the findings in tabular and descriptive forms. Evidence either supporting or rejecting each of the hypotheses is provided. Chapter V is used to synthesize the study and to report on conclusions which may be drawn. In addition to summarizing the implications of the earlier chapters, this chapter is used to suggest recommendations for future research in the areas of self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The objectives of this review are to describe the literature relevant to; (1) self-concept and self—acceptance, (2) locus of control, (3) interactions between self—concept, self—acceptance, and locus of control, (4) age and sex differences, and (5) research considerations. Introduction Certain theoretical and empirical evidence .should exist in the literature in order to rationalize this study. First, the literature should yield writings which establish self—concept as a meaningful construct. There should be concern shown for the recent manners in which self—concept, self-acceptance and related terms have been defined. In order to enhance the practical applicability of the proposed study, the possibility of a relationship between self-concept and academic performance should be investigated. Also of significant value would be studies which provide confirmation that modification of self-concept is possible. 23 24 Second, concerns-—similar to those mentioned regarding self—concept literature—-should be shown for the literature pertaining to locus of control. That is, locus of control should be shown to be a meaningful construct. While literature pertaining to Self—concept is generally well known, the same is not true for the locus of control literature. Locus of control is a relatively new construct. Consequently, most of the relevant research has appeared in the past two decades. Of particular importance are studies relating locus of control to academic performance and research which deals with attempts to modify locus of control. Again, the usefulness of the proposed study is contingent upon previously established evidence of the possibility of relationships to academic competency and change in locus of control. The third area covered involves literature pertaining to relationships between self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control. Both self— concept and locus of control have been shown to have affiliations with academic performance, personality characteristics and variety of other attributes. This mutual affiliation has led to investigations of possible interrelationships between self—concept and locus of control. Most such studies have attempted 25 to find a positive correlation between high self- concept and internal locus of control. Others have dealt with self-acceptance and locus of control. Self-concept and Self-acceptance Self-concept A variety of books pertaining to self-concept have been written in the last three decades. Some texts, such as Combs and Snygg (1959) and Combs, Richards and Richards (1976) have approached the study of self-concept from a phenomenological vieWpoint. Berne (1964) provided a transactional analysis prOSpect. Coopersmith (1967) examined some antecedents of self-esteem. Wylie (1974) discussed methological and measurement considerations. Hamachek (1978) provided a broad, inclusive overview of self-concept theory and research. The complexity of the problems associated with research related to self—concept first becomes evident when reviewing the diversity of definitions - for self-concept and related facets of self-concept. ‘mShavelson et al. reported finding at least seventeen different conceptual definitions of self-concept in the literature (Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton, 1976). Hall and Lindzey suggested that "one could wish that it were possible to establish by fiat standardized 26 definitions on the self and ego and make it illegal to use them in any other way" (Hall & Lindzey, 1970, p- 523)- Jersild (1952), in his research with over three thousand children and adolescents, defined the self as follows: When we speak of the self we mean among other things, a system of ideas, attitudes, appraisals, and commitments pertaining to one's own person. The person experiences these as distinctly belonging to him and all of them together constitute the person's awareness of his individual existence and his conception of who and what he is. These attitudes and ideas are, of course, influenced by learning. (Jersild, 1952, p. 146) Coopersmith offered a similar definition when he referred to self—esteem as "a personal judgement of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the individual holds toward himself. It is a subjective experience which the individual conveys to others by verbal reports and other overt expressive behavior" (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 6). Viewing the self from a phenomenological prospect Combs et al. stated that: These perceptions do not exist in the perceptual field as a simple enumeration of ways of seeing the self. Rather, the concepts of self constitute an organization representing a person' s own conception of himself in all his complexity. This organization is not a mere conglomeration I ....4 ......mm- 27 of isolated concepts of selfs, but a patterned interrelationship or Gestalt of all self— perceptions. (Combs, Richards & Richards, 1976, p. 159) The phenomenal self shifts according to the given situation or perceptual field. Not all concepts of self are constantly of equal importance. As one's needs, wishes, and desires change, so does that person's concepts of self for a particular perceptual field. Calhoun and Morse (1977) followed the history of "self" in an attempt to determine more universal definitions of self and related notions. They recommended adoption of the James“ definition of self as "the sum total of all one can call his. " Self—concept was referred to as "the substantiye descr1pt10n which one employs to identify his nature. " And, self— esteem was related to as "one“ s satisfaction with his self-concept" (Calhoun & Morse, 1977, p.318L The authors concluded by recommending that certain self—assessment instruments be recognized as valid measures of self—concept and self—esteem and that the practice of developing instruments for each new study be abandoned. The terms self-concept and self—esteem have also often been used interchangeably. Hamachek perceived them as separate entities, "Self—concept refers to that particular cluster of ideas and 28 attitudes we have about our awareness at any given moment in time. Or . . the organized cognitive structure derived from experiences of our self" (Hamachek, 1978, p. 3). 0n the other hand, "Our self—esteem . . . refers quite literally to the extent to which we admire or value the self" (Hamachek, 1978, p. 3). Selffconcept is the cognitive aspect of the self; self—esteem is the affective or feeling aspect of the self. -a,.... ...“. h—‘t-‘M Self—acceptance Just as the terms self—concept and self—esteem have often been used interchangeably so have the terms self-concept, self-acceptance, self-regard, and self—esteem. Wylie (1974) addressed herself to this issue when she said, The most commonly studied class of aspects of the phemonenal self includes such attitudes as self-satisfaction, self—acceptance, self— esteem, self—favorability, congruence between self and ideal self, and discrepancies between self and ideal self. All these terms are not synonymous, even in the literary sense. For some authors, self—acceptance means respecting oneself, including one's admitted faults, while self-esteem or congruence between self and ideal self means being proud of oneself or evaluating one's attributes highly. In fact, to some theorists, optimum self—esteem or self-satisfaction is manifested by moderately small (rather than by small or zero) discrep- ancies between S's descriptions of self and ideal self on Q_sorts, rating scales, or adjective check lists. That is, self—accept— ance is presumed by some to be the conscious (realistic) recognition of some falling short of the ideal. 29 If these terms had more clearly differenti- ated literary meanings and correspondingly differentiated operational definitions, it would be desirable to organize the discussion of the instruments according to the construct involved (e.g., self—esteem as contrasted to self— acceptance). However, the terms are so inter- twined and overlapping in the literature that the constructs must be discussed as a group. (Wylie. 1974. p- 127) Wylie stated her preference for the generic term self—regard to include self—acceptance, self—esteem and degree of congruence or discrepancy between self and ideal self. As early as 1952 Jersild recognized the need for educational concern in the area of self— acceptance: There is a need of staggering magnitude for doing something in our educational program to help children and youth acquire realistic attitudes of self—acceptance. (Jersild, 1952, p. 9) Bills (1955) studied the relationships between self- acceptance and a variety of school behaviors. He summarized: Preliminary findings indicate that people who are high in acceptance of self compared to those who are low in acceptance of self have a higher group status, are more responsible, are more efficient intellectually, are more dominant, participate more in social events, have fewer psychosomatic complaints, have less anxiety, have fewer contacts with student— affairs counselors, have a higher general psychological adjustment, are better prepared for college work, make higher scores on achievement tests and are more proficient in English mechanics. (Bills, 1955, p. 18) 30 Block and Thomas (1955) found the relationship between self—acceptance and psychological adjustment to be more complicated. That is, maladjustment has been found to be more common for people with very high and very low self—acceptance scores. Perhaps the most complete review of research in the area of self—acceptance has been that of McCandless. In general, McCandless concluded that people who are self—accepting are better adjusted psychologically, more secure, less anxious, and less depressed (McCandless, 1967, p. 280). Of relevance to the proposed study was the inference by McCandless that self—acceptance and positive self—concept may be related (McCandless, 1967, p. 280). Silber and Tippett (1965) studied self—acceptance (real—ideal discrepancies) in adolescents from a psychodynamic framework. In general, more positive components have been found to be related to self—acceptance. Hamachek (1978) defined self—acceptance as the degree of congruence between a person's real and ideal self—concepts. That is, the greater the similarity between how one perceived oneself and how that person would like to be self—perceived, the greater the extent of self—acceptance. Hamachek suggested that discrepancy be reserved to imply the difference score which describes the amount of incongruence (Hamachek, 1978, p. 249). 31 Norem—Hebeisen (1976) viewed self—acceptance as a multidimensional construct. Four distinguishable self—concept dimensions related to self-acceptance were found to cluster: basic acceptance, conditional acceptance, real—ideal congruence, and self—evaluation. Basic acceptance originates during early childhood and is defined as "a perverbal emotional acceptance or rejection that is develOped before an individual has deveIOped a conceptualization of self" (Norem- Hebeisen, 1976, p. 559). Conditional acceptance is dependent on meeting personal standards and the standards of others. Real—ideal congruence was based on Hamachek°s self-acceptance definition (above). Self—evaluation is one's own judgement of how he or she compares with others. Norem-Hebeisen hypothesized and found additional factors within the four dimensions for adolscents. He stated further that Brookover and Erickson (1975) are in the process of deveIOping scales to measure each dimension. Self-concept and Academic Performance It is logically consistent to assume that a M person 8 self- concept would somehow be related to that person' 8 academic performance. Perhaps the most inclusive writing on this topic was that of Purkey (1970). If a student perceives himself as a potent1al failure, chances are greater that he \v—u— ‘N'flfi. 32 will fulfill that prophecy: Or, as Hamachek concluded: MM ". . . self-concept theory strongly suggests that we will 'act like' the sort of person we perceive KT- , . ourselves to be. _ As we encounter new experiences in K everyday living, we tend to accept or reject them in ; terms of their compatibility with our present concept 1 6¥“§éiffi (Hamachek, 1978, p. 74). Correspondingly, ”failure experiences have been related to unhealthy self-image development (Hamachek, 1977). The relationship between self—concept development and academic competency raises the issue ,.... . of causal influence. That is, since a vast majority of studies show a correlational relationship—~rather \— __..- ~» .~——— than an experimental relationship——between the variables, it is not possible to infer whether one causes the other (Wood, 1974, pp. 40— 42). Hamachek suggested a reasonable explanation for this "chicken or the egg" problem when he wrote, "even though it is not possible to specify exactly which came first, good school work or high self—regard, it does not seem unreasonable 3 positive change in the other" (1978, p. 200, Hamachek's italics). Based on their study of over one thousand students, Brookover et al. observed that, ". . . self- concept of ab111ty is only a necessary, but not .9.” sufficient condition for achievement" (Brookover, ...... .-.—fwww -“ 33 LaPere, Hamachek & Erickson, 1965). Self—concept and academic achievement go hand in hand, each seems to feed to some extent on the other. A review of studies designed to further explore the relationships may help clarify their association. Earlier studies such as Wattenberg and Clifford (1964) and Lamy (1965) found self~concept measures to be at least as good or better predictors of later reading achievement than were intelligence test ‘L/f scoresvways n (1967) found a positive relationship between school performance and self-concept in "KI; study on ability grouping and self-concept. Lee (1972) came to a similar conclusion following his study of program evaluation. In a like manner, Jones and Grieneeke (1970) found self—perception to be an accurate predictor of scholastic achievement. These studies are predictive or correlational in nature and do not prove a cause—effect relationship. In a more recent study, Robert Green reported that "concern for improving black self-concept stems from the notion that thewself—concept is believed to be the best single predictor of achievement for black students" (Green, 1974). mg}; 15d Winne (1975) using the stanford Achievement. Test (SAT) and the Sears Self-Concept Inventory w(with social and academic subtests) involved 98 fifth and sixth grade students. In light of their 34 contradictory results, this study merits additional examination. The sample was from a school which served predominantly black, low SES children. The researchers found that: (1) verbal and quantitative scores from the SAT were correlated, (2) no relationship was found between SAT scores and academic self-concept and (3) SAT scores were negatively correlated with social self—concept. :iwofexplanations are offered. First, perhaps academically successful students in this sample are rejected by peers. Second, highly socially regarded students may reject academic success. Efforts to examine differences between races were not reported. Children with learning difficulties have tended to have less adaptive self—concepts than do other children (Sears, 1970; Trowbridge & Trowbridge, 1972; and Kifer, 1975). As suggested previously, reading achievement has been connected with self-concept (Henderson, Long & Ziller, 1965; Herbert, 1968; and Williams, 1973). Greene and Zirkel (1971) found self-concept to be associated with verbal skills in both English and Spanish languages for Puerto Rican subjects. Other studies have focused on additional factors related to academic performance. Studies by Katz have sought to investigate the relationships between achievement and self—perceptions (Katz, 1967 and 35 Katz, Cole & Baron, 1976). For black elementary school children a relationship between lack of academic success and realistic self—criticism was found to exist for academically unsuccessful boys but not academically successful boys. No differences were detected between successful and unsuccessful girls. Apparently the unsuccessful boys placed more valence on academic failure than did the successful boys. Katz interpreted this self—criticism as an attempt to reduce anticipatory anxiety. That is, the unsuccessful boys have internalized the expectation that they will not do well, and they prefer to point out their errors rather than have others criticize them. Felker has been involved in studies which have implications for self—concept, academic achievement and locus of control. Felker and Bahlke (1970) and Stanwyck and Felker (1971) reported that middle class children with high self— esteem attributed responsibility for their achievements to their own actions, whereas children with low self— esteem accepted less responsibility and showed increased anxiety. Felker and Thomas (1971) found that high self—esteem students reported that they made a greater number of positive self—initiated verbal statements while performing academic tasks than did low self—esteem students. 36 Purkey, Graves and Zellner (1970) looked for differences in self—concept scores according to whether subjects attended an "experimental" or traditional school. The experimental school was ungraded. Self-concept scores, as measured by the COOpersmith Self—Esteem Inventory, showed an interaction between age and school. Self-concept for the students in the experimental school remained constant across age wereas self—concept for the students in the traditional schoo decreased across age. Combs and Soper (1963) had found similar results in their study of the relationship between children"s perceptions and academic achievement. Brookover and Erickson (1975) have reviewed the literature and offered their formulations pertaining to self-concept of academic abilities. Special emphasis was placed on the influence of others in the develOpment of one's academic self—concept. Despite the number of studies which have found correlational relationships between selfeconcept and academic achievement, no research has been reported showing a direct causal relationship. That was the point of Scheirer and Kraut when they concluded that: the overwhelmingly negative evidence reviewed here for a causal connection between self-concept and academic achievement should create caution among both educators and theorists who have heretofore assumed that enhancing a person's feelings about himself would lead to academic achievement (Scheirer & Kraut, 1979, p. 145). 37 Modification of Self—concept One formula for writing a successful best seller during the 1970's has been to prescribe methods of self—analysis or self—concept modification. It comes as no surprise that since self-concept is perceived as being so relevant to a life of happiness and competence, people are interested in ways to change self—concept. It has long been suggested by some that the school setting offers an appropriate milieu for self—concept change (Ojemann et al., 1955 and Bower, 1961). Kipfer (1961) recommended a teacher training prospectus. Cowen and his associates (1963) suggested a massive preventive mental health program for school settings. Coopersmith (1965) discussed the need and methods for enhancing self—concept in the classroom. The DUSO (Developing Understanding of Self and Others) guidance program has been found to influence the self—concepts of primary school children (Koval & Hales, 1972). Schulman et al. (1973) described a successful teacher—taught classroom program to enhance self—concept. Felker (1974) has done extensive research and writing on methods of building positive self— concepts in preschool, elementary and high schools. He lists five "keys" of self-concept enhancement: 1. Modelling self-praise by caregivers. 38 2. Help children learn to realistically evaluate themselves. 3. Teach children how to set reasonable goals. 4. Teach children to self—praise. 5. Teach children to praise others. Felker°s principles are based on notions of social learning theory such as reinforcement and imitation. Recent reviews of literature pertaining to self— concept enhancement in the classroom have been presented by Bobson (1973), Hansen and Maynard (1973), Canfield and Wells (1976), Dusek (1977), and Hamachek (1978). Locus of Control The notion of locus of control was first formally suggested by Julian Rotter in his 1954 (see Rotter, 1954) writings on social learning theory (Hersch & Scheibe, 1967). The first scale to measure locus of control was a part of a doctoral dissertation by Phares (1955). This scale was later revised by James (1957). Rotter developed his often used scale in 1962 and published it in 1966 (Rotter, 1971). The heuristic value of the scale has been immense. Research relating locus of control to personality characteristics and other personal attributes has "rapidly mushroomed beyond its originator°s most vivid expectations" (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 35). 39 Greater consistency has existed between the definitions used by various writers on the topic of locus of control than for self-concept. Rotter aquainted many readers to the concept when he introduced his scale in 1966. The effect of a reinforcement . . . is not a simple stamping—in process but depends upon whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his own behavior and the reward. A perception of causal relationship need not be all or none but can vary in degree. When a reinforce- ment is perceived by the subject as follow— ing some action of his own but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our culture, it is typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event 18 contingent upon his own behavior or his own relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control. (Rotter, 1966, p. 1, Rotter's italics) Rotter's definition applies to generalized or undimensional expectancies of locus of control and is commonly accepted as operational by most researchers and writers on the topic (Gilmor, 1978, for example). Some of the more recent definitions in the literature (Reid & Ware, 1974, for example) have begun to treat locus of control as a multidimensional concept. Lefcourt——in addition to providing a 40 summary of multidimensionality——suggested that, ". . . it would seem most apt that investigators devise specifically aimed locus of control measures for theoretically relevant criteria" (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 134). Children's scales such as the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionaire (Crandall, Katkovsky & Crandall, 1965) and the Locus of Responsibility Scale (Bills, 1975) have been attempts to build tests for academically relevant criteria. The possible presence of confounding elements in the term "control" have not been ignored. Lefcourt elaborated, It has been contended by some that the construct was originally misnamed, that control was never the central issue, but rather that contingency was at the core of the construct. The term control connotes successful manipulation. The construct, locus of control, on the other hand, focuses upon the perceived contingency of events, whether they be positive or negative outcomes. (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 154) So, even though relatively consistent definitions of locus of control have existed in the literature, concerns have been expressed pertaining to the multidimensional aspect and to the inherent meaning of the term control. Reviews in which the authors have concerned themselves with the general construct of locus of control have included writings by Rotter (1966), Lefcourt (1966 & 1979 in press), Joe (1971), Throop 41 and MacDonald (1971), and Phares (1976). Reynolds (1976) compiled tabular summaries of correlates of locus of control, implications for education and research criticisms. Most of the studies reviewed by Reynolds used adult samples. A timely review of literature focusing on locus of control and adaptive behavior of children and adolescents has been complied by Gilmor (1978). Gilmor's review covers writings directed at measurement, adaptive behavior, achievement, modification, and antecedents of locus of control. Most reviewers have found consistent evidence of a positive relationship between valued personality ; characteristics, academic motivation and internal locus of control. Roueche, Mink and Abott (1971) reviewed studies which reported external locus of Eontrol to be positively related to neurosis, escapist behavior, social incompetence, hostility, and below par intellectual ability. Lombardo, Fantasia and Solheim (1975) found research literature which tied externality to poor interpersonal relations, low ego—strength, unfavorable self- descriptions, anxiety, and poor personal adjustment. In general, more desired characteristics have usually been associated with internal locus of control. 42 Locus of Control and Academic Performance Common sense dictates that those who believe that they govern the events which determine their destiny would tend to be the same peOple who do well in academic situations. The literature in the area of locus of control and academic performance has frequently supported this contention. Joe summarized his review by stating that, ". . . the lgggs of control variable plays a major role in the learning process and the striving for achievement by influencing an individual's strategy preferences in confronting problem-solving and risk-taking situations" (Joe, 1971, p. 635). The amount of research has increased since the release of the Coleman report. The Coleman report suggested the presence of a relationship between academic outcomes and the belief by nonwhite children that their efforts were a potent force in determining their academic performance (Coleman et al., 1966). Petigrew summarized by saying, "An 'academic self- concept' variable . . . proves more significant for white performance. But a measure of [fate_contrgllw_ or 'control of the environment'-~indicated for example, ' " 'w... «a. .__,'. by disagreeing that 'good luck is more important than ’4‘ hard work for success'e—is much more important for K—o..-‘ n -" Negro performance . . ." (Petigrew, 1967, p. 283). 43 Handel (1975) also found this tendency among disadvantaged Israeli students. Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall (1965) presented an oft cited study of the attribution of intellectual responsibility for students in grades 3-12. Their results indicated that upper-grade girls accepted more responsibility for academic achievement than did upper—grade boys and that moderate evidence existed which suggested that intellectual responsibility was somewhat related to family size, intelligence and social class. In the next two years Virginia Crandall was involved in studies relating control and intellectual academic achievement. In 1967 Katkovsky et al. focused their efforts on the relationship of parental influences and intellectual locus of control (Katkovsky, Crandall & Good, 1967). The parental styles interacted with the sex of the child to influence their children's perceived academic locus of control. That is, There appears to be a difference between the sexes in the characteristics of the parent-child relationships which influence the development of internal and external orientations. Boys appear more likely to develop an internal orientation if they experience maternal love and support, while girls are more likely to develop an external orientation if they experience parental rejection and authoritarian control. (Katkovsky, Crandall & Good. 1967. p- 774) 44 In 1968 Virginia Crandall teamed with Paul McGhee to determine that children who are more internal tend to have higher course grades and score higher on achievement test scores (McGhee & Crandall, 1968). Nowicki and Strickland made their influence in the area felt when they announced the development of their lopus of control scale for children during the early 1970's (Nowicki & Strickland, 1970 & 1973), An example of the early use of the Nowicki-Strickland scale was research carried out by Nowicki and Roundtree (1971). ‘Their results showed that for males there is a relationship between locus of Muw-‘Nh 1 control and achievement, whereas for girls the relationship was between locus of control and extracurricular activities. Strickland (1972) reviewed the relevant literature in locus of control as measured by the Nowicki—Strickland scale and competence in children. Writing on the research to date Strickland said: . . it appears that we have an instrument which is generally not related to traditional intelligence measures nor social desirability but does appear to predict academic achievement particularity for males. Additionally, a belief in internal control for both males and females in most cases, appears to be related to a number of cognitive and compe— tence behaviors which can be described as attempts to master the surrounding environment including utilization of information about immediate past performance, concept solution, delay of gratification, 45 persistance at time-consuming and difficult tasks and even compliance to treatment demands that mean the difference between life and death. (Strickland, 1972, pp. 6—7) The Nowicki-Strickland scale has remained among the more popular tests of locus of control. Messer (1972) used the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (IAR), the Matching Familiar Figures test, school grades, and Stanford Achievement Test scores to check for a relationship between locus of control and academic performance among 78 forth—grade boys and girls. He controlled for intelligence and cognitive impulsivity and found that students with internal locus of control scores tended to have higher grades and achievement test scores than did those students with external locus of control scores. The IAR provides two scores, one for taking credit for successes and another for accepting blame for failures. Messer found, more specifically, that boys who took credit for their successes and girls who accepted blame for their failures were likely to score higher on the measures of academic performance. Messer explained the difference in terms of sex role perceptions. That is, the boys perceived it as acceptable to take credit for successes, whereas the girls shunned this 46 "masculine" stance and attributed their high performance to avoidance of failure. Gozali and her associates (1973) also found sex differences in the relationship between locus of control and achievement. They found that college students with internal scores used their time in a more appropriate fashion during test taking situations. The effect was especially marked for the women in the sample. Another oft cited work has been that reported by Wolk and DuCette (1973). ATwo studies were conducted to measure the influence of locus of control on achievement—motivation. Only those subjects characterized as internal produced results consistent with predictions based on Atkinson's (1964) theory of achievement—motivation. Wolk and DuCette suggested their results might explain some inconsistencies found in previous achievement—motivation research. Further evidence of differences between how internal and external locus of control orientations influence cognitive activity was supplied by Wolk and DuCette (1974). They had subjects search a story for typographical errors; then had the subjects try to recall various aspects of the story. Internals outperformed the externals on the measures of intentional learning (typographical error finding) and incidental learning (story recall). 47 When told to attend to both the intentional and incidental aspects of the story, the discrepancy between the internal and external subjects lessened causing the authors to conclude that, "it appears that the external does not make full use of his attentional system until stimuli are made more salient or prominent" (Wolk & DuCette, 1974, p. 99). Duke and Nowicki (1974) confirmed their theoretical expectation that subjects with an internal locus of control would tend also to display higher levels of academic achievement. Their sample was composed of adults. Newhouse (1974) investigated reinforcement responsibility as a function of birth order, grade level and sex for 800 students in grades 4, 5 and 6. Using the IAR he found that only-born children tended to assume less responsibility for success than did other children-—a fact Newhouse attributed to increased dependence in only-born children. He found that forth-graders assumed more credit for their success than did fifth-and sixth-graders. Girls accepted more blame for their failures than boys through all comparisons. Newhouse did not measure academic performance, so comparisons to studies such as that of Messer (1972) are limited. Bradley (1974) used two measures of locus of control, the Nowicki-Strickland Scale and the 48 Locus of Control Inventory for Three Achievement Domains to examine relationships with sex, race, SES, and classroom behavior. For both tests and subtests, whites scored more toward the internal pole than did blacks. Again, females werenuuweinternal regarding unsuccessful outcomes than males. Ollendick and Ollendick (1976) explored locus of control, intelligence and achievement in juvenile delinquents. Contrary to previous ”Wstudies, the relationship between locus of control and achievement was not found when the effects of intelligence were partialed out. Rotter (1975) had warned against anticipating such relationships in specific situations as those examined by Ollendick and Ollendick. Rotter stated that one . problem area is that of specificity— generality. This seems to be a particular problem for those people concerned with predicting achievement behavior or performance in achievement situations. There seems to be a persistent effort to obtain highly accurate and reliable predictions of achievement behavior by the use of a generalized expectancy for internal versus external control. This becomes less reasonable the more structured, the more familiar, and the more unambiguous a particular situation is. (Rotter, 1975, p. 60) Rotter suggested the need for further research to explore the interplay of generalized expectancies. 49 Finch and his associates (1976) tested the generalizability of the locus of control-academic achievement relationship by extending the research to include emotionally disturbed children. Their results were congruent with those of the studies they reviewed in showing that emotionally disturbed students who scored toward the internal pole obtained higher achievement scores than those who did not. Remediation programs designed to encourage internal orientations were recommended. Writers concerned with the implications of locus of control for the academic achievement of black students have expressed dissenting opinions of the interpretations and relevance of the research. Jorgensen (1976) claimed that much research in the area, including the Coleman report, has failed to recognize the complexity of the issue. He cited studies which have suggested that among black populations the capacity to take social action is related to the aspects of locus of control involving Protestant Ethic ideology. One social pattern to which black students have been exposed involves conflicting messages. Jorgensen explains: It reflects what I see as a fundamental pattern of conflicting influences on black students--pressures to achieve and to accept reSponsibility for their personal success or failure combined with frequent messages 50 that the curriculum, teachers, western thought, American society, and all aspects of their education are racist. (Jorgensen, 1976, p. 21) Guttentag and Klein (1976) attempted to distinguish the dimensions of expectancies (e.g., individual versus system blame and racial militancy) which might be evidenced in minority students. The analysis of the data ". . . demonstrated clearly that expectancies concerning locus of control contributed significantly to the prediction of school achievement" (p. 1108). Differences between racial and non—racial. items, individual versus system blame and racial militancy were not found. Reynolds' (1976) contribution to the confusion was stated in his conclusion that, "Research into L0 expectancies has not yet suggested any new directions for educational policy, and the I—E Scale is apparently of no utility for purposes of educational selection or prediction" (Reynolds, 1976, p. 250). Reynolds' review of the literature pertaining to educational implications was selectivly biased in the direction of this conclusion. Milgram and Milgram (1976) studied various personality characteristics including locus of control for 182 gifted and 310 nongifted Israeli children. Self—concept was measured by an adaptation of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, locus of control by 51 an author-developed scale and anxiety by a revised version of Sarason's scale of general and test anxiety. Gifted children showed more positive self- concept, more internal locus of control and lower anxiety. Similar results relating creativity to locus of control were reported by Churchill (1976). Scanlon (1977) examined the locus of control scores for language disabled and nondisabled grade school children. He found developmental trends (external to internal) for both groups and discovered that the language disabled students were delayed in such trends. Viewing knowledge of laws as a necessary social competency, Gardner, Warren and Gardner (1977) investigated the relationship between law knowledge and locus of control among normal, retarded and learning disabled adolescents. Normal students showed greater knowledge of laws and more internal locus of control than did the retarded or learning disabled students and, for the total group, a link existed between internal locus of control and law knowledge. Hohmuth and Howe (1977) followed—up an earlier study by Hohmuth and Ramos (1973) concerning disadvantaged college students. The original study showed a relationship between internality and college success. Interestingly, the follow—up revealed that, ”Students faced with initial failure 52 were much more likely to improve in their next semester if their perceived locus of control was internal, but they were ultimately more likely to drop out of college" (Hohmuth & Howe, 1977, p. 486). The authors interpreted this tendency as being a result of internally oriented students as being those most likely to pursue non-academic alternatives when faced with continuing marginal performance. Bradley and Teeter (1977) turned their attention toward student behavior and perceptions of control over social outcomes. The authors noted that prior studies had established a relationship between academics and locus of control, but previous attempts at confirmation of a locus of control and student behavior relationship were only moderately convincing. Their results supported the contention of a locus of control and academic achievement affiliation and, furthermore, it was found that externals manifested more classroom hostility than internals. This tendency was supposedly due to increased feelings of helplessness and frustration. Considerate behavior was related to teacher conduct: "The present results indicate that hostility in a classroom may result more specifically from a feeling of powerlessness to control negative outcomes. Moreover, it appears that considerate behavior in the classroom is most strongly related to perceptions 53 of control involving school personnel" (Bradley & Teeter, 1977, p. 234). The authors go on to explain this in terms of Rotter's (1975) position that in situations where one has considerable experience, specific expectancies have more valence than generalized expectancies. For the reader interested in further literature in the area of locus of control and academic performance recent reviews have been written (Reynolds, 1976; Phares, 1976; Lefcourt, 1976; and Gilmor, 1978). Phares (1976) concluded his review by stating that: Internals tend to show superior academic achievement. The relationship seems more substantial for younger children but also seems to be present in young adults, whose behavior is likely to be determined by many more variables than is true for young children. But in the case of both objective and projective measures of achievement motivation, the results are quite inconsis— tent and even contradictory. (Phares, 1976, p. 11L my italics) Lefcourt, after reviewing the literature relevant to cognitive activity, offered what might serve as an explanation of the tendency for internality being correlated to academic achievement: It would seem that the assumed differences in cognitive activity between internals and externals have been demonstrated. Internals have been found to be more perceptive and ready to learn about their surroundings. They are more inquisitive, curious, and efficient processors of information than are externals. (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 65) 54 Lefcourt further suggested that research inconsistencies might be resolved as more differentiated conceptions of locus of control in academic situations are devised (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 78). Gilmor's review (1978) included studies which suggested that the effect of cognitive abilities is that of having a mediating effect on academic performance. For example, when social desirability was controlled for, Nowicki and Walker (1973) reported more consistent locus of control—achievement results for females. Supposedly, this trend is related to the female sex role of passivity. Other mediating factors found to have an influence included classroom structure (internals preferred "Open" and COOperative classrooms) and intrinsic motivation (internals were better self- reinforcers). Locus of control and intelligence have never been consistently shown to be related (Gilmor, 1978). Reviews which are particular relevance to educational psychologists, school psychologists and educators have been written by Chan (1977 & 1978). The 1977 manuscript is an extended version of an earlier writing and included a review of the use of both formal and informal assessment techniques. The 1978 article focused on both locus of control and achievement motivation. Chan concluded that ". . . each appears to influence the child's 55 approach to school-related tasks, interpretation of the outcome of tasks, selection of tasks, task persistence, and other achievement—related behaviors" (Chan, 1978, p. 108). Modification of Locus Of Control Percgptions If one is willing to make the judgement that internality is more desired than externality, the question of whether locus of control can be influenced in an internal direction becomes salient. 0f greater concern are long term shifts in locus of control as opposed to the short term shifts related to situational influences. Phares noted that a general shift has occured for the overall locus of control orientations of college students since 1966. He interpreted the shift toward externality as being related to "the general spirit of alienation that has prevailed in the country over the past ten years or so, a period that included events such as the Vietnam conflict and the Watergate scandal" (Phares, 1976, p. 161). Of concern to this review were intentional efforts to change locus of control, especially in school related situations. DeCharms (1972), in an oft cited study, introduced a construct very similar to locus of control when he wrote about modification of personal causation. He described two ways in which people perceive 56 themselves, pawns, and origins. When something external to the person impels him to behavior, he experiences himself as the instrument of the outside source, and the outside source is the locus of causality. He is said to be extrinsically motivated. Since the person is impelled from without we refer to him as a pawn. We sometimes talk of people as primarily pawns implying that they more charact- eristically see themselves as pushed around by outside forces. Conversely, we refer to people as primarily origins implying that they characteristically see themselves as originating their own behavior. (DeCharms, 1972. pp- 96'97) The parallels between origins-pawns and internal—external locus of control are obvious. The major difference being that pawns and orgins are determined by the degree to which they see themselves manipulated as an object, whereas locus of control refers more to perceived contingencies (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 119). DeCharms (1972) engaged his notions in a longitudinal three year study of training students to behave as origins. Teachers were taught to encourage origin rather than pawn behavior in the sample of sixth and seventh grade lower—class black students. The results were that (1) students in the experimental group perceived their classrooms as be more conducive to origin behavior and (2) strikingly different profiles of personal causation were evidenced for students as a result of training. The students in the experimental groups also failed to show the year- to-year increasing discrepancy with national norms on standardized achievement tests. 57 Rosen (1977) also found the classroom to be an appropriate place to study changes in locus of control. She examined high school students in a traditional and an "open" school. The students in the Open school changed more toward an internal orientation during the school year. Students-—especially the white students——from the open school also more often reported being able to get a job or a better job. With the concept of locus of control having .its origins in social learning theory, a large number of the studies have employed behavior modification in efforts to bring about change. Reimanis (1974) used behavior modification and counseling to increase the internality of grade—school children by making the children aware of cause-effect contingencies. Eitzen (1974) used a token economy to enhance the internality of delinquent boys. McCarthy (1974) reported better results in modifying locus of control 1 through a behaviorally oriented treatment program than through a human awareness program. Kurash (1975) failed to achieve a significant change using a token economy with forth— and fifth-grade students. She attributed the failure to inefficient management of the token economy. Searcy (1975) used cognitive training to alter both locus of control and intelligence in first~grade children. Lepire (1977) found ..... 58 mainstreamed exceptional students to have higher internal scores than students who attended special classes. McGeoch (1977) found evidence to support her hypothesis that the locus of control of preschoolers could be made more internal through verbal prompting of causal relationships with their peers and care givers. According to Herr (1977) teachers form more positive expectations of students they believe to be internal than for students they perceive to be externally orientated. Gardner and Gardner (1974) reviewed the research pertaining to locus of control and various handicaps (e.g., mental retardation, learning disability, blindness, etc.). They expressed concern for the degree of authenticity perceived by handicapped students in the "successes" which are fabricated for them by their teachers. Because the contingencies for success are often different (usually less difficult and situation specific) from those experienced by non-handicapped students, the handicapped youngsters perceive them as being more externally oriented and less meaningful. Gardner and Gardner suggested a remedial program of daily practices (verbal prompting and reinforcement) and special lessons apprOpriate for use in special education classrooms to develop more realistic expectancies for control. 59 Phares presented a review of the pertinent literature regarding efforts to modify locus of control through psychotheraputic intervention (Phares, 1976, pp. 167-70). He concluded that efforts should be made to align theraputic intervention with the specific problem as indicated by the client's previous learning history. Relationships between Self—concept and Locus of Control The relationship between self-concept. self—accept- ance and locus of control is complex. Many have tended to assume that positive self-concept and internality would go hand in hand. Most of the research in the area has been aimed at testing that assumption. The results have been inconclusive and sometimes appear contradictory. Research relating self-acceptance and internality is scarce, but such research may ultimately shed light on the interaction of self- concept and locus of control. Feather (1967) attempted to examine some personality correlates of external control. Subjects were given tests for anxiety, need for achievement, social desirability, field—dependence, introversion— extroversion, neuroticism, and locus of control. There was a tendency for social desirability to be correlated with the personality variables and a shift toward internality was found for females 60 as they progressed through college. Younger males and both older males and females showed a relationship between anxiety and externality. Feather suggested two explanations. First, anxiety prone peeple may have had more failure experiences and tended to externalize the blame. Second, perceptions of external control may have lead to more anxiety. Feather suggested a need for further research. Ziller et al. (1969) used their own self- esteem index, but were unable to find a significant relationship between self-esteem and locus of control. Research by Clouser and Hjelle (1970) established the presence of a relationship between dogmatism and locus of control. PeOple with closed systems of belief-disbelief were found to be more external. Platt et al. (1970) failed to find a statistically significant correlation between internal-external control and self-esteem in three samples of college students. Beebe (1970) studied the developmental trends of locus of control and self-esteem in children and adolescents. She found the expected shift toward internality with increased age. Beebe also found internality (Bialer Locus of Control Scale) and self—esteem (Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory) to be related at all grades (4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). Significant sex differences were not in evidence, but 61 10th grade girls were found to have unexplainably lower self-concept scores than 10th grade boys. In a previously mentioned study Felker and Thomas (1971) found the relationship to be more complex. Boys showed a negative self-concept interaction with failure. That is, high self—concept boys externalized the attribution of responsibility for their failures. Girls showed a positive interaction between high self—concept and accepting responsibility for their successes. Boys apparently defended their positive self—concepts by denying responsibility for their failures, whereas girls defended their self-concepts by acknowledging responsibility for their successes. A similar study reported by Piers (1977) supported the results of the Felker and Thomas study. St. John (1971) discussed the classroom as a "frog pond." She examined the effects of relative size and racial balance of classrooms (frog ponds) and the self-perceptions and feelings of control of black and white elementary students (frogs) in 36 sixth- grade classrooms. She said, Thus, in 'big frog ponds' (white middle class schools) white children have somewhat lower academic self—concept but much stronger general attitudes towards themselves and sense of control of the environment. Black children in these schools have low self-concepts in every way. However, their sense of control is high in both the most black and most white schools. (St. John, 1971, p. 589) 62 Some other findings by St. John revealed that: (1) contrary to the Coleman report, SES and level of achievement--not race-—are the relevant factors in control attitudes, (2) for both races a positive correlation was found between locus of control and GPA and SES and (3) regression analysis pointed to GPA--not SES or percentage white--as accounting for the wuiance related to self-concept. Self-concept was apparently related to level of competition (positive self—concept correlating with high competition), whereas sense of control was related to relative GPA and relative SES (internality correlating with high GPA and relatively higher SES of peers). A return to the frog pond may clarify these relationships. For self-concept it is most important to be a big frog, and this is easier in a little pond (and especially if raised in a bigger pond). For sense of control it is important to be a big frog, but it is also important to be in a big pond. (St. John, 1971, p. 594) Fish and Karabenick (1971) measured locus of control and self—esteem for 285 college males. They found that those subjects with internal Rotter I—E scores tended to be the same ones who provided high self-esteem scores. In his review, Joe (1971) summarized the personality characteristics of peOple who score toward the external pole as being more: anxious, aggressive, dogmatic, and fearful of failure. 63 Kay (1972) reported a study which essentially confirmed the earlier notion of Felker and Thomas that high self—concept boys deny responsibility for failure. Another replication of a previously reported study was that of Ryckman and Sherman (1973) who duplicated the above mentioned Fish and Karabenic study. Women were added to the sample and the same results were obtained. That is, for both male and female college students, self- esteem and internal locus of control were correlated. Heaton and Duerfeldt (1973) also reported significant correlations between locus of control and self-esteem among college students. A study similar to the prOposed study was that of Lombardo, Fantasia and Solheim (1975). Their concern was with locus of control discrepancies and self-acceptance. Their sample was 73 college students. Their measures were Rotter's I-E scale and a 40 item self-acceptance scale. A difference score was determined for both locus of control and self-acceptance. For both measures the discrepancy scores for externals were greater. Externals showed less self-acceptance than 64 internals. Externals showed greater desire to be more internal than did internals. The study was replicated by Lombardo and Berzonsky (1975) using both male and female subjects. The results were the same i.e., both male and female subjects who scored toward the external pole showed less self-acceptance and a greater desire to be more internal. Donovan et al.(1975) examined the relationships between locus of control, self-concept and anxiety using 60 male alcoholics as subjects. Significant results were obtained between external locus of control and anxiety but not between locus of control and self-concept. Chandler (1976) used the Index of Value and Adjustment test and the Nowicki—Strickland Internal-External Scale to determine that, ". . . if self—actualization is a desired goal, externals will not move in this direction without a strong demonstration of a sense of power" (Chandler, 1976, p. 146). With children as subjects, DeAnda (1976) explored the interactions of self- concept, locus of control, achievement; and classroom social status. He found locus of control and social status to be good predictors of self—esteem in the classroom and that locus of control and academic achievement interacted to account for a significant amount of the self—esteem variance. Moyal (1977) found that self-concept, locus of control, and depression were related for the fifth— 65 and sixth-grade students she studied. Cohen and Lefkowitz (1977) also discovered locus of control and self-concept to interact for high school students. Tolor, Tolor and Blumin (1977) reported that among elementary-aged children self—concept--but not locus of control——was an accurate predictor of need for special education services. Gordon (1977) found a relationship between self—concept and locus of control for forth—graders. He further found that while males' locus of control scores were related to grade point averages, females' locus of control scores were related to achievement test scores. He attributed this difference to contrasting socialization for males and females. The reader interested in related studies and thought regarding the relationships between self- concept and locus of control is referred to Felker (1974), Phares (1976), and Lefcourt (1976, 1978a, 1978b, & 1980, in press). Sex and Age Related Factors Pertaining to Self-concept and Locus of Control The relationship between self-concept and sex is unclear and apparently related to other factors. Hamachek discussed the influences of parenting styles, birth order and changing sex roles-- especially women’s liberation--on self-concept (Hamachek, 1978, pp. 144-90). The recent trend 66 has been toward firm but understanding parenting styles and less restrictive sex role typing. Stollak (1978) has presented his interpretation of the theory and research regarding caregiver behaviors intended to encourage the deveIOpment of competent and self- accepting persons. Stollak stated that the characteristics of such persons are not "culture bound or limited to men or women" (Stollak, 1978, p. 2). Light (1976) reviewed the research literature and found inconsistent reports of a self—concept and sex relationship. But, she noted that "although no differences may exist in the findings of some studies, no studies could be found which indicated that females had a stronger self—concept in any aSpect, whereas studies were found which indicated that males had stronger or more positive self—concepts than females" (Light, 1976, p. 19). The age at which one's self-concept can be said to exist depends on how self-concept is defined. For example, Hurlock discussed "babyhood self- concept" (Hurlock, 1975, p. 87). Most theorists and researchers have concluded that by the time a child reaches the early elementary school grades a self— concept which can be operationally defined and measured is present. Research supporting this contention has been reported by Stenner and Katzenmeyer who summarized by stating that, "The child's concept 67 of self crystalizes during the early school years, during which period a massive process of psychological and social maturation takes place" (Stenner & Katzenmeyer, 1976, p. 356). Hansen and Maynard (1973) and Hamachek (1978) have reviewed the literature regarding the consistency of behavior over time and concluded that many characteristics found in children when they were young persisted into adolescence. But what about self-concept differences between children at different grade levels? In their classic study, Piers and Harris (1964) reported that students in grades 3 and 10 provided higher self—concept scores than students in grade 6. Havinghurst (1946) had subjects write an essay on self-acceptance ("The Person I Would Like to Be"). Younger children's self-acceptance was found to be more dependent upon parental influence, whereas older children depended more on persons outside of their families. An interesting study by Sheikh and Beglis (1973) also demonstrated the effect of age on self-description. Younger students (second-graders) tended to think of themselves in terms of basic identification. When asked to describe how they perceived the themselves, they responded with such replks as "I am tall" or "I am a girl." More expanded replies were received from forth-graders, such as "I am a good ball player" or "I enjoy monster movies." 68 By sixth-grade, students made more future oriented self-references and mentioned the Opposite sex more often. Further evidence of differences in the way peOple view their selves at different ages was provided by Montemayor and Eisen (1977). Various aged children and adolescents were administered self-descriptive measures. As age increased so did self-perceptions of: occupational roles, existential individuating (e.g. "me, I, myself"), belief references (e.g. liberal), self-determination, sense of unity. future orientation, and psychological styles. As age increased, there was a decrease in self—perceptions of: territorially, citizenship (e.g. "I am a Spartan"), material possessions, and physical being. Gilmor (1978) has reviewed the research literature pertaining to sex and locus of control. Nowicki has been involved in most such research (Nowicki & Roundtree, 1971; Nowicki & Walker, 1973; Duke & Nowicki, 1974; and Nowicki & Walker, 1974). The primary concern has been with the relationships between sex, locus of control, achievement, and social desirability. In general the results have been inconclusive, especially for females. Research aimed at examining the possibility of a simple relationship between sex and locus of control (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973 for example) have not 69 found differences in reSponse patterns between males and females. A shift from externality toward internality as children become older has been examined by previous researchers (Crandall et al., 1965; Penk, 1969; Milgram, 1971; Nowicki & Strickland, 1973; and Piers, 1977). This age related shift has been attributed to increased cognitive ability, improved perceptions of cause—effect relationships and more competent levels of functioning (Lefcourt, 1972). Bradley and Webb (1976) found a reversal in this shift for persons over 60 years of age. As compared to peOple aged 35-50 years, peOple over 60 became more external along both physical and social domains, but not intellectual domains. The authors interpreted this tendency in terms of James' (1890) self—esteem definition (self—esteemzsuccess/pretensions). For the young and the old the perceived probability of success is low relative to their pretensions. Some Considerations Pertaininggto Self-concept, Self- acceptance and Locus of Control Research Some methodological considerations of the proposed study of self-concept include: (1) the relatively perplexing state of self—concept theory, (2) the lack of a consistent definition of self— concept and self-acceptance, (3) demographic and 7O situational influences related to self-concept scores in children, and (4) the research concerns associated with evaluation of discrepancy or difference scores for self-acceptance measures. Wylie (1974) made three general recommendations regarding problems of self-concept measurement. First, she suggested a trend toward a small number of instruments. Second, she proposed an organized rational program of instrument develOpment in order to maximize the benefits of modern standards and techniques. Third, she advocated systematic exploration of situational variables believed to influence self—concept responses (Wylie, 1974, pp. 123-33). Peterson (1977) discussed Wylie's concerns when he wrote the introductory article for the issue of the Journal 2f Youth and Adolescence (Volume 6, Number 4, December, 1977) which was devoted to the measurement of self-concept. A potential concern in working with self- acceptance as the difference between one's real and ideal self-concept is the manipulation of discrepancy scores. Wylie (1974) has summarized some concerns to be considered when working with difference or discrepancy scores. The principal arguments against the use of discrepancy scores were posited by Cronbach and Furby (1970). Cronbach and Furby suggested a weighting system (X—aY) in order to 71 better estimate subjects' true scores when using discrepancy measures. Wylie argued that such a weighting system was not necessary when using phenomenal discrepancies such as self-ideal differences. That is, since the discrepancy is presumably something S can experience as a difference between his actual self-concept and his ideal for himself; there seems to be a theoretical reason to try to operationalize it by a subtractive score, as free as possible of irrelevant influences, of course. (Wylie, 1974, p. 91) In effect, Wylie said that both real self and ideal self perceptions are both phenomenological descriptions which involve a difference between two points on the same line. They are along the same dimension, unlike the scores to which Cronbach and Furby raised objections (self—other discrepancies, for example). According to Judd and Smith (1974), a common error has been to compare real and ideal self—concept scores along dimensions determined solely by factor analyzing self-concept. When both real and ideal self-concept were factor analyzed it was determined that different loading existed for the dimensions of each. For this reason, comparisons between separate real and ideal self-concept factors were not pursued. Another potential problem of using discrepancy scores is that if the two measures are highly correlated—-as the self—concept and self—acceptance 72 measures would probably be--the difference scores are less reliable (Wylie, 197*, p. 91-92). Thorndike (1971) suggested that use of group difference scores, rather than individual difference scores, provides a coefficient that is reliable enough to be considered acceptable (Thorndike, 1971, p. 390). Two estimates of true score are determined for each individual (one for ideal self and one for real self). The amount of error variance decreases if group means are used because the deviations from the means tend to cancel each other out. A further advantage of using group means is that the probability of having to work with negative discrepancy scores is decreased. Any time difference scores are computed, the chance exists that subtracting one score from another will result in a negative number. Theoretically, a person could have a higher real self—concept than ideal self-concept. Wylie referred to such scores as "reverse discrepancies" (Wylie, 1974, pp. 94-95). The problems of interpreting and statistically analyzing such scores is diminished when the scores are treated as a group. Lefcourt (1976) summarized the present status of locus of control assessment by stating that "there is enough evidence to encourage investigators to both continue in their use of existing devices and 73 to develop newer, more criterion-specific measures" (Lefcourt, 1976, p. 137). Two focal points which deserve further study are differences in scores along various dimensions (e.g. race and sex) and the extent to which verbal fluency effects locus of control scores. Lefcourt (1976) offered three considerations: (1) expectations should not become too great regarding the importance of locus of control, other variables must be given appropriate attention, (2) internal and external locus of control should not be viewed as a trait-—it is a process of eXpectance and (3) assessment devices should be tailored for specific situations. Summary Four basic objectives were covered in this chapter. First, the literature relevant to self-concept and self-acceptance was reviewed. Special attention was given to definitions of self—concept, self-acceptance and related terms. Self-concept and self—acceptance were found to be related to personality characteristics and to academic performance. Evidence showing that self—concept can be modified was examined. Various methods, such as behavior modification and an assortment of group techniques, have proved effective in changing self—concept. 74 The second objective was to examine the literature relevant to locus of control. It was found that students with internal loci of control tended to be better academic achievers. It was also found that locus of control has been modified using a variety of methods. The third objective was to describe the research concerned with the complex relationship between self- concept and locus of control. Consistent results were not as evident for the self-concept and locus of control relationship as they were for the locus of control and academic achievement relationship. Some evidence was found suggesting that the interaction between self—acceptance and locus of control might yield information regarding this relationship. Finally, the review of literature supported the prOposal that further research is warranted pertaining to the relationship between self-concept, self-acceptance and locus of control. Research concerns were discussed. The following conclusions pertaining to the research hypotheses have been reached based on the review of the relevant literature: 1. The available research has indicated that adults with internal loci of control tend to be more self-accepting. Such research has not been done with children. 75 2. Previous research has generally found that positive relationships exist between self-concept and locus of control. 3. Because of the theoretical and definitional similarities of the notions of self— concept and self-acceptance, a high degree of relationship probably exists, but empirical evidence of such a relationship was not found. 4. A develOpmental trend from externality toward internality as children's grade level increases has consistently been found. 5. The positive relationship between grade level and self-acceptance has been found to be influenced by sex and maturation. 6. Research evidence indicating that self- concept changes as students progress through grade levels has been found to be complex and at times inconsistent. DeveIOpment is characterized by both stability and change. 7. In general, significant differences between males and females on locus of control measures have not been in evidence. Many studies designed to examine the relationship between sex and locus of control have found other factors (especially academic success experiences) to have a mediating effect. 8. Adult males and females have responded in similar manners to measures of self- acceptance. 9. The research has been inconclusive regarding sex related differences in self—concept. 10. Whenever possible, multiple interactions between the variables of interest were discussed in the review of the literature. The review of the literature has suggested a need for further research and, at times, indicated possible 76 directions in which research hypotheses should be viewed. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY This research was aimed at investigating the relationships between self-concept, self—acceptance and locus Of control for male and female children and adolescents. The method used to explore these relationships is described in this chapter under the following subheadings: the sample, instrumentation Of the study, Operational definitions, design Of the study, and data reduction and analysis. The Sample Description of the Sample This study sampled students from the Jackson, Michigan Public Schools during June of 1979. Jackson is a city Of 45,000 people located in central lower Michigan. Of the 50,600 employed peOple in the Jackson County area, 26,200 are employed in non—manufacturing jobs, 15,700 are employed in manufacturing jobs, and 8,700 are employed in government jobs. The unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. The per capita income is approximately 77 78 $4,500 per year, with the average household having an effective buying income Of about $17,000 per year. About 12,000 Of Jackson County's 143,000 residents are college students. Jackson Public Schools Operate on a millage rate of 37 mills.1 0f the 134 students in the sample 65 were in one elementary school (grades 3, 4 and 5) and 69 were in one middle school (grades 6, 7 and 8). A more complete description Of the sample broken down by grade level and sex is provided in Table 3-1. Based on descriptions provided by school personnel, the sample fairly well represented the general population Of the area. Students from lower SES homes may have been somewhat more in evidence in the elementary school population than the middle school population. School personnel suggested this difference based on the presence Of a small low income housing project near the elementary school. More blacks (17%) took part at the elementary level than at the middle school level (13%). Selection Procedure for Subjects Efforts were made to obtain responses Of subjects from the same school district. This was 1Information obtained from the Jackson Chamber Of Commerce booklet "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Jackson" printed in September, 1978. 79 ma mm :m mm Hm ma Asmanv ampoa m ma Ma 3H m w Amoucv mmamsom mm 0H Ha Ha Ha NH Ha Amoncv amass m s m m s m Amwncv OHUUHE Amwnzv hamPQoEmHm Hm>oq momma mm 059 MO msoapomnopsH mamwpass esp op mammop OH smoosoo cesspmwoom Hogssoo macho :Mamm umaom mo macoA *OH a m m o W 3 m m a mammspocs: : compo smoocou Imamm mosmpmmoow nmamm mmmmmeomwm mom¢mmmm mme Emom OB mmqm mo mZOHBO.Ol). Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 stated that a relationship would be found between grade level and self—concept 102 (Piers-Harris scores). A univariate analysis Of variance revealed that the relationship between grade level and self-concept was not statistically significant (F=2.919; df=5, 128: p>.01). Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7 posited that a relationship existed between sex of subject and locus of control (Nowicki-Strickland scores). A univariate analysis of variance failed to find a statistically significant relationship between sex of subject and locus of control (F=0.1159; df=1, 128; p>.01). Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 was directed at examining the possibility Of a relationship existing between sex Of subject and self-acceptance (Bledsoe scores). Again, an analysis Of variance was used and it was determined that the relationship between sex Of subject and self-acceptance was not statistically significant (F=0.7482; df=1, 128; p>.01). Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 9 stated that a relationship existed between sex of subject and self—concept 103 (Piers—Harris scores). NO such relationship was found When the SBlf-concept scores were examined by sex Of subject using analysis Of variance techniques (F21.7163: df=1, 128: p>.01). Relationships between the Dependent and Independent Variables The purpose of this section is tO further examine the interactions of the dependent variables (self-concept, self—acceptance and locus of control) when they are isolated according to the independent variables (grade level and sex Of subject). This task will be undertaken in two parts. The first part is designed to take a more detailed look at the correlations between self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control when examined by grade level (elementary and middle) and sex Of subject (male and female). The second part is designed to explore the interactions Of grade and sex for each of the dependent measures. Part One. Grade Level and Sex of Subjects Correlates Between the Dependent Variables Hypothesis 1 dealt with the correlation between self—acceptance and locus Of control. When the hypothesis was examined for all subjects as a group it was found to be statistically significant. but it accounted for a small proportion Of the total variance. Further exploration was warranted. 104 Males. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self—acceptance and locus of control was .43 for males only (N=66). This coefficient is, of course, higher than what was found for the total group. A correlation Of .43 (N=66) is statistically significant, and accounts for a much greater prOportion Of variance. Females. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-acceptance and locus Of control was .10 for females only (N=68). This coefficient is lower than that Obtained for the total group, and is not statistically significant. Elementary Grade Levels. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self—acceptance and locus Of control was .12 for the elementary grade levels (N=65). This coefficient is also lower than that Obtained for the total group and is not statistically significant. Middle Grade Levels. The Pearson correlational coefficient for the relationship between self-acceptance and locus of control was .33 for the middle grade levels (N269). This coefficient is statistically significant, and somewhat meaningful in that variance. It accounts for about 11% Of the common variance. Hypothesis 2 pertained to the correlation between self—concept and locus Of control. When this hypothesis was tested for all subjects it was found to be both statistically significant, and meaningful. 105 Males. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-concept and internal locus Of control was .55 for males only. This coefficient was higher than what was found for the total group. It is statistically significant with an r2 of .30. Females. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-concept and internal locus Of control was .21 for females only. This coefficient is not statistically significant and is below the coefficient found for the total group. Elementary Grade Levels. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self—concept and internal locus of control was .19 for the elementary grades only. This coefficient is not statistically significant. Middle Grade Levels. The Pearson correlation coefficient between self-concept and internal locus Of control was .46 for the middle grade levels. The coefficient is statistically significant and meaningful 2 of .21. and has an r Hypothesis 3 concerned the relationship between self—concept and self—acceptance. A Pearson correlation coefficient Of .55 was found for the total group. This coefficient reached significance and accounted for 30% Of the total variance. Males. The Pearson correlation coefficient for males only was statistically significant (r=.65), with 106 self—acceptance determing 42% of the variance in the internal locus Of control. Females. The Pearson correlation coefficient for females was statistically (r=.42) significant and had an r2 Of .18 for the relationship between self—acceptance and internal locus of control. Elementary Grade Levels. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the elementary grade levels was statistically significant (r=.48) and meaningful (r2 =.23) for the relationship between self-acceptance and internal locus Of control. Middle Grade Levels. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the middle grade levels was also statistically significant (r=.60) and meaningful (r2=.36) for the relationship between self—acceptance and locus of control. Part Two. Interactions between Grade Level and Sex Of Subject for Each of the Dependent Variables Because of the apparent patterns Of the previously described correlations. it was believed that further exploration Of the interactions Of grade level and sex of subject for the dependent variables was warranted. For example, it has been noticed that for those relationships examined involving locus of control, there was a tendency for significant correlations to be found for males and the middle school grades but 107 not for females and the elementary school grades. The purpose Of this part is to explore for possible sex by grade interactions within each dependent variable. Sex by Grade fOr Self-concept. There was not a statistically significant main effect for grade on the self-concept measure (F=2.9146: df=5, 122; p .01). There was not a statistically significant main effect for sex on the self-concept measure (F21.4211; df=1, 122; p .01). There was also not a statistically significant interaction Of sex by grade for the self—concept measure (F=O.8768; df=5, 122; p).01). Sex by Grade for Selfeacceptance. There was not a statistically significant main effect for grade on the self—acceptance measure (F=2.0403; df=5, 122; p .01). There was not a statistically significant main effect for sex on the selfsacceptance measure (F=O.7482; df=1, 122; p .01). There was also not a statistically significant interaction Of sex by grade for the self—acceptance measure (F=1.6764; df=5, 122; p).01). Sex by Grade for Locus of Control. A significant main effect was found for grade on the locus of control measure (F25.814O; df=5, 122: p .01). This is the relationship discussed earlier as Hypothesis 4. NO significant main effect was found for sex on the locus locus of control measure (F=O.1159; df=1, 122; p>.01). 108 NO significant interaction was found for sex by grade on the locus Of control measure (F=2.2416; df=5, 122; p>.01). Multiple Correlation Analyses The third section pertains to the multiple correlations (regression analyses) Of the self-acceptance and locus of control scores on the self-concept scores. This analysis does not directly regard any of the hypotheses, but since it would shed further light on the dependent variables it was included in the results. Multiple regression coefficients can be interpreted in a manner similar to simple correlations. The advantage of multiple correlations is that they provide additional information in the form of the prOportion of variance of one variable (e.g. self-concept) that can be predicted by other variables (e.g. self- acceptance and locus Of control). Table 4—2 shows the regression analysis of the data. The r values represent the correlations between self-acceptance and locus Of control with selféconcept. These values had previously been presented in support of Hypotheses 3 and 4. To some extent each Of the other values show the relative influence Of self-acceptance and locus of control on self-concept. 109 eeo.ma emamm. memmo. women. asaoo. :mmmm. Hopscoo co msoom mmo.d: wmawd. mmmom. mmmom. Hmomm. Hwomm. oocmpmooomamaom osam> Pcwflog mwswco mm m a smoocooumamm “macmflam> m spam m mamapass magmpass mamapasa macsflm Admanzv meomwmbm AH< mom BmMUZOolQOm ZO HomBzOo mo mDUOQ Qz< Moz¢emmUo mpommnsm mamas. Hummm. Hemmm. demon. ssmma. smeao. :mwsm. mmmms. emmee. mmmmm. mmmmm. seams. enema. mmsmo. mmeom. momma. memos. oosaa. oosaa. asoms. mmsmm. seamo. msmam. mmoms. m Ham. scams. scams. Hmmme. emfimm. mowmo. women. asaoe. wsaws. mmmom. mmmom. Hmomm. pamamg spam mmcmco mm mm m macnpass Asmauzv WHOMhmDm mo mm¢mw 92¢ xmm Mm BQMUZOOIQOm zo DMmmmmUmm gomezoo mo mDoog 02¢ moz.01). . There will be a relationship between grade level and self—concept (Piers— Harris) scores. Rejected (F=2.92; df=5, 128; p>.01). . There will be a relationship between sex Of subject and locus Of control (Nowicki—Strickland) scores. Rejected (F=0.12; df=1, 128; p).01). . There will be a relationship between sex of subject and self-acceptance (Bledsoe) scores. Rejected (F=O.75; df=1, 128; p).01). There will be a relationship between sex Of subject and self—concept (Piers— Harris) scores. Rejected (F=1.72; df=1, 128; p>.01). 119 The dependent variables (self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control) were found to correlate positively with each other. A relationship was found between a dependent variable and an independent variable in only one case, which was for the shift toward internality as the subjects progressed through school. The second section was included to further explore the interactions among the variables. The correlations between locus of control and both self— concept and self-acceptance were significantly higher for the males and middle school subjects than for females and elementary school students. For all subgroupings Of the subjects (i.e. by sex and grade) significant correlations were found between self—concept and self—acceptance. NO statistically significant sex by grade level interactions were found for any Of the dependent variables. The third section pertained tO the multiple correlations among the dependent variables. Locus of control and self-acceptance were regressed on self—concept. Beta weights of .48 and .25 were found for self- acceptance and locus of control respectively. Their R2 values increased from .30 (self—acceptance alone) tO .36 (when locus Of control was added). In other words, the combination Of self-acceptance and locus Of control accounted fOr approximately 36% Of the total variance in self—concept. 120 Conclusions and Discussion In earlier chapters it was suggested that further study Of self—concept, self-acceptance and locus of control was warranted. The results indicate that, for children, positive relationships exist among the variables. These results will be discussed in light Of previous theory and research. Self-acceptance and Locus of Control A statistically significant correlation was found for the relationship between self—acceptance and locus Of control. A moderate amount of the variance of locus of control can be predicted from self—acceptance and vice-versa. This finding is consistent with the previous adult research findings of Lombardo et al. (1975)- When the number of factors which contribute to the variances Of self-acceptance and locus of control are considered, a magnitude Of relation Of 7% can be perceived as being more meaningful. Theoretical and empirical writings had suggested strongly that factors such as self-acceptance and internal locus Of control are related to other common factors. Generally, they have been associated with factors which fall within the domains Of "well adjusted" or "competent". Competence is an attribute which begins to develop early and is subject to developmental trends. 121 Burton White (1975) related competence to attributes in child-rearing practices for two- to three-year Olds. White suggested child—rearing practices which are intended to encourage the following types Of behaviors in children: (1) getting and holding the attention of adults, (2) using adults as resources having first determined that no job is tOO difficult, (3) eXpressing affection and moderate annoyance to adults, (4) leading and following peers, (5) expressing affection and mild annoyance to peers, (6) competing with peers, and (7) having the ability to anticipate consequences ( White, 1975, pp. 200-211). Conceptually, such notions appear related to the develOpment of both self-acceptance and locus Of control. The components Of self—acceptance and locus Of control, therefore, appear to cluster within the domain Of competence. TO become competent one must perceive himself as (a) being like the person he would like to be and (b) being able to exert control over the important contingencies in his life. Consequently, simultaneous increases in both self- acceptance and locus of control tend to occur in competent individuals. Locus of control may have a mediating effect on selfeacceptance. That is, if one is not like the person he or she would like to be, there is a self— saving tendency to attribute control for the important 122 contingencies in one's life to externally controlled factors. Conceptually, the growing child says, "I'm not who I want to be, but it is because things tend to be beyond my control." It is equally plausible to assume that those children who have actually had more negative experiences which were beyond their control would be low in self—acceptance. Internal control over significant life events is probably a necessary element in becoming the person one would ideally like to be. However, it is further possible that a child or adolescent who is high in self-acceptance would find it more satisfying to perceive herself as being responsible for that success. Until further causal analysis can be performed it seems reasonable to view the relationship between self-acceptance and locus of control as being mutually reinforcing. Further analysis revealed that the statistically significant relationship between selfeacceptance and locus of control for children was supported for males and middle grade level students, but not for females and elementary—aged children. For both the males and the middle grade students self—acceptance accounted for much more common variance. It is possible that younger students and females have not yet develOped to the point where real and ideal self-concepts or perceptions of locus Of control have been consolidated. An alternate 123 explanation might be that, due to differential age and sex role expectations, the relationship between self- acceptance and locus Of control is not as strong for elementary aged students and females. Males and middle school students might be expected to know more of what they want from life (ideal self) and a clearer perception Of their chances for attaining their goals (real self and locus of control). Messler (1972) suggested that sex role expectations influence the manners in which boys attribute credit and girls accept failure in certain situations. For younger children, practically everything is more outside of their control. They are generally more dependent on adult caregivers for physical needs such as food and shelter. Social and emotional needs are also more controlled by adults fOr elementary than for middle school aged children. Boys, more than girls, have been traditionally allowed greater control over the important contingencies in their lives. Exposure to attitudes in which males and Older children are ascribed roles which are more conducive to increased self—acceptance and internal locus Of control could account for the sex and age differences which were found to exist in the sample studied. A positive relationship was found between self—concept and internal locus of control. Sufficient common variance exists (r2214%) to make meaningful 124 predictions from the values of each variable. Previous research had generally supported the presence Of a self—concept and locus of control relationship for both adults (Feather, 1967; Fish & Karabenick, 1971; Heaton & Duerfeldt, 1973, and Lombardo, Fantasia & Solheim, 1975) and children (Beebe, 1970 and Milgram & Milgram, 1976). Self—concept, self—acceptance and locus of control are self—perceptions. Consequently, each is subject to influence by life experiences. Gilmor's (1978) review Of the "adaptive behavior" correlates of locus Of control identified the following experiences determined to be mediators of control expectancies: socioeconomic status. age, emotional stability, various physically handicapping conditions, creativity, academic achievement, parent— child interactions and family characteristics. As previously suggested, the determinants of locus Of control and self—concept (and probably self—acceptance) share much in common. For example, high socioeconomic status has been related to high self—concept, increased self—acceptance and more internal eXpectancies Of locus Of control. In general, each factor contributes to viewing one's self as being competent. Such life experiences influence self—concept, self-acceptance and locus of control in a.manner that results in somewhat parallel develOpment. Sex and age apparently effect the parallelism. 125 Common factors (such as self-acceptance and perceived academic achievement) also contribute to these variables. They are also related to factors which fall within the "competence" domain. The perception Of exerting control over the contingencies in one°s life would tend to enhance self-concept and vice-versa. Competency and control become increasingly linked as children develop. When the subjects were separated by sex and grade level, differences in the correlations between self-concept and locus of control were quite similar to those Obtained for self-acceptance and locus Of control. That is, significant correlations were found for males and middle school students, but not for females and elementary students. Again, differences in stage related develOpment along with age and sex role expectations are Offered as possible explanations. That both selfeconcept and self-acceptance would relate in such a similar manner suggests that they share much in common. Self-concept and Self—acceptance A positive correlation was Obtained for the relationship between self—concept and self—acceptance. It was both statistically (r=.55) and meaningfully (r2=.30) significant. Since about 30% Of the variance from one can be used to predict values on the other, it supports the suggestion Offered above that they share 126 much in common. This is theoretically consistent, since self-concept is one of two conceptually related factors (self-concept and ideal self—concept) used to determine self-acceptance. These factors are not mutually exclusive. When ideal self-concept is held constant or its effects are partialed out, an increase in perceived self—concept should result in a corresponding increase in self-acceptance. All correlations were found to be statistically and meaningfully significant when the students were grouped by grade level and sex. McCandless (1967) had suggested that self-concept and self-acceptance would be related since these two variables are conceptually similaru Psychological correlates mentioned by McCandless as being related to positive self-concept and self-acceptance included: increased perceptions of security, better emotional adjustment, less depression and less anxiety. If a person thinks highly Of his or her self, that person is probably more like the person he or she would like to be. In a positive sense, the person seems to be saying, "I am like the person I would like to be and I am good." In a negative sense, the person says, "I am not who I want to be and I am not so good." It is difficult to have a positive perception Of one's self when there is a lack of congruence between one's real and ideal selfeimages. 127 Locus of Control and Grade Level As expected, a shift toward internality was detected as students progressed through school. This shift has commonly been found as students grow Older (see page 69). As students grow, become more knowledge- able and pass through developmental stages, they are accorded more reSponsibility, perceive more cause-effect contingencies, and mature both physically and psychologically. The result is increased Opportunities for internal control and increased Opportunities for perceiving themselves as being in internal control. Our legal and moral systems encourage this shift toward internal control with age. Self-acceptance and Grade Level A trend toward becoming more selfeaccepting as students grew Older was not found. The rationale that more "realistic" goals are formed by the Older students resulting in greater selfeacceptance was not supported. Apparently students do not automatically adjust their real and ideal selves to decrease their discrepancies. Both real and ideal self-concepts have apparently jelled sufficiently tO allow groups Of children and adolescents to pass through the grade levels studied without significant changes in their relative levels of self—acceptance. Of course, it remains 128 possible that individuals might show strikingly different levels of self-acceptance through time. These findings lend some credence to the notion that important personality attributes (such as self-acceptance) are pretty much formed in earlier years and remain stable in these later years. Apparently the shift toward a more internal locus of control is not enough to cause adolescents to feel that they can close the gap between their real and ideal self-concepts. Perhaps concerns related to physical maturation interfere with the expected changes in self—acceptance during this age Span. It may be difficult to "accept" what is still in the process of change. In the review of literature evidence Of self—acceptance changes during these years could not be substantiated. Self-concept and Grade Level The results provided further evidence that level Of self—concept also remains relatively consistent for groups Of subjects for the grade levels studied. Interest in such differences goes back to the original study by Piers and Harris (1964) using the self-concept scale. They found differences within the extremes Of their grade levels. Scores from third and tenth graders tended to be higher than for sixth graders. Such maturational influences as increased reSponsibility, 129 increased intellectual ability and greater body size apparently have less effect on self-concept and self- acceptance than on locus of control. One explanation for the apparent lack of change could be the previously mentioned interference by factors associated with physical maturation. A more plausible explanation is that children and adolescents' self-concepts are moderated by the fact that they measure themselves relative to their peers. Although they are more responsible, more in control, smarter and larger, so too, are all Of their friends and classmates. During this time, who one is tends to be less important than what one seems to be when compared to peers. TO some extent, selfeperceptions do not seem to have the potency that peer-perceptions do in forming self-concept and selfeacceptance. Sex and Self-concept, Self—acceptance and Locus Of Control None of the one-way analyses Of variance for sex by the dependent variables (self-concept, self- acceptance or locus Of control) was statistically significant. Consequently, none of the final three hypotheses dealing with such relationships were upheld. This is consistent with previous research for both subjects within the age groups studied and for those 130' studies which used measures Of generalized locus of control. Rpgression Analysis of Self-concept, Self-acceptance and Locus of Control As a further analysis Of the relationships among variables, the data related to self-concept, self—acceptance and locus of control was subjected to a regression analysis. The multiple correlations of self-acceptance and locus Of control were regressed on self—concept. This analysis was performed in order to determine the proportion of variance Of one variable (self—concept) that can be predicted by the other variables (self-acceptance and locus Of control). It was found that approximately 36% Of the variance in self-concept scores was accounted for by the total Of the self-acceptance and locus Of control scores taken together. Roughly twice the original variance in self—concept can be accounted for by self-acceptance than by locus Of control. In short, self—acceptance is a better predictor Of self-concept than is locus Of control. Locus Of control can be viewed as a significant predictor of'self—concept but as being some what less potent than selféacceptance. This is illustrated in Figure V-1. 131 FIGURE V-1 Representation of the Relative Predictive Power of Self-acceptance and Locus Of Control for Self-Concept *— .—; Self-concept Locus Of Control Self-acceptance Self—acceptance alone (a+b) accounts for 30% of the variance in self—concept. Locus of control alone (b+c) accounts for 14% of the variance in self—concept. Self-acceptance and locus of control together (a+b+c) account for 36% of the variance in self—concept. 132 There are conceptual and Operational reasons why self—acceptance contributes more to the variance Of self-concept than does locus Of control. Self-acceptance C's-vi" -- --Uu...- -co. is defined as the discrepancy between one's real and Pidealmself-concept. Different measures were used to determine selfgconcept (Piers-Harris) and self-acceptance (Bledsoe) in order to reduce possible confounding. Yet, the variables are sufficiently similar to allow overlap. Reasons for the similarities have been discussed in this chapter and in the review of literature. The feelings and perceptions necessary to have a high self-concept resemble those associated with high self—acceptance. TO a lesser degree qualities associated with locus of control are like-—or contribute to--those Of'self-concept. Self-concept, self—acceptance and locus Of control have been related to common influences, such as parenting styles and academic achievement. Locus of control is less related to self—concept than is Cself-acceptance because locus Of control is determined by more independent influences. Such influences are specific to the whole notion of control, such as perceptions Of'cause-effect contingencies. Whereas both self-concept and self-acceptance are more dependent on evaluative perceptions relative to one's norm group, locus of control is subject to 133 increasing control over contingencies as one develOps. Locus Of control includes more factors outside of the self-concept domain. For example, persons such as alcoholics, with low self-concepts or low self—acceptances might feel as if they are quite in control of their lives. Others with high self-concepts or high self- acceptances, like some terminally ill persons or prisoners, might well have external loci of control. Locus Of control is a contributing factor to self—concept develOpment, but self-acceptance appears to be a more closely related and necessary factor in self-concept development. Further analysis showed that whether subjects were grouped either by sex or by grade level the results remained essentially the same. For every subgrouping, self-acceptance was found to be a better predictor Of self-concept than was locus of control. Implications and Limitations The present investigation suggests that the causal ties between self-concept and self—acceptance will probably be tighter than those between self- acceptance and locus of control. The causal direction and magnitude would be Of interest to persons interested in human development. The practical implication is that people concerned with development of self-concept, self— acceptance and locus of contol consider the interrelation- ships Of these variables. The stage is set to examine the directional influence of these variables on each other. 134 Regarding limitations, there is a need for better and more specific instruments to measure personality variables. Ideally, studies such as this should include three measures Of each dependent variable. This practice would help assure increased reliability and validity. It is suggested that measures designed to examine multidimensional aspects Of each variable be used to provide more detailed perspectives of the relationships. Another limitation pertains to the generalizability of the results. A sample was chosen which was perceived as being as representative as possible Of the general pOpulation. Yet, the extent to which the results can be generalized to other populations (such as specific racial groups, SES catagories or rural pOpulations) is limited. It is recommended that future studies be designed to remediate these limitations. Another limitation is in the inherent nature of the definitions of self-concept and self—acceptance--and perhaps locus Of control. Suggestions for Future Research The present study indicates that self-concept, selfeacceptance and locus of control are positively correlated for children and adolescents, which raises many questions for further research. What is it about each of the variables that causes them to be related? DO the relationships exist for different populations? Although the present research is more theoretical than practical in nature, it raises questions that have implications for educators and psychologists. Since the variables self— concept, self-acceptance and locus Of control are related 135 to both academic performance and personal competence, will changes in these variables lead to corresponding change in academic performance and competence? Further research in which the relevant variables are controlled or manipulated is indicated. Replication of studies in which causal influences and other important variables appears tO be warranted. Stipek's (1980) research suggesting that locus Of control contributes directly to academic achievement is a step in that direction. Recent statistical advances in path analytic techniques will further this cause. Self-concept, self-acceptance and locus Of control are valued attributes in and Of themselves. Perhaps directions of influence can be determined between those attributes and other variables and other variables, If so, is it possible that a systematic manipulation Of relevant life experiences could lead to corresponding changes in attributes associated with these other valued attributes? Perhaps the least expected aSpect Of the study was the finding that for males and middle school children the relationships between self-concept, self-acceptance and locus of control were more highly correlated than for females and elementary age children. This apparent tendency should be eXplored further. Whether this tendency is a spurious result Of the sample examined or an actual consistent tendency among children and adolescents should be investigated. Implications for sex—role development exists. Again, causal attributes associated with this tendency should 136 be examined. Further research is warrented to probe the increase in internality as children mature. Larger and more varied samples are indicated. Further theoretical examination Of the variables is in order. Wilie (1979) has made such an effort for self—concept. The trend seems to be moving away from the critical framework Of the 19603 and early 1970s and toward a more constructive, yet cautiously creative, attitude going into the 1980s. Because Of recent attitudes toward viewing self-acceptance as a viable construct (especially as real and ideal discrepancies) that notion seems deserving Of re-examination. Despite the enormous interest and proliferation in the area, much remains to be resolved pertaining to locus of control, especially regarding the dimensionality questions, behavioral correlates, and various conceptual frameworks. APPENDIX A PARENT PERMISSION LETTER (Photographically Reduced) 137 APPENDIX A PARENT PERMISSION LETTER 1601 Wintercrest East Lansing. MI 48823 Dear Parents: I am a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University in Educational Psych .Ology. One essential aspect of my prOg ram is that I engage in a resea ch pro cc: to satisfy the dissertation requirements of the degree. I an aSTing zor your help by allowing your child to take part in my rese rch project. The nature of the research is to determine the relationship between the variables self-concept, self-acceptance, locus of control, and academic ac.ievement. Self-concept pertains to how people perceive and feel about themselves. S lf—ac ceptance refers to the degree to which people's self-concepts are like how they would ideally want them to be. Locus of control has to do with whether people see their lives as being controlled by their own doings or by forces outside Of their control. Academic achievement is how a student is doing in school compared to other students. The scales used to measure the variables consist of short statements to which the students will be asked to circle either “yes” or "no" depending on how they feel the statement describes their feelings and perceptions. A small portion (14 of the 180 statements) refer to children' s perc eptior .s of family relationships. Examples include: 1) DO you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children have to say? . . yes no 2) Do your parents usually help you if you ask them t0? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no 3) I am an important member Of my family . yes no 4) My parents eXpect too much Of me- . . . yes no 5) I like my brother (sister): . . . . . . yes no. Family relationships play such an important part in forming our personalities that most, if no: all, such scales contain such statements. It was felt that you should informed that I will be doing this research and that some ques: ions will pertain to children‘s O‘rceptions of family relationships. All responses will be treated in onp olete confidentiality. Neither the sc hOOl nor I w; ll know the ident ity of t. 03 stude..ts taking part. NO experimental manipulation will occu r. This is a one-shot study whii . will take a tctal of about 30 minutes Of class time. If you have my diestions, call me collect at 517/ 351-4123. The higher the perce tage of parents who allow their children to take part, the more meaningful the results will be. Please sign below and retu rn this letter to your child's teacher if you want your child to oe a part Of the study. Yours truly, I GIVE PERMISSION FOR MY CHILD (name) TO TAKE PART 0‘: IN TEE 3:301 DESCRIBED ABOVE. Curt Legg (signed) Please respond as soon as possible. 138 APPENDIX B BLEDSOE SELF-CONCEPT SCALE (Photographically Reduced) 139 APPENDIX B BLEDSOE SELF-CONCEPT SCALE SELF-CONCEPT SCALE There is a need for each of us to know more about what we are like. This is to help you describe yourself and to describe how you would like to be. There are no right or wrong answers; each person may have —— different ideas. Answer these according to your feelings. It is important for you to give your own honest answers. Think carefully and check the answer that tells if you are like the word says Nearly Always. About % the Time, or Just Now and Then. In the second column check the answer if you would like to be like the word says Nearly Always, About % the Time, or Just Now and Then. THIS IS THE WAY I AM THIS IS THE WAY I'D LIKE TO BE Nearly, About % Just Now Nearly About % Just Now Always the T1me and Then Always the Time and Then Friendly Cold Brave Small Helpful Honest Cheerful Active Jealous Quiet Strong A good sport Mean Lazy Poor Smart Popular Useful Clean Kind Selfish Dull Healthy Timid Slow Faithful Lonely Polite Talkative Happy lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll 140 APPENDIX C THE NOWICKI-STRICKLAND PERSONAL REACTION SURVEY (Photographically Reduced) 141 APPENDIX C THE NOWICKI—STRICKLAND PERSONAL REACTION SURVEY We are trying to find out what boys and girls your age think about certain things. We want you to answer the following questions the way ygu feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Don't take too much time answering any one question, but do try to answer them all. . Do you believe that most problems will solve themselves if you just let them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes Do you believe that you can step yourself from catching a cold? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes Are some kids just born lucky? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades means a great deal to you? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 5. Are you Often blamed for things that just aren't your fault? . yes Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough he or she can pass any subject? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 7. Do you feel that most of the time it doesn't pay to try hard because things never turn out right anyway? . . . . . . . yes 8. Do you feel that if things start oUt well in the morning that it's going to be a good day no matter what you do? . . . yes 9. Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children have to say? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 10. Do you believe that wishing can make good things happen? . . . yes 11. When you get punished does it usually seem it‘s for no good reason at all? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 12. Most of the time do you find it hard to change a friend's mind or opinion? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 13. DO you think that cheering more than luck helps a team to win? ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 1#. Do you feel that it's nearly impossible to change your parent's mind about anything? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 15. Do you believe that your parents should allow you to make most of your own decisions? . . . . . . . . . . yes 16. Do you feel that when you do something wrong there's very little you can do to make it right? . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes 142 no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33- 3A. 35- Do you believe that most kids are just born good at sports? Are most of the other kids your age stronger than you are? . Do you feel that one of the best ways to handle most problems is just not to think about them? . . . . . . . . . . . Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in deciding who your friends are? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you find a four leaf clover do you believe that it might bring you good luck? . . . . . . . . . . DO you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do with what kind of grades you get? . . . . . . . . . . DO you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there's little you can do to st0p him or her? . . . . Have you ever had a good luck charm? Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how you act? . . . . . . . . . . . . Will your parents usually help you if you ask them to? . . . Have you felt that when people were mean to you it was usually for no reason at all? . . . . . . . . . . . . Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today? . Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen they just are going to happen no matter what you try to do to Stop them? 0 O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 DO you think that kids can get their own way if they just keep trying? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Most of the time do you find it useless to try to get your own way at home? . . . . . . DO you feel that when good things happen they happen because of hard work? . . . . Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy there's little you can do to change matters? Do you feel that it‘s easy to get friends to do what you want them to? . . . . . . . . . . DO you usually feel that you have little to .say about what you get to eat at home? . . 143 . yes yes yes . yes yes . yes yes . yes . yes . yes . yes . yes yes . yes . yes . yes . yes . yes . yes Page 2 no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Page 3 36. Do you feel that when someone doesn't like you there's little you can do about it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no 37. Do you usually feel that it's almost useless to try in school because most other children are just plain smarter than you? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no 38. Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes things turn out better? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no 39. Most of the time, do you feel that you have little to say about what your family decides to do? . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no 40. Do you think it's better to be smart than to be lucky? . . . . yes no 144 Atkinson, Beebe. J. Bentler, Berne, E. Bills, R. Bills, R. Bills R. Bledsoe, Bledsoe, Block, J. BIBLIOGRAPHY J. W. An Introduction to Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1954. S. Self-concept and Internal-External Control in Children and Adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Rochester, 1970. P. The Piers—Harris Children's Self—concept Scale. In 0. Burbs (Ed-). The.Sexenth_Mental_Mmasure; mentsllearbook. Gryphon Press, 1972. Games People Play. New York: Grove Press, 1964. B. About People and Teaching. Bulletin of Bureau of School Service. Lexington, Kentuckty: University Of Lexington, 1955. EL .ASystem for Assessing Affectivity. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University Of Alabama Press, 1975. E., Vance, E. L. and McLean, O. S. An index of adjustment and values. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15, 257-261. J. C. Self-concepts of children and their intel- ligence, achievement, interests, and anxiety. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1964, 29, 55-58. J. C. Sex differences in self-concept: Fact or artifact? Psyohological Reports, 1973, 22, 1253- 1254. and Thomas, H. Is satisfaction with self a measure Of adjustment? Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 2541259. Bobson, S. Self-Concept: An Annotated Bibliography of Bower, E. Selected ERIC References. New York: ERIC Information Retrieval Center on the Disadvantaged, 1973: M. Primary prevention in a school setting. In G. Caplan (Ed.), Prevention of Mental Dism orders in Children. New York: Basic Books, 1961. 145 146 Bradley, R. Sex, Race, Socioeconomic Status, Locus of Control and Classroom Behavior Amonngunior High School Students. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, University Of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1974. Bradley, R. and Teeter, T. A. Perceptions Of control over social outcomes and student behavior. Psychology In the Schools, 1977, 14, 230—235. Bradley, R. and Webb, R. Age related differences in locus of control orientation in three behavior domains. Human DevelOpment, 1976, 12, 49—55. Brookover, W. and Erickson, E. L. Sociology of Education. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1975. Brookover, W., LaPere J. W., Hamachek, D. E. and Erickson, E. Self-concept Of ability and school achieve- ment, II. Final Rgport Of U.S. Office of Educa- tional Cooperative Research Project #1636. East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau Of Educational Research Services, Michigan State University, 1965. Burlin, E. An Investigation of the Relationship of Ideal and Real Occupational Aspiration to Locus of Control and to other Social and Psychological Variables in Adolescent Females. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1974. Calhoun, G. and Morse, W. Self-concept and self—esteem: Another perspective. Psychology in the Schools, 1977. IA. 318-322. Canfield, J. and Wells, H. 100 Ways to Enhance Self- concept in the Classroom: A Handbook for Teachers and Parents. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1976. Chan, K. S. Locus of Control and Achievement Motivation—— Extended Version. Unpublished manuscript, 1977. (Available from K. S. Chan, Department of Educa- tion, University of California, Los Angles, Ca.) Chan, K. S. Locus of control and achievement motivation: Critical factors in educational psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 1978, 15, 104-110. Chandler, T. A note on the relationship Of internality- externality, self—acceptance, and self—ideal 6 d'scr an 'es. The Journal Of Ps cholo , 1 , 24, 1E%-13t. y gy 97 11:7 Churchill, P. M. Creativity and Locus Of Control in Junior High School Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1976. Clark, R. A. The I-E scale: Control of what? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 154T ‘Clousen, R. A. and Hjelle, L. A. Relationship between locus Of control and dogmatism. ngchological Reports, 1970, 26, 1006. Cohen, R. S. and Lefkowitz, J. Self-esteem, locus of control, and task difficulty as determinants of task performance. Journal of Vocational BehaVior, 1977, lit 314-320. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D. and York, R. L. Eguality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1966. Combs, A. W., Richards, A. C. and Richards, F. Perceptual Psychology: A Humanistic Approach to the Study of Persons. New York: Harper and Row, 1976: Combs, A. W. and Snygg, D. Individual Behavior: A Percep- tual Approach to Behavior. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Combs, A. W. and SOper, D. W. The relationship of child perception to achievement and behavior in the early school years. U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project #814. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education and Wel- fare, 1963. Cooley, C. H. Personal competition. Economic Study, 1899, E! 73-173' Cooley, C. H. Human Nature of the Social Order. New York: Charles Schribner's Sons, 1902. COOpersmith, S. C. How to enhance pupil self-esteem. Today's Education, 1965, 58, 28-29. Coopersmith, S. C. The Antecedents Of‘Self—esteem. San Francisco, California: Freeman, 1967. Cowen, E. L., Izzo, L. D., Miles, H. Telschow, E. F., Trost, M. A. and Zax, M. A preventive mental health program in the school setting: Descrip- tion and evaluation. Journal of Psychology, 1963, 2Q, 307-356' 148 Crandall, R. Measurement Of Selflesteem and Related Constructs. In J. P. Robinson and P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1973. Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W. and Crandall, V. J. Children's beliefs in their control of rein- forcements in intellectual academic behaviors. Child Development, 1965, 55, 91—109. Daniles, R. and Stevens, J. The interaction between the internal-external locus of control and two methods Of college instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 1976, i5, 103—113. DeAnda, N. The Relationship Of Children's Self-concepts to their Locus of Control, Academic Achievement and Social Status in the Classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of California, 1976. DeCharms, R. Personal causation training in the schools. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 95—113. Diamond, M. J. and Shapiro, J. L. Changes in locus of control as a function of encounter group experiences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 19739 @29 514-518. Dickstein, E. Self and self-esteem: Theoretical founda- tions and their implications for research. Human Development, 1977, go, 129-14o. Dickstein, E. Theory and measurement of self-esteem. Journal Of Multivariate Experimental Clinical Psxchology. 1973. A. 23-30. Diggory, J. C. Self-evaluation: Concepts and Studies. New York: hfiley and Sons, 1966. Donovan, D. M., Smyth, L., Paige, A. and O'Leary, M. Relationships among locus of control, self- concept, and anxiety. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 51, 682—684. 149 Duke, M. P. and Nowicki, S. Locus of control and achieve— ment: The confirmation of a theoretical expecta— tion. Journal of Psychology, 1974, 82, 263—267. Dusek, J. Adolescent Development and Behavior. Chicago, Illinois: Science Research Assoc1ates, 1977. Dyson, E. .Study of ability grouping and the self—concept. Journal of Educational Research, 1967, fig, 403—440. Eitzen, D. 8. Impact of behavior modification techniques on locus of control of delinquent boys. Psycho— logical Reports, 1974, 2Q, 1317—1318. Epstein, S. The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a gheory. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, +04— fil . —. Farley, F. H. and Sewell, T. Attribution and achievement motivation differences between delinquent and nondelinquent Black adolescents. Adolescence, 1975..£9. 391-397- Feather, N. T. Some personality correlates of external control. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1967, 32, 253—260. Felker, D. W. Building Positive Selfeconcepts. Minneap— olis, Minnesota: Burgess, 197R. Felker, D. W. and Bahlke, S. Learning Deficit in the Ability to Self~reinforce as Related to Negative Self—concegfi, Washington, D.C.: American Educa— tional Research Association, 1970. Felker, D. W. and Thomas, S. B. Self—initiated verbal reinforcement and positive selfmconcept. Child Development, 1971, 32, 1285—1287. Finch, A. J., Pezzuti, K. A. and Nelson, W. M. Locus of: control and academic achievement in emotionally disturbed children. School Psychology Digest, 1976, 2, 24—25. Fish, B. and Karabenick, S. Relationship between self- esteem and locus of control. Psychological Repgrts, 1971, 22, 784. 150 Fontana—Durso, B. The Effects of Behavior Modification on Locus of Control, Self—Concept, Readinngchieve- ment, Math Achievement and Behavior in Second Grade Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1975. Foulds, M. L. Changes in locus of internal—external control. Comparative Group Studies, 1971, 2, 293—300. Friend, R. and Wood, L. Adults' attribution of responsi- bility for success and failure of children from different social backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 1973, $9, 339—344. Gardner, D. C. and Gardner, P. L. Locus of control as re- lated to learnin effectiveness. Reading Improve- ment, 1974, ll, 1-42. Gardner, D. C., Warren, S. A. and Gardner, P. L. Locus of control and law knowledge: A comparison of nor- mal, retarded and learning disabled students. Adolescence, 1977, lg, 103-109. Gavalas, N. Group Systematic Desensitization with Test— anxious Ninth—grade Students of Differing Locus of Control Orientations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1977. Gilmor, T. Locus of control as a mediator of adaptive behavior in children and adolescents. Canadian Psychological Review, 1978, $2, 1-26. Gordon, D. A. Children's beliefs in internal-external control and self—exteem as related to academic achievement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1977. 31. 383-386. Gorsuch, R. L., Henighan, R. P. and Barnard, C. Locus of control: An example of dangers in using children's scales with children. Child DevelOpment, 1972, £2, 579-590- Gough, H. G., Lazzari, R. and Fioravanti, M. Self versus ideal self: .A comparison of five adjective check list indices. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 1978,E§, 1085-1091. Gozali, H., Cleary, T. A., Walster, G. W. and Gozali, J. Relationship between the internal-external control construct and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973,1§3, 9—IEI 151 Green, R. L. Northern school desegregation: Educational, legal and political issues. In C. W. Gordon (Ed.), Uses of the Sociology of Education, 73rd National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, Part II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.+ Green, J. F. and Zirkel, P. A. Academic factors related to the self-concept of Puerto Rican pupils. (ERIC ED 054284). Paper presented at the annual con- vention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1971. Gregory, W. L. Locus of control for positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, Qé. 840—849. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw~Hill, 1965. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. C. and Beattie, M. Internal- external Control in the motivational dynamics of Negro growth. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 22: 29‘53' Guttentag, M. and Klein, I. The relationship between inner versus outer locus of control and achievement in Black middle school children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1976, 2E, 1101-1109. Hall, C. and Lindzey, G. Theories of Personality. New York: John Wiley, 1970. Hall, C. and Norby, V. J. A Primer of Jungian Psycho- logy. New York: Mentor. 1973. Hamachek, D. E. Effects of school failure experiences on self—image development. Thresholds in Secondary Education, Spring, 1977. Hamachek, D. E. Encounters with the Self (2nd edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Handel, A. Attitudinal orientations and cognitive func- tioning among adolescents. Develgpmental Psycho- logl: 1975: Al, 667-6750 Hansen, J. and Maynard, P. Youth: Self—concept and Behay: ior. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1973. Havinghorst, R. J. The development of the ideal self in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Educational Research. 1946, 49, 241-257. 152 Heaton, R. and Duerfeldt, P. The relationship between self- esteem, self-reinforcement and the internal-ex- ternal personality dimension. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1973. 122. 3-13. Henderson, E. H., Long, B. H. and Ziller, R. C. Self— social constructs of achieving and nonachieving readers. Reading Teacher, 1965, i9, 114-118. Herbert, D. J. Reading comprehension as a function of self-concept. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, .21. 78- Herr, A. Teacher Expectations and Locus of Control. Un— published doctoral dissertation, Fordham Univer- sity. 1977. Hersch, P. D. and Scheibe, K. E. On the reliability and validity of internal-external control as a person- ality dimension. Journal of Consulting and Clini» cal Psychology, 1967, 3i, 609-614. Hilgard, E. R. Human motives and the concept of self. American Psychologist, 1949, 4, 313-326. Hohmuth, A. V. and Ramos, R. A. Locus of control, achieve- ment and failure among disadvantaged college stzdents. Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 573- 57 - Hohmuth, A. V. and Howe, K. G. Locus of control, achieve— ment and failure among disadvantaged college students: A follow-up. Psychological Rgports, 1977. 29. 486. Holen, M. C. and Newhouse, R. C. Large versus small group administration of selected attitude, selfeconcept and locus of control scales. Measurement and Eval- uation in Guidance, 1976, 8, 255—257. Hurlock, E. B. Developmental Psychology (4th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. James, W. Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt, 1890. James, W. The Principles of Psychology, Vol. I. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1950. James, W. Internal Versus External Control of ReinfOrce— ments as a Basic Variable in Learning Theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957. 153 Jersild, A. T. In Search of Self. New York: Columbia University, 1952. Joe, V. C. A review of the internal-external control con- struct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 619-640. Johnson, B. and Kilmann, P. R. Prediction of locus of con- trol orientation from the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 3;, 547-548. Johnson, 0. G. Tests and Measurements in Child Develgp- ment: Handbook II. San Francisco, California: Jossey—Bass, 1976. Jones, J. G. and Grieneeke, L. Measures of self—perception as predictors of scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 1970, 63, 201-201. Jorgensen, C. Internal—external control in the academic achievement of Black youth: A re-appraisal. Integrated Education, 1976, 34, 20-23. Judd, L. R. and Smith, C. B. Discrepancy score validity in self— and ideal self-concept measurement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974, 2;, 156-158. Judd, L. R. The relationship of age, educational classifica- tion, sex, and grade to self—concept and ideal self-concept in a basic speech course. Communi- cation Education, 1977, 26, 289—297. Jung, C. G. Symbols in Transformation. In Collected WOrks, Vol. v. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956, (First German edition, 1952). Katrovsky, W., Crandall, V. C. and Good, S. Parental ante— cedents of children's beliefs in internal—external control of reinforcements in intellectual achieve— ment situations. Child Development, 1967, 38, 765'776- Katz, I. The socialization of academic motivation in minor- ity children. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebragka Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Katz, 1., Cole, 0. J. and Baron, R. M. Self evaluation, social reinforcement, and academic achievement of lack and White school children. Child Develop— ment, 1976, 47, 368—374. 154 Kay, R. S. Self-concept and Level of Aspiration in Third and Fourth Grade Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue UniVersity, 1972. Kerlinger, F. N. and Pedhazur, B. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, 1973. Kifer, E. Relationships between academic achievement and personality characteristics: A quasi—longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal, 1975, lg, 191-210. Killmann, P. R. and Sotile, W. M. The effects of structured and unstructured leader roles on internal and external group participants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1976, 32, 848. Kipfer, J. F. A research evaluation of an action approach to school mental health: Introduction to the ac- tion research project. American Journal of Ortho- psychiatry, 1961, 32, 320—323. Klaff, F. R. and Docherty, E. M. Children's self-concept and attitude toward school in Open and traditional classrooms. Journal of School Psvchology, 1975, 229 97-103 ' Koval, C. B. and Hales, L. W. The effects of the DUSO guidance program on the self—concepts of primary schgol children. Child Study Journal, 1972, 2, 57- 1. Kurash, F. The Relation Between Children‘s Participation in a Token Economy Classroom and Their Locus of Control and Test Anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1975. Lambert, M. J., Dejulio, S. S. and Cole, A. M. Internality vs. externality and personal adjustment: A factor analytic study. Psychological Reports, 1976, 39, 920-922. _- ILEumy, M. W. Relationship of self-perceptions of early primary children to achievement in reading. In I. Gordon (Ed.), Human Development: Readings in Research. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foreman and Company, 1965. Ides, W. S. The measurement of self—esteem for program evaluation. Journal of School Psychology, 1972, 10, 1. 155 Lefcourt, H. M. Internal versus external control of reinforcements: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 63, 206—220. Lefcourt, H. M. Recent develOpment in the study of locus of control. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. VII. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Lefcourt, H. M., Hoég. E. and Sordoni, C. Locus of control, field dependence and the conditions arousing objective vs. subjective self awareness. Journal of Research in Personality, 1975’ 2: 21-36' Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976. Lefcourt, H. M. Personality and Locus of Control in Human Helplessness: Theories and Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1978a. Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of control for specific goals. In L. C. Perlmuter and R. A. Monty (Eds.), . In Choice and Perceived Control. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978b. Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of Control. In E. Staub (Ed.), In Personality, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1980. Lepire, A. J. The Effects of Mainstreaming versus Special Class on the Locus of Control of Educationaliy Handicapped Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Francisco State University, 1976. Light, H. K. Highly Competent Girls and Delinquent Girls: A Comparative Study of Value—needs and Self; concept Profiles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Lipsitt, L. P. A self—concept scale for children and its relationship to the children's form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale. Child Development, 1958, 29, 463—472. Lombardo, J. P. The relationship of internality- externality, self—acce tance, and self—ideal discrepanCies. Journa of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 126, 281—288. 156 Lombardo, J. and Berzonsky, M. Locus of reinforcement control, self—image disparity and self- acceptance: A replication. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 222, 147—148. Lombardo, J., Fantasia, S. and Solheim G. The relationship of internality—externality, self- acceptance, and self-ideal discrepancies. Journal of Genetic PsychologY. 1975,.226, 281-288. Lowman, B. C. The Identification and Modification of Classroom Behavior Associated with Internal and External Loci of Control among Fourth Grade Students. Unpublished dOCtoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1975. MacDonald, A. P. Internal—external locus of control. In J. P. Robinson and P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of Social and Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1973- Marx, R. W. and Winne, P, H. Self-concept and achievement: Implications for educational programs. Integrated Education, 1975, 13, 30-31. Mead, G. H. In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of the Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Messer, S. B. The relation of internal-external control to academic performance. Child Develqpment, 1972, 43, 1456-1462 Milgram, N. Locus of control shift in administrators. Percsptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 980-982. Milgram, R. and Milgram, N. Personality characteristics of gifted Israeli children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1976, 129, 185-194i Mill, J. Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind (1829). Reprinted, London: Tongmans, Green, Roeder and Dyer, 1869. Mill, J. An Examination of Sir William Hamilton‘s Philos0phy. London: Longmans and Green, 1865. 157 Michael, W., Smith, R. and Michael, J. The factorial validity of the Piers—Harris children's self- concept scale for each of three samples of elementary, junior high and senior high school students in a large metrOpolitan school district. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 33, 405-414. Aontemayor, R. and Eisen, M. The development of self- conceptions from childhood to adolescence. Devel- opmental Psychology, 1977, 387, 547—563. Moran, M., Michael, W. and Dembo, M. The factorial valid— ity of three frequently employed self-report measures of self-concept. Educational and Psycho- logical Measurement, 1978, 36, 547-563. Moyal, B. R. Locus of control, self—esteem, stimulus appraisal, and depressive symptoms in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977. 42. 951-952. McCallon, E. L. Self-ideal discrepancy and the correlates of sex and academic achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 1967, 33, 45-49. McCandless, B. R. Children: Behavior and Development (2nd edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. McCarthy, W. C. The Modification of Locus of Control and Self Concept as a Result of a Human Awareness Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1974. McGeoch, N. C. An Investigation of the Effect of Verbal Prompting on Preschoolers9 Locus of Control in a Home Based Program. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Southern Illinois University, 1977. McGhee, P. E. and Crandall, V. C. Beliefs in internal— external control of reinforcement and academic performance. Child DevelOpment, 1968, 32, 91-102. McIntire, W. and Drummond, R. The structure of self- concept in second and fourth grade children. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 1976, fig! 529"536' 158 McMahan, I. D. Relationships between causal attributions and expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 108:114. McMillan, J. H. Effect of instructional procedure and pupil locus of control on achievement and attitudes. Psychology in the Schools, 1980, 22, 123-127. ' Newhouse, R. C. Reinforcement—reSponsibility differences in birth order, grade level and sex of children in grades 4, 5 and 6. Psychological Reports, 1974’ 2g, 699-705° Norem-Hebeisen, A. A. A multidimensional construct of self-esteem. Journal of Educational Psychology, 19769 é§v 559‘565' Nowicki, S. and Duke, M. A preschool and primary internal-external control scale. DevelOpmental Psychology, 1974, 16, 874-880. Nowicki, S. and Roundtree, J. Correlates of locus of control in a secondary school po ulation. DevelOpmental Psychology. 1971, _, 477-478. Nowicki, S. and Strickland, B. R. A Locus of Control Scale for Children. Unpublished manuscript, Emory University, 1970. Nowicki, S. A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, T973, 46, 148-154. Nowicki, S. and Walker, C. Achievement in relation to locus of control: Identification of a new source of variance. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1973. 12;. 63-67. Nowicki, S. The role of generalized and specific expectancies in determining academic achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 34, 275-280. Ojemann, R. H., Levitt, E. E., Lyle, W. H. and Whiteside, M. F. The effects of a causal teacher-training program and certain curricular changes on grade school children. Journal of Experimental Education, 1955, 24, 95-114. Ollendick, D. and Ollendick, T. H. The interrelationship of measures of locus of control, intelligence, and achievement in juvenile delinquents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1976, 36, 1111-1113. 159 Osgood, C., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P. The Measurement of Meani_g. Urbana, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press, 1957. Parish, T. and Taylor, J. The personal attribute inventory for children: A report on its validity and reliability as a self-concept scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1:978 9 la 9 565-569 ' Penk, W. E. Age changes and correlates of internal- external locus of control scale. Psychological Reports, 1969, 23, 856. Petersen, A. The measurement of self among adolescents: An overview. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1977, 4, 201-203. Pettigrew, T. F. Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Phares, E. J. Chapges in Expectancy in Skill and Chance Situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1955. Phares, E. J. Locus of Control in Personality. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1976. Piers, E. Manual for the Piers-Harris Children's Self- concept Scale. Nashville, Tennessee: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969. Piers, E. Children's self-esteem, level of esteem certainty, and responsibility for success and failure. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1977. 129. 295-304. Piers, E. and Harris, D. B. Age and other correlates of self-concept in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 33, 91-95. Piers, E. The Piers-Harris Self-concept Scale. Nashville, Tennessee: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969. Platt, J., Eisenmen, R. and Darbes, A. Self-esteem and internal-external control: A validation study. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 162. 160 Popper, D. K. The Relationship of Self-concept to Congruence among Self, Ideal Self. and Occupation- al Self in Sixth Grade Puerto Rican Girls in an Inner-city Poverty Area. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1975. Prawat, R. S., Jones, H. and Hampton, J. Longitudinal study of attitude develOpment in pre-, early, and later adolescent samples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 22, 363-369. Purkey, W. Self-concept and School Achievement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1970. Purkey, W. and Graves, W. Self—perceptions of students enrolled in an experimental school. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, March 2—6, 1970. Rainy, V. C. The Self-concept as a Factor in Counseling and Personal Organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ohio, 1943. Reid, D. and Wane, E. E. Multidimensionality of internal versus external control: Addition of a third dimension and non-distinction of self versus others. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1974, 6, 131-142. Reimanis, G. Effects of locus of reinforcement control modification procedures in early graders and college students. Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 66, 124-127. Riesman, J. M. The Development of Clinical Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Reynolds, C. H. Correlational findings, educational implications and criticisms of locus of control research: A review. Journal of Black Studies, 1976, p, 221—257. Robinson, J.P. and Shaver, P. R. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (revised edition). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1973. Rogers, C. R. Some observations on the organization of the personality. American Psychologist, 1947’ __2_! 358-368° 161 Rogers, C. R. Client-centered Therapy. Boston, Mass- achusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as develOped in the client-centered framework. In Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. III. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959, 184-256. Rogers, C. R. and Dymondq R. F. Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1954. Rosen, C. The impact of an Open campus program upon high school students' sense of control over their environment. Psychology in the Schools, 1977, 13’ 216—219. ‘ Rotter, J. B. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1954. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monogrsphs, 1966, 66, (1, whole No. 609). Rotter, J. B. External control and internal control. 'V/ Psychology Today, 1971, 3, 37-42; 58-59. Rotter, J. B. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of‘internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 46, 56—67. Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. and Phares, E. J. (Eds.) 1 Applications of a Social Learning Theory of ! Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and i Winston, 1972. 1 Roueche, J. E., Mink, O. G. and Abbott, M. L. Effects of individual instruction on control expectancy: a field test. Bethesda, Md: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,ED 114 138, 1971. Ryckman, R. M. and Sherman, M. F. Relationship between self-esteem and internal-external control for men and women. Psychological Reports, 1973, 2g, 1106. St. John, N. The elementary classroom as a frog pond: Self concept, sense of control and social context. Social Forces, 1971, 49, 581—595. 162 Scanlon, D. A. A Comparison of the Development of Internal Locus of Control and Related School Adjustment Between Language Disabled and Average Students; Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1977. Scheirer, M. A. and Kraut, R. E. Increasing Educational Achievement Via Self Concept Change. Review of Educational Research, 1979, 49, 131-150. Schulman, J. L., Ford, R. C. and Busk, P. A classroom program to improve self-concept. Psychology in the Schools, 1973, 16, 481-486. Searcy, J. D. Modification of Locus of Control and Related Variables Among First Grade Children in a Public School System. Unpublished doctoral dessertatiEn, North Carolina State University, 1975. Sears, R. R. Relations of early socialization experience to self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood. Child Development, 1970, 41, 267-289. Shavelson, R., Burestine, L. and Keesling, J. Methodological Considerations in interpreting research on self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1977. 3. 295-307. Shavelson, R., Hubner, J. J. and Stanton, G. C. Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 407-441. Sheikh, A. A. and Beglis, J. F. DevelOpment of the self-concept in Negro and White children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child DevelOpment, Philadelphia, 1973. Silber, E. and Tippett, J. S. Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 1965, 26, 1017-1071. Singer, R. N. Psychosocial factors in activity selection, activity perseverance and performance achievement. Bethesda, Md. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 124 495, 1976. Smith, M. D. and Rogers, C. M. Item instability on the Piers—Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale for academic underachievers with high, middle, and low self-concepts: Implications for construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, ! l 1977.,22. 553-558- ‘ 1 | 163 Smith, R. E. Changes in locus of control as a function of life crisis resolution. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, Z3, 328-332. Shell, B. The Discovery of the Mind. New York: Harper, 1960. Snygg, D. and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior. A New Frame of Reference for Psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1949. Stanwyck, D. J. and Felker,.D. W. Intellectual achievement responsibility and anxiety as fUnctions of self-concept of third to sixth grade boys and girls. (ERIC, ED 080903). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1971. Stenner, A. J. and Katzenmeyer, W. G. Self-concept development in young children. Phi Delta Kappan, 1976! 2&9 356-357- Stipek, D. A causal analysis of the relationship between locus of control and academic achievement in first grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1980, 3, 90-99. Strickland, B. R. Locus of control and competence in children. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association. Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1972. Stollak, G. Until We are Six. Huntington, New York: Krieger Publishing Company, 1978. Thayer, S., Gorman, A. E., Wessman, G. S. and Mannucci, E. G. The relationship between locus of control and temporal experience. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, i26, 275-280. Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.) Educational Measurement, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. ThrOOp, W. F. and MacDonald, A. P. Internal-external locus of control: A bibliography. Psychological Reports, 1971, 26, 175-190. Todoroski, N. R. Self-acceptance and Acceptance by Peers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. 164 Tolor, A., Tolor, B. and Blumin, S. Self-concept and locus of control in primany grade children identified as requiring Special education programming. Psychological Reports, 1977, 0, 43-49. Trowbridge, N. T. and Trowbridge, L. Self-concept and socio-economic status. Child Study Journal, 1972, 2, 123—143. Wall, J. B. Relationship of locus of control to self actualization. Psychological Reports, 1970, 22, 282. Watson, J. S. Smiling, cooing and "the game". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 1972, i6, 323-339. Wattenberg, W. and Cliffbrd, C. Relation of self- concept to beginning achievement in reading. Child Development, 1964, 33, 461. Weizmann, F., and Protter, B. Generalizability of locus of control: A rep grid investigation of personality consistency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44,—663. Wells, L. E. and Marwell, G. Self-Esteem: Its Conceptualization and Measurement. Beverly Hills, California: Sag Publications, 1976. White, R. The First Three Years of Life. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Williams, J. H. The relationship of self-concept and reading achievement in first grade children. Journal of Educational Research, 1973, 66, 378—380. Wolk, S. and Ducette, J. The moderating effect of locus of control in relation to achievement-motivation variables. Journal of Personality, 1973, 4i, 59-70- Wolk, S. Intentional performance and incidental learning as a function of personality and task directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 22, 90-101. Wood, G. Fundamentals of Psychological Research. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and Company, 1974. Wright, P. H. Perspective on the psychology of self. Psychological Reports, 1977, 46, 423-436. 165 Wylie, R. C. The Self—Concept, Vol. I: A Review of Methodological Considerations and Measuring Instruments. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Wylie, R. C. The Self-Concept, Vol. II: Theory and Research on Selected Topics. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. Ziller, R. C., Hagey, J., Smith, M. D. and Long, B. Self-esteem: A self-social construct. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 19 9, 33, 84-95. ”I1MIMMMES