SELF~A€C~EPTANGE AND ' ' ’
accmncs 3v PEERS , -

‘ Thesis for theDegreé omei- '

MICHEGAN sTATwNwERSITY  
MUM Russ 7000mm
1971 ’

.fitt,"

I)ate

   
    

ILIr a;'
Michigan :2 Late
University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTANCE BY PEERS

presented by

Naum Ruse Todoroski

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Pb. D. degree in PBXChOIOg!

 

Robert A. Zucke , Ph.D.

May 7, 1971

 

0-7639

. .'
A' 3“
'

5
{x
‘A

ABSTRACT
SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTANCE BY PEERS
By

Naum Ruse Todoroski

The present study was designed to investigate the relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers. The basic hypothesis was
that there is a positive reciprocal relationship between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers. It was also hypothesized that the relationship
between self—acceptance and acceptance by peer-intimates will be stronger
than the relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peer-
nonintimates.

A questionnaire, composed of a self-acceptance measure and socio-
metric measures of acceptance by peers was administered twice over an
eight weekuperiod to 177 college girls in residence in four sororities.

The cross-lagged panel correlation technique was applied to test the
basic hypothesis and the related ones. The correlations obtained were in
the expected direction, but were not statistically significant. Therefore,
the hypothesized relationship was not confirmed; it was concluded that
there is no significant positive relationship between self—acceptance and
acceptance by peers among college sorority girls. The interaction of
the following three factors was assumed to play a role for the obtained
correlations:

(1) Self—acceptance is a fairly stabilized characteristic by

age twenty; thus acceptance by peers is not as influential

a modifier of self-acceptance as it would be earlier in life.

(2) Sororities serve a peer-intimate group function for all
their members. Since everyone is highly accepted by peers

Todoroski

and is aware of it, the girls are perhaps motivated to
look for other Opportunities to prove their self—worth
(i.e., they might be oriented toward Opportunities where
both possibilities of being accepted or rejected exist).
(3) A truncated range of scores on the acceptance by peers
variable (i.e., the absence of negative ratings of indif-
ference and rejection) attenuated the relationship.
Statistically significant sociometric differences were found between
peer-intimates and peer—nonintimates. Thus a sorority girl actually
accepts, expects to be accepted, and actually is accepted more highly by
her peer-intimates than by her peer-nonintimates. It was also found that
discrepancies among sociometric acceptance ratings were significantly
lower for peer-intimates than for peer-nonintimates. Thus a sorority girl
predicts more accurately ratings given to her by her peer-intimates than
by her peer-nonintimates. Further it was found that one's sets of peer-
intimates and peer—nonintimates change over time in regard to the number
of persons in the set and in regard to who those are who constitute the
set. The speculation was that those who remain over time in the set
(core intimates) are satisfying deeper personality needs, and those who
are in the set only for a limited period (functional intimates) are there
more specifically because of the reinforcements offered by the situation,
activity, or task. These findings are supportive of a peer-intimate
approach in the study of the relationship between personality and social
interaction,since it is reasonable to expect that peer—intimates and
peer-nonintimates may have different impact on personality.
The following findings not directly related to the original hypotheses
were reported:
(1) The awareness of acceptance by peers was significantly

positively related to self—acceptance, actual acceptance
of, expected acceptance by, and actual acceptance by peers.

Todoroski

(2) Significant positive correlations were obtained between
expected acceptance of peers, and self-acceptance with
actual acceptance of peers; and between importance of
the group as seen by the individual and expected accep-
tance by, and actual acceptance of peers. This finding
is supportive of personality consistency.

(3) Actual acceptance of, and expected acceptance by peers
are significantly positively related to actual acceptance
by peers.

SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTANCE BY PEERS

By

Naum Ruse Todoroski

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1971

To my parents, my wife Vasilka and son Sasho

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude:

To Dr. Robert A. Zucker, Chairman of my Dissertation Committee, for
encouraging me to persist with my work, for many valuable suggestions
that have been incorporated in this dissertation, and for guidance in my
deve10pment as a clinical psychologist.

To Dr. Eugene Jacobson, who was kind enough to spend many hours in
discussion with me, and thus stimulated my thinking.

To Dr. John Hunter, who generously deve10ped a program for computerized
calculation of sociometric scores for this study, and advised me in using
the computer for the statistical analysis of data.

To Drs. Lucy Ferguson, Albegtfifiabin, Lawrence Messé, and Donald Grumman

 

for serving on my Doctoral Committees and giving me support during my
graduate work at M.S.U.

To my wife Vasilka for the many hours she spent in processing the data.

To Mrs. Patricia Lodato, secretary of the Graduate Research Office,
who typed with patience this dissertation as well as the dissertation
proposal and other papers, and thus helped in relieving my anxiety related
to many of the existing deadlines.

To Emanuel Berman, Mark Gershowitz and Leon Schofield, doctoral
students in Clinical Psychology, for their help in administering the
questionnaire.

To Miss Mabel Petersen for her help in securing the participation of
the subjects, and to the subjects themselves for their cooperation in the
study.

To James Wieber, doctoral student in English, for reading the manu-
script and suggesting corrections of my English.

iii

As this marks the end of my formal education, I would also like
to express my thanks:

To many of my teachers in the Elementary School in Lazaropole, the
Teacher's School in Skopje, the University of Belgrade, Bucknell Univer-
sity in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and Michigan State University for
various things they have taught me, and for being examples of what I am
becoming.

To Dr. Risto Georgeski, Professor of Psychology at the University
in Skopje, for the encouragement and full support he has given me in
my professional deve10pment.

To my friend Ljuba Stojié for inspiring me to pursue a career in
psychology.

To the Yugoslav-American Commission for Educational Exchange in
Belgrade for awarding me a scholarship for study in the U.S.A. in 1969-
1970, to Michigan State University and the Lansing School District for
awarding me a Doctoral Fellowship on the Trainers of Teacher Trainers
Project during the 1970/71 academic year, and to Galesburg State
Research Hospital, Galesburg, Illinois, for accepting me for an intern-
ship in clinical psychology during 1971/72.

To the PhilosOphy faculty at the University "Kiril i Metodij" in
SkOpje for granting me three years' leave of absence to allow me to

finish my doctoral studies at Michigan State University.

May 7, 1971
East Lansing, Michigan Naum R. Todoroski

iv

CHAPTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IntrOducti-on O O I O l O O O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O 0

A.

B.

Theoretical Overview, Problem and Hypotheses . . . . .

1.

2.

3.

Theoretical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Personality dimensions and social interaction.
b. Self-concept and self-acceptance as
personality dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Measurement problems of self-acceptance. . . .

d. Relathnship of self-acceptance to other
personality and social interaction variables .

e. Acceptance by the group. . . . . . . . . . .
PrOblem. O O I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Hpotheses O O O C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O 0

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O O I O O

1.

O‘U'lJ-‘UN

Design of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coding, derivation and computation of scores . . .
Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0

1.

Testing the hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Basic Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Hypothesis #1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c. Hypothesis #2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. Hypothesis #3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e. Interactional relationship . . . . . . . . . .
f. Awareness of accoptance and importance of

the group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Additional findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a. Sociometric scores for peer-intimates and
peer-nonintimates. . . . . . . . . . . .

b. Correlations among the various dependent
measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

.11
.13
.17

.19
.24

.26
.26
.27
.32
.32
.34
.37

.38
.38
.38
.39
.40
.41
.43

.44
.45
.45

.49

CHAPTER

D.

DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O I O I O O O O O I C O O O O O O
1. Self-acceptance and acceptance by peers. . . . . .

2. Peer-intimates and nonintimates. . . . . . . . . .
3. Correlations among the various dependent measures.
SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix 1 Introductory letter to subjects . . .

Appendix 2 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 3 The front page of questionnaire on

second testing. . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

PAGE

.51
.51

.55
.57
.61
.64
.68
.68
.69

.85

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Characteristics of the subjects in the four studied
sororities O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 29

2. Correlations between self-acceptance (SA), and actual
acceptance by peers (AABP), All members in residence
E - 177. O O C O O O C O O O O O I O O O O O C O O I O O O .38

3. Correlations between self-acceptance (SA), and actual
acceptance by peers (AABP), 919 members in residence,
N . 89 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I .0 O O O O O O O O .40

4. Correlations between self-acceptance (SA), and actual
acceptance by peers (AABP), New members in residence,
N - 88 I O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O I O O O C O O O O O .41

5. Correlations between self-acceptance (SA), and actual
acceptance by peers (AABP), Peer-intimates and Peer-
nonintimates O C O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 42

 

6. Correlations between self-acceptance (SA) and actual
acceptance by peers (AABP) with awareness of acceptance

(AW) and importance of the group (IMP) partialed out,
gW’E.1770 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . 044

7. Sociometric scores for peer-intimates and peer
non-intimates ’ E ‘ 152 O O I O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O I 46

8. Correlations among self-acceptance and sociometric
scores, All members, §_- 177 . . . . . . . . . . . -.- . . .49

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE
1. Design of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Sociometric scores for peer-intimates and peer-
nonintimates, first testing, §_- 152. . . . . . . . . . .

3. Sociometric scores for peer-intimates and peer-
nonintimates, second testing, §_- 152 . . . . . . . . . .

viii

INTRODUCTION

The studies about relationships between personality dimensions and
social-interaction variables stem from the tendency to explain certain
personality phenomena as a result of social interaction on the one hand,
and to explain certain social-interaction phenomena as a result of per-
sonality factors, on the other. Besides theoretical interest about the
relationship between personality dimensions and social-interaction vari-
ables, there is considerable interest about this relationship from the
practical point of view in terms of actions which can be taken, especially
in manipulation of social-interaction variables, in order to influence
some changes in personality.

The present study was designed to investigate the relationship be-
tween self—acceptance and acceptance by peers, among college sorority girls
in order to answer two basic questions:

(1) Is there any relationship between self-acceptance and

acceptance by peers? and

(2) If there is any relationship between self-acceptance and accep—

tance by peers, what is the nature of it? Is it an interactional

or one-way relationship?

A. THEORETICAL OVERVIEW, PROBLEM, AND HYPOTHESES

1. Theoretical Overview

a. Personality dimensions and social interaction

Mann (1959) in his critical and comprehensive review of the studies
of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups
pointed out that there are three conceptual approaches to this problem:
the first one being primarily focused on the relationship between the
individual's personality and his goal-directed behavior in groups; the
second being focused on the relationship between the individual's person-
ality and the way in which he is perceived and judged by his peers; and
the third one focusing on the processes by which an individual volunteers
or is selected to occupy various positions and perform various roles in
the group. In his review of studies done in this area from 1900 through
1957, Mann grouped personality dimensions in the following categories:
intelligence, adjustment, extroversion-introversion, dominance, masculinity-
femininity, conservativism, and interpersonal sensitivity; he grouped status
and behavior variables in the following categories: leadership, pOpularity,
total activity rate, task activity, social-emotional activity, and conform-
ity. After detailed examination of the relationships between personality
dimensions and status and behavior variables, Mann concluded that:

--intelligence is positively related to total activity rate, leadership,
popularity, and positive social-emotional activity; and negatively related to
task activity and negative social-emotional activity.

--adjustment is positively related to leadership, popularity, total

2

activity rate, and positive social-emotional activity; and negatively related
to the negative social-emotional activity. The relationship between adjust-
ment and conformity is altered from positive to negative when the shift is
made from self-ratings as measures of adjustment to other techniques.

--extroversion is positively related to popularity, total activity rate,
and leadership.

--dominance is positively related to the total number of initiated task
contributions, and leadership; and negatively related to conformity.

-~masculinity is positively related to leadership and popularity.

--conservativism is positively related to popularity and negatively
related to leadership.

--interpersona1 sensitivity is positively related to leadership and
popularity.

In addition Mann examined whether the relationships of intelligence,
adjustment and extroversion with leadership are altered depending on some
situational factors such as: nature of the population from which the sample
has been drawn, sex, history of the group (experimental ad hoc versus
natural ongoing groups) and the size of the group. When different measure-
ment techniques are used with groups from different populations and sizes,
the relationships are altered. The relationships are not altered as a result
of sex or previous history of the group.

In a more recent review .Marlowe andGergen (1969) have found that there
is a tendency in research to treat personality variables as independent and
social interaction variables as dependent. In respect to the impact of the
situational variables on the relationship between personality and social
interaction Marlowe and Gergen stated that "the consideration of situational

variables alone, without respect to the interaction of situation and person-

ality, is a rather fruitless quest" (Marlowe and Gergen, 1969, p. 645).
Marlowe and Gergen have criticized the "single—variable correlation approach"
in ongoing research as being not sufficient to test basic theoretical premises.
While the current experimental methodology dominant in the research on rela-
tionships between personality and social interaction suffers from inability
to cope successfully with more complex relationships between variables on the
one hand,'burrent personality theories, on the other hand, often suffer from
the lack of systematic specification of the relationships among concepts, the
absence of a broad data base to support basic premises, and from insufficient
attention being given to the development of testable propositions" (Marlowe
and Gergen, 1969, p. 642). Marlowe and Gergen have concluded that "the
relationship of personality to social interaction is indeed an intimate one
and, if our view of history of this relationship is correct, the relationship
is likely to yield progeny of central significance in years to come" (Marlowe
and Gergen, 1969, p. 645).

There are three issues revealed in the reviews of Mann, and Marlowe and
Gergen which are relevant to the problem of the present study. The first
issue is the tendency in ongoing research to assume a one-way relationship
between personality and social interaction where personality variables are
seen as independent and social-interaction variables serve as dependent.
There is room for arguing that this relationship may be mutually interdependent
rather than one-way. The reasons for the assumption of mutual interdependent
relationships between the variables of the present study will be discussed
later._

The second issue is the fact that relationships may be significantly
altered as a result of the use of different measurement techniques. This

warns us to be cautious in the interpretation of results and especially in

assigning some of the effects to one or another variable while they may be
simply results of errors of measurement. The third issue is insensitivity
of the studies in differentiating the relationships of personality and social
interaction between ad hoc experimental groups where pe0ple see each other
for a few hours, and ongoing natural groups where peOple live together for
a long time. There are some logical reasons for the assumption that the
relationships between personality and social interaction are different between
experimental ad hoc groups and natural ongoing groups. While dealing with
attitudes and reactions of others toward an individual as a result partly
of his personality characteristics, it cannot be assumed that such attitudes
and reactions may exist if others have not had enough time and opportunities
to know an individual, to form an attitude toward him and to diaplay observ-
able reactions. The problem of the previous history of the group is relevant
for the present study and has been taken into consideration in the selection
of subjects for the study.

b. Self-concept and self-acceptance asgpersonality dimensions

In the last two decades there have been many studies dealing with the
areas of self-concept and self-acceptance. The terms self-concept, self-
esteem, self-regard and self-acceptance are very often used in order to
denote the attitudes and feelings of an individual toward himself and his
readiness to accept himself. Definitions of these concepts are still on
an operational level.

Wylie (1961) has pointed out that although there have been a large
number of studies done in this area, "there is a good deal of ambiguity in
the results, considerable apparent contradiction among the findings of
various studies, and a tendency for different methods to produce diff ent

results. In short the total accumulation of substantive findings is dis-

appointing, especially in proportion to the great amount of efforts which
obviously has been expended" (Wylie, 1961, p. 317). According to Wylie, one
of the reasons for the failure of empirical studies "lies in the scientific
shortcomings of all those personality theories which emphasize constructs
concerning the self" (Wylie, 1961, p. 317). wylie has also pointed out that
the research methodology in this area has weak points, which together with
shortcomings in existing theories, contributes to the situation which may

be described as nearly chaotic.

Although the overall situation in self-concept research is far from
satisfactory, there are some results of significance. Thus Brownfain (1952)
reported a study supporting the notion of the existence of self-concept as
a dimension of personality. He found that self-concept has different
stability across subjects and that it is related to adjustment, self-esteem,
self-acceptance, defensiveness, inferiority, nervousness and popularity in
the peer group. Klausner (1953) reported a study about the relationship
between self-concept and social class. He assumed that self-concept is
developed through social-interaction, and since experiences in social-
interaction among subjects who belong to different social classes differ,
their self-concept will also differ. The results of his study were supportive
of his hypotheses.

Ausubel and Shiff (1955) supported the notion of the existence of what
they called socioempathic ability and found that one's ability to perceive
his own sociometric status and others' sociometric statuses were unrelated
to each other, but positively related to social effectiveness. Boys and girls
were different in respect to socioempathic abilities, girls being able to
predict more accurately the ratings given to them by other girls, as compared

to boys. Girls also were superior in comparison to boys in perception of

sociometric statuses of others of the opposite sex. Ausubel and Shiff
reported a normal distribution of socioempathic ability in both cases:
perception of one's own status or perception of others' statuses.

Friedman (1955) reported a study about phenomenal, ideal and projected
self-concepts in normals, neurotics, and paranoics. He found that positive
attitudes toward self among normals were based on realistic perception of
themselves, positive attitudes toward self among paranoics were based on
self-enhancing defenses and unrealistic self-appraisal, and negative attitudes
toward self among neurotics were based on realistic perception of disturbances
within themselves. Friedman recommended a combination of phenomenological
and projective approaches in studies of self-concept, because exclusive use
of either one may be misleading.

Akeret (1959) has pointed out that self-concept is composed of various
dimensions. In his study college students responded to 100 Q sort statements
which had been divided in four areas by expert judges. He found that these
four aspects--academic values, interpersonal relations, sexual adjustment and
emotional adjustment--are differently accepted and not significantly corre-
lated among themselves. However all four aspects were significantly corre-
lated with total self-concept (the sum of the four sub-areas). Akeret inter-
preted this result as an indication that an individual may accept some aspects
of himself, while rejecting some other aspects; therefore it is not appro—
priate to expect that an individual accepts or rejects himself completely.
Another possible interpretation of Akeret's results was offered by Lowe
(1961). He suggested that Akeret's results may be an indication that some
areas of self-acceptance are more central to the self-concept than other
areas since different aspects of self-acceptance were related in different

degree to the total self-acceptance.

Cline and Richards (1960) have stated that it is possible to obtain
a measure of ability to judge others accurately which is reliable and general
over a variety of judging instruments. This ability is composed of two
relatively independent components: sensitivity to generalized other and
interpersonal sensitivity.

Engel (1959) reported a study about the stability of self—concept of
adolescents. Subjects were tested twice over a period of two years. Engel
found that self-concept was relatively stable over two years and that subjects
with a negative self-concept at the first testing had a less stable self-
concept than subjects with a positive self-concept. Subjects with a negative
self-concept on both testings and those who shifted toward a negative self-
concept on the second testing showed more maladjustment on the Pd and Q
scales on MMPI.

In spite of some differences in approaches to the study of self—concept
and self-acceptance, the authors of the above mentioned studies have assumed
that self-concept and self-acceptance have real existence, and since they
exist the task is to measure, understand, and explain them. The tendency of
taking for granted the existence of the self-concept as a dimension of per-
sonality was seriously questioned by Lowe (1961) in his paper addressed to
the question "whether the self is an objective reality which is a fit field
for psychological research, or whether it is a somewhat nebulous abstraction
useful only to give a theoretical basis to things the psychologist could not
otherwise understand" (Lowe, 1961, p. 326). Lowe has concluded his critical
analysis stating that the self is more artifact than fact and that it serves
as an answer to the question about the uncertainties of experience. The self
according to Lowe is "an artifact which is invented to explain experience" or

"in Buberian terminology, the self is an It, which man invents because he

cannot find a Thou" (Lowe, 1961, p. 334).

We are all aware of the introspective evidence of the existence of the
self as a substantive entity; the experience we have does not justify Lowe's
criticism. One question is the research about self-concept; another question
is whether such a thing as self-concept exists. As far as the research is
concerned, results are far from being satisfactory; as far as the existence
of the self is concerned, as James (1890) has pointed out, there is no doubt
that the self as such exists, mainly as an awareness of many things and
characteristics that belong to us. However the problem remains about how
best to study the development of the self-concept, its antecedents and
consequences. The study of the self-concept is not so easy because, as James
has already stated, "we are dealing with fluctuating material" and a person
is at the same time in the role of knower and object known, knower being
what James calls "I" and known being what James calls "Me." Therefore the
study of the self-concept has all the limitations which the introspective
method in psychology has, and whatever innovations in methodology may be
introduced, the basic source of data for the study of self-concept remains
self-introspection and self-reporting.

To recognize the limitations of the method seems to be the first step
toward better use of results obtained through its use. Such a recognition
may be helpful in establishing more precisely the definition of the variables
being studied, and if it were applied in the research of self-concept as
Wylie (1961) has noted, it would be more apprOpriate to call many studies
done in this area studies about reports of self-concept, rather than studies
about self-concept.

There is a need for distinguishing between the terms of self-concept

and self-acceptance, because these terms are frequently used as though they

10

have common meaning. The self-concept refers to the concept of "ME" or

empirical self of W. James, who wrote in 1890:

A man's SeIf is 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 trium-

phant; 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. 291-292; italics James')

The "ME" or empirical self according to James includes: material self,
social self or as James says social selves because there are as many social
selves as there are peOple with whom a person interacts, and Spiritual self
which may be called a conscious awareness of one's own experience.

The empirical self or "ME" does not include an evaluative component.
When evaluation of worthness of "MB" or one's characteristics, experiences,
and possessions is involved, we have another component of self, the component
which James calls "I." "I” in the broader sense is the self as knower, while
"ME" is the self as known. The results of the self evaluations or evalua-
tions of "ME" by "I" are different degrees of self—satisfaction or self—
dissatisfaction.

The self—satisfaction is a step closer to the concept of self-acceptance.
The self—concept or ”ME" is the starting point; then comes "I" and self-
evaluation, and as a result of that comes self-satisfaction or dissatisfac-
tion. It is not so easy to distinguish self-satisfaction from self-acceptance
because they may correspond quite well. One distinction that can be made is
that self-acceptance is a somewhat broader concept than self-satisfaction.
Self-satisfaction is primarily emotional experience, and self-acceptance

incorporates that emotional experience of self-satisfaction and adds to it

some sort of cognitive awareness of what is already experienced. That cogni—

11
tive awareness of emotionally experienced self-satisfaction as a result of
evaluation of "ME" is self-acceptance as it is understood in the present
study. In other words, self-acceptance is an outcome of the evaluation of
the self as one perceives it, feels about it, and holds attitudes toward it.

c. Measurement problems of self—acceptance

The main reason for discussing here the problems involved in the measure-
ment of self-acceptance instead of discussing them later in the Method Section
stems from the fact that there is evidence that some differences in results
of different studies may be due to different measurement techniques rather
than instability of the dimension itself. Thus the results of the studies of
relationships between self-acceptance and other personality and social-
interaction variables can be better evaluated after a brief review of the
measurement problems in self-acceptance.

One of the earliest studies related to this area deals with errors in
self-judgment. Jackson (1929) reported that subjects who are more intelligent
make more accurate judgments of themselves than the less intelligent, that the
.less intelligent subjects judge more accurately their undesirable traits than
desirable traits, and that less conceited subjects judge themselves more
accurately than more conceited subjects. Gross (1948) published his work
on the construction and partial standardization of a scale for the measure—
ment of self-insight. Dymond (1949) reported about her scale for the measure—
ment of empathic ability. Many other studies have been published in which
Q-sortings, adjective lists, semantic differential and questionnaires were
used in order to measure self-concept, self-acceptance, self-insight, self-
esteem, self-satisfaction, socioempathic ability, etc. One of the earliest
attempts to compare results obtained by use of different inventories was
reported by Omwake (1953). She had administered anonymously three inventories

of self-acceptance and acceptance of others : Berger's scale of acceptance of

12

self and acceptance of others; Philip's questionnaire of attitudes toward
self and others; and the Index of Adjustment and Values by Bills, Vance, and
McLean. She found that measures of self-acceptance revealed by those three
inventories agreed more closely than measures for acceptance of others
revealed by the same inventories. Kenny (1956) discussed the influence of
social desirability on discrepancy measures between perceived self and ideal
self. Since most measures of self acceptance are based on discrepancies
between perceived self and ideal self, his conclusion,that the control of

the social desirability of items is an indispensable aspect of studies in

this area, emerges as an important one. Crowne, Stephens and Kelly (1961)
concluded that different measures of self-acceptance based on self-ideal
discrepancies, adjective lists and self-rating scales are moderately corre-
lated among themselves. While these measures of self-acceptance are moderately
correlated with measures of adjustment and dependency, a consistent correla—
tion was found between selfwacceptance measures and social desirability. As
Crowne and Stephens stated (1961), most of the instruments used in measurement
of self-acceptance were constructed initially for the purpose of testing a
specific hypothesis in a particular study, and later they were uncritically and
continuously used in research without evaluation of their psychometric weak-
nesses. One of the reasons for the failure of self—acceptance research,
according to Crowne and Stephens, is that there has been a lack of efforts

in development, standardization and validation of tests in this area. Block
(1963) has argued that Crowne and Stephens have reached very unfavorable
conclusions regarding the equivalence of different measures of self-acceptance
because of a neglect to correct for attenuation, for if this correction is

applied, a more favorable picture will show up.

13

However even if the different measures of self~acceptance based on the
discrepancy between reported real-self and reported ideal-self will reveal
equivalent results, the problem remains whether such measures may be viewed
as valid measures of self-acceptance. The problem lies in the fact that the
degree of discrepancy between reported real-self and reported ideal—self is
only an indication of that discrepancy. In other words, a person's perception
of what he is differs from what he wants to be, but does not reveal whether
a person accepts himself as he is or not. It is possible that a person may
perceive some discrepancies between his real-self and his ideal-self and
still be getting along quite well with himself. In short, he accepts himself
as he is and still has a different ideal of what kind of person he would like
to be. The measures based on the discrepancy between real and ideal-self do
not take into consideration such a case as the one mentioned above and take
the degree of discrepancy as an indication of the degree of self-acceptance.
However, the existence of such cases is very possible. This in turn not only
raises questions concerning the validity of such measures, but also questions
the value of results obtained through the use of such measures.

The fact is that the majority of existent measures of self-acceptance '\
are based on discrepancies between the reported real-self and the reported A
ideal-self. It was already stated that the discrepancy itself may not be
accepted as a valid measure of selfeacceptance. This notion was taken into
consideration in the choice of instruments for the collection of data for the
present study.

d. Relationships of self-acceptance to othergpersonalitygand social
interaction variables.

 

Keeping in mind that there are unsolved problems in adequate definitions

and measurement of self-acceptance as a dimension of personality, we will dis-

l4

cuss in this section the results of some studies which relate the concept
of self-acceptance to some other personality and social-interaction variables.

Self-acceptance and progress in therapy. The studies about changes of
self-acceptance during the therapy were stimulated by the Rogerian theory of
personality and client-centered therapeutic approaches as well.

The important conclusion which stems from these studies is that self-
acceptance is a changeable rather than a fixed dimension (Raimy, 1948;
Sheerer, 1949; Taylor, 1955). Controversy arises as to which factor changes
should be primarily attributed: to the therapeutic process itself, or to
the intensive introspections and self-descriptions required in repeated Q-
sortings. A third possibility which was considered in the present study is
that changes of self—acceptance may be partially due to social interaction.

Self~acceptance and adjustment. Numerous studies have been done about
relationships between self-acceptance and adjustment. A positive relation-
ship between self—acceptance and adjustment was reported by Brownfain (1952),
Calvin and Holtzman (1953), Smith (1958), Nahinsky (1958), and Guerney and
Burton (1963). In these studies positive and linear relationships were
found between self-acceptance and adjustment, higher self-acceptance result-
ing in better adjustment. Chodorkoff (1954) has questioned the linearity of
the relationship between self-acceptance and adjustment and has demonstrated
that the relationship between correspondence of ideal self and perceived
self,and adjustment is curvilinear. Chodorkoff found that it is true that
the highest correspondence between ideal and perceived self goes along with
the best adjustment, but that the reverse is not true, that the lowest corre-
spondence between ideal and perceived self goes along with the lowest adjust-
ment. Eastman (1958) found a positive relationship between marital happiness

and self-acceptance and speculated that self-acceptance stems from the experi-

15

ences of early childhood and may be considered as an intervening variable
between childhood experiences and marital happiness. Lepine and Chordorkoff
(1955) reported findings of positive relationships between expressed feelings
of adequacy and correspondence of perceived and ideal self. Subjects who
were more self-accepting were found to be less dependent on others' judgment
of their past performance in goal setting behavior than those who were less
self—accepting. However, there were no significant relationships between
goal setting behavior and correspondence of perceived and ideal self or
expressed feelings of adequacy.

Self-acceptance, identification, and sex. Lockwood and Guerney (1962)
reported a study about relatignships between identification and empathy, as
well as between self-dissatisfaction and adjustment. They found significant
relationships for boys but not for girls. Boys who identified more closely
with their fathers were better adjusted and less dissatisfied (more self-
accepted). Martire and Hornberger (1957) reported a study about differences
between men and women in relationships between self, ideal-self and social-
self. Correlations among these three selves were lower for women than for
men due mainly to the tendency among women to see their social selves as
being more different from expectations of society than was the case for men.

The results of the studies of relationships between self-acceptance and
identification (although significant only for boys) are supportive of the
notion that self-acceptance is the outcome of early childhood experiences of
acceptance by significant others, if we assume that identification is based
on mutual acceptance of involved persons.

Self—acceptance and acceptance of others. The relationship between

 

self-acceptance and acceptance of others has been studied very intensively in

recent years. Positive relationships between self-acceptance and acceptance

16

of others was reported by Omwake (1954), Stock (1949), Sheerer (1949), Berger
(1952), and Suinn (1961). Also it was found that acceptance of others is
related to other personality and social-interaction variables in a similar way
as self-acceptance. An interesting attempt was made by Suinn (1961) to
apply learning theory in the study of self—acceptance and acceptance of
others. He considered self, father and teacher as a stimulus object in his
study where high school male seniors were asked to describe themselves, their
fathers, and their male teachers using Q-sortings. He hypothesized that
responses associated with self would be generalized to other stimulus objects
(father and male teacher) as the result of the degree of perceived similarity
between self and the object, degree of self-dissatisfaction and degree of
involvement with the other stimulus objects. His findings support the notion
that self-acceptance is significantly related to acceptance of the father and
the teacher, and that the perceived similarity is a significant variable
influencing generalization of self-accepting responses to other objects. He
did not find support that self-dissatisfaction and degree of involvement with
the objects were effective in influencing generalization of self-accepting
responses among his subjects.

The studies of relationships between self-acceptance and acceptance of
others pointed out the social-interaction component of self-acceptance.
There is an implicit assumption that acceptance of others is more of an out—
come of self-acceptance in these studies and in Suinn's attempt to apply
learning theory as an explanation of this relationship. However, it is pos-
sible to think also in terms of reciprocally interdependent relationships
between self-acceptance and acceptance of others where acceptance by others

may also influence self—acceptance.

17

e. Acceptance by thejgroup

Sociometric technique is frequently used in the studies about personality
characteristics of those who are accepted or rejected in the group. Norman
(1953) reported findings that accepted individuals have better insight into
themselves than rejected individuals. Individuals accepted in the middle
degree in the group have better perception of their status in the group than
those highly accepted or those rejected. The highly accepted subjects tend
to overestimate others. Webb (1952) found considerable disparity between
self-ratings and ratings by others of some personal traits. Singer (1951)
reported findings of nonsignificant positive association between an individual's
popularity and his tendency to perceive more preferences toward himself from
those whom he himself preferred. Singer found markedly negative and almost
significant association between an individual's popularity and accuracy of
his perception of his standing in the group, and a negative association between
his tendency to empathize with those whom he preferred and his awareness of
their actual position within the group. Lundy, Katkowski, Cromwell and
Shoemaker (1955) have found that subjects tended to describe their best
liked friends with self-accepting items and to describe their least liked
friends with self-nonaccepting items. Fiedler, Warrington and Blaiadell
(1952) found that there is no evidence to support the notion that the subject
will be actually more similar to his best liked friends than to his least liked
friends. Also there were no significant differences found in the manner of
perception between liked and disliked subjects in the group.

M111 (1953) studied personality patterns of socially accepted and
socially rejected individuals. He used the sociometric method to obtain two
groups for comparison and the MMPI, Rorschach, TAT, self-rating scale and

Rokeach Map Technique in order to obtain data on personality characteristics.

18

Socially rejected individuals were as a group more disturbed, tended
toward distorted interpretations of their environment and exhibited a
test pattern similar to psychopathic deviation. They were more anxious,
felt more inadequate, inferior, dissatisfied and were more hostile and
aggressive toward their environment. Also, rejects were found to be more
inconsistent in their self-concept. On the other hand, socially accepted
individuals tended to be more healthy, less defensive, with more consis-
tency in self-concept and more conductive in improving their relations with
others. Kidd (1953) found two general personality traits to be barriers
to acceptability in the group. Those individuals with a superiority com-
plex were not enough motivated toward achievement of acceptance in the
group, and those with an inferiority complex have low insight in values,
definitions and expectations of the group which, along with defensiveness
and overcompensation tendencies that dominate in their behavior, was a
serious barrier to their acceptability in the group. As Kidd stated,
acceptability is best related to one's ability "to put himself in the
other fellow's shoes." Dittes (1959) reported a study about relationships
between self-esteem and acceptance by the group on the one hand and attrac-
tiveness of the group on the other hand. He concluded that those "persons
made to feel well accepted in a group found the group more attractive than
did those made to feel poorly accepted. But this difference was signifi-
cantly greater among persons with low self-esteem than among persons with
high self-esteem, low self-esteem being taken as an indication of strong
need for acceptance" (Dittes, 1959, p. 82). Dittes further condluded

that the attractiveness of a group is determined by the multiplicative
relation of the need of the individual for acceptance and the available

gratification of that need in the group.

19

Studies about personality characteristics of those accepted and rejected
by the group revealed the fact that acceptance by the group is a factor which
is significantly related to some personality dimensions among which is self-
acceptance. The studies are not clearly explicit about the nature of the
relationship; namely, whether acceptance by the group is an outcome of person-
ality characteristics of those accepted or rejected, whether some personality
characteristics are influenced by the acceptance by the group or whether the
relationship is reciprocally interdependent, as it was assumed in the present
study.

One support for the assumption of reciprocity in the relationship between
self-acceptance and acceptance by peers comes from role theory. Role theory
assumes that the relationship between personality and role is reciprocal.

Deutch and Krauss (1965) have stated:

On the one hand a person may be predisposed by virtue
Of his personality to occupy certain statuses. Or
put another way, the roles associated with specific
Positions may serve as a vehicle for the gratification
of important personal needs. . . .On the other hand,
the values and attitudes associated with particular
statuses may themselves be incorporated into the struc-
ture of an individual's personality and thus exert a
pervasive influence across the totality of his social
interaction. . . .Role theorists . . . have developed
and emP1°Yed the concept of self as a cognitive struc-
ture which emerges from the interaction of the human
organism and its social environment. . . .In the pro-
cess of interaction with his social environment a person
not only takes on characteristics as a consequence of
the roles he enacts, he also begins to experience sense
of self. He begins to recognize that others react to
him, and he begins to react to his own actions and
personal qualities as he expects others to react.

(pp. 180-181)

2. Problem
The problem of the present study is the relationship between self-

acceptance and acceptance by peers within a college student population. As

20

far as the author knows, there is no study in the literature addressed
directly to this problem. Self-acceptance is considered as a personality
variable and acceptance by peers is considered as a social-interactional
variable. The tendency in the studies in this area has.been to consider
personality variables as independent and social-interactional variables as
dependent. In the present study, the relationship between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers will be considered as a reciprocal, interdependent
one.

The development of the self—concept is the outcome of social interaction
experiences in the earliest phases of childhood. Particularly important are
those childhood experiences which come from the interaction with significant
primary objects. Positive experiences of acceptance by primary objects will
result in the development of a stable self-concept, and consequently, higher
self-satisfaction and self-acceptance. Experiences of rejection by primary
objects will result in the development of an unstable self-concept, and lower
self-satisfaction and self—acceptance, will be the outcome.

Historically speaking, the relationship between self-acceptance and
acceptance by others begins as a relationship where acceptance by others is
a more independent and self-acceptance is a more dependent variable. Later,
in the course of his life, an individual is engaged in many relationships with
others, and those others are different from primary objects. Acceptance or
rejection by others at these later times may reinforce or interfere with
earlier childhood experiences. It is worth noting that others' acceptance or
rejection of an individual with an already formed self-concept is different
from acceptance or rejection of the baby by primary objects. While acceptance
or rejection of the newborn baby by the primary objects is mainly due to the

personality characteristics of the primary objects themselves and very little

21

to the baby, in the case of acceptance or rejection of an individual with
an already formed self-concept the acceptance is partially due to the per-
sonality characteristics of those who accept or reject, and partially due
to his own personality characteristics (e.g., feelings, attitudes and
behavior toward others which provoke certain reactions by them).

In the present study the relationship between self—acceptance and
acceptance by others will be considered as reciprocally interdependent but
also as changeable. The assumed changeability of this relationship is
speculated to be a result of the changeability of its components. First of
all, self-acceptance as a personality characteristic is changeable, as well
as acceptance of others and by others. Also, an individual in the course of
his life is exposed to different experiences of acceptance and rejection as
a result of his being involved in many groups. Changeability of self-accep-
tance, as well as changeability of acceptance by others as a result of
influences of other personality and social-interaction factors, are deter-
minants of the dynamic changeability of the relationship between self-
acceptance and acceptance by others. By the changeability of the relation-
ship between the self-acceptance and the acceptance by others we mean two
things. The first is that no individual will have the same degree of self—
acceptance or will be accepted in the same degree by others all his life,
regardless of changes in the group to which he belongs. The second is that no
group will exhibit the same degree of acceptance of individuals all the time,
regardless of changes in their personal characteristics. Therefore, in the
present study the relationship between self—acceptance and acceptance by peers
will be considered as one phase of deve10pment of individuals and group, as
well as a changeable relationship which has a history and a future as well.

The variable ”acceptance by others" should be defined more precisely.

22

"The others" involves many people with whom an individual interacts during
his life in different situations. Aside from parents, one of the most
powerful influences of others upon an individual, and more precisely upon his
self—concept and consequently his self—acceptance, comes from the interaction
one has with his peers. There are several factors which facilitate the
influence of peers upon an individual such as: propinquity, similar values,
norms and beliefs, similar age, social statuses, roles and tasks, and member-
ship in formal and informal groups.

It may be useful at this point to make the distinction between the peer
group or group of peers on the one hand and set of peers on the other hand,
as it has been made by Rossi (1966). According to Rossi, "There have been
two broad types of strategies employed in the definition of groups: one
concerned with 'peer groups' and the other with 'sets of peers'." In the
first approach "once groups are identified, individuals are placed as members
within such groups. The second approach--the individual-centered strategy--
prefers to define for each individual the set of persons who are his peers
without too much attention to the interconnections among such peers" (Rossi,
1966, p. 191). In the present study the set of peers approach was applied,
although with some restrictions. The main limitation was that the set of
peers for each individual was obtained from a defined group which does not
necessarily involve all his peers. That set of peers was, in a sense, a
sample set of peers rather than the set of all his peers.

Since the present study deals with college students, Rossi's statement
about peers that "in the college environment his [the student's] peers are
his fellow students and particularly those students with whom he is in contact
and whom values in some way, even negatively" (Rossi, 1966, p. 198) seems

to be very appropriate here. It may be added that one's peers are not only

23

those with whom a person in in contact, and whom he values; but also those
from whom a person expects to be valued and those whose evaluations of him
are of concern to him.

In this study the term "peers" refers to all members in the group. The
term "peer-intimates" refers to those peers with whom a person is in frequent
interaction, those whom he evaluates, and those whose evaluations of him are
of concern to him. The "peer—intimates" are, in a sense, those whom lbssi
calls "the set of peers." Finally the term "peer-nonintimates" refers to
those peers with whom a person is not in frequent interaction, those whom he
does not evaluate, and those whose evaluations are not of great concern to
him. The procedure for arriving at sets of peer-intimates and peer--
nonintimates will be described in the method chapter.

In order to get some more information on developmental aspects of the
relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers, it was decided
to study groups with old and new members. Thus old members were considered
to be those who had been in the group for at least six months at the time of
first data collection. New members were considered to be those who were
entering the group at the time of the first data collection.

There are some other factors which have impact upon the relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptance by the peer group. The author has
previously suggested (Todoroski, 1968) that in order to get a better under-
standing of the relationship between personality dimensions and acceptance by
the peer group, the following factors should be considered: (1) How much
importance the group which accepts or rejects has in the eyes of the individual;
(2) whether the acceptance or rejection of an individual by the group is ex-
pressed in a way that may be experienced by the individual, and, if experi-

enced, to what degree the individual is aware of acceptance or rejection. The

24

speculation then was that the relationship between personality dimensions and
acceptance by the group will be influenced by the above mentioned factors.

In the present study the influence of the importance of the group as
seen by the individual and the degree of awareness of exhibited acceptance or
rejection by the group were considered. The assumption that the relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers will be influenced by these
two factors was tested by statistical control.

3. Hypotheses

 

Basic Hypothesis: There is a positive reciprocal relationship between
self-acceptance and acceptance by peers.

SubsidiaryrHypotheses

 

Hypothesis #1 : There will be significant positive cross-lagged and
synchronous correlations between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers
among old members of the group.

Hypothesis #2: There will be a significant positive synchronous correla-
tion on the second testing and significant positive cross-lagged correlations
between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers among new members of the group.

Hypothesis #3 : The relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by
the peer-intimates will be stronger than the relationship between self-
acceptance and acceptance by peer-nonintimates.

Hypotheses l and 2 do not state which of the studied variables will have
a stronger influence on the other. The general assumption is that the rela—
tionship is a positive reciprocal one. However, exact reciprocity in the
relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers is expected among
normal adults. Since the subjects in the study are approaching adulthood,
it was expected that the relationship will be approaching reciprocity. On

the other hand, acceptance by peers appears to have a stronger influence on

ad.
a!-

25

self-acceptance in the earlier periods of life. As a result of that, it

was expected that acceptance by peers will have a stronger (but perhaps not
statistically significant) influence on self-acceptance than vice versa among
the subjects of this study.

The variables "subject's awareness of the acceptance or rejection by
peer intimates and other members of the group," and "the importance of the
group as seen by individual" were assumed to influence the relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptancy by peers. The influence of these
two variables on the relationship between self—acceptance and acceptance by

peers was considered and controlled statistically.

B. METHOD

1. Design of the Study

 

The cross-lagged panel correlation design (Rozelle and Campbell,l969) was
adopted to collect data for testing of the hypotheses. The data were collected
on two occasions over a period of eight weeks from the same subjects. Figure

1 illustrates the design of the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUTO-LAGGED
lSA1--self—acceptance CORRELATION SA --self;acceptance 2
l lst testing 2nd testing E
L .'
[ '.' (fiflp ///
SYNCHRONOUS ‘* \P’ gs
CORRELATION \ 69’9“" l
\
‘ ' (329933” :
1 392’. 1
' AABP1--actual acceptance by peers AABP2--actual acceptance by peers
' lst testing 2nd testing

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1, Design of the study

Hypothesis 1 tests whether r P , and

SA AABP ’ rSA AABP ’ rSA AAB
11 22 12

rAABPISAZ are significant and positive for Old members
of the group.

H pothesis 2 tests whether r r and r

Y SAZAABPZ ’ SAIAABPZ ’ AABP 1SA2
are significant and positive for new members of the group.

Hypothesis 3 tests whether correlations between self-acceptance and
acceptance by peer intimates are higher than correlations

between self-acceptance and acceptance by peer—nonintimates.

26

27

The cross-lagged panel correlation design was adopted because it allows
for testing interactions of the relationship between self-acceptance and
acceptance by peers. By comparing the cross-lagged correlations and con-
trasting them with synchronous correlations it is possible to establish
whether the relationship is interactional. If it is not an interactional
one, it is possible to determine which of the two variables is dependent and
which one is dependent. Thus, if the cross-lagged and synchronous correla-
tions are of the same magnitude the relationship is interactional. On the
other hand, if size of rSAlAABPZ is greater than rAABPISAz’ and greater than
synchronous correlations, then SA variable is the independent and AABP is the
dependent one.

A synchronous correlation design only allows us to establish whether a
relationship exists or not, and still leaves unanswered the question of
interaction Or the dependency direction of the relationship.

2. Subjects

The author (Todoroski, 1968) has previously suggested that the following
criteria should be satisfied in the selection of groups of peers in order to
get relevant data for the study of the relationship between personality dimen-
sions and acceptance by the peer group: the group should be a natural ongoing
group with some history of existence prior to the study which will justify the
assumption that the members of the group have had an opportunity to get to
know each other, and to establish interpersonal relationships of such intensity
that preferences by others may be perceived and experienced by.an individual;
that the members of the group spend a lot of their time in the group; that

the group is of definite size known by all members; and that the group”;

characteristics are such that one can assume it serves reference group func-

tions for some members, if not for all of them. Considering the above

28

criteria, college sororities were selected as appropriate groups to be studied,
and subjects were recruited from these groups.

Four sororities from a large midwestern university in the U.S.A. were
included in the study. These four sororities were selected from 22 sororities
at the university on the basis of their size and the ratio of old and new
members in residence at the beginning of the school year. The four sororities
selected were the largest and also had a membership composition that was as
close as possible to the ideal of equal numbers of old and new members in
residence. The 1arger sororities with equal numbers of old and new members
were preferred for two reasons: (1) If there were across sorority differences
in demographic variables, then analyses would have had to be run separately
for each sorority; using small sororities it is conceivable that all the
analyses would have been inconclusive solely because of low N's, and (2) Again
for statistical reasons it was desirable that sufficient N's should be secured
for those statistical analyses run on old as compared to new members. This
was possible with larger groups with approximately equal numbers of the old
and new members.

All members of the four sororities were Caucasians, and were residents
of the houses.

The characteristics of the subjects in each of the four studied sororities
are presented in Table 1.

As is evident from the results, the four sororities are very similar and
differ significantly on only 1 out of 13 variables presented in Table 1. They
differ only on the "grade point average" variable. In addition, the four
sororities were similar and do not differ significantly on any of the remaining
background variables not presented in Table l, for which information was

collected. This indicates that the sororities belong to the same population

TABLE 1

Characteristics of the Subjects in the Four Studied Sororities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE Sor. Sor. Sor. Sor. All x2
SIZE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY
Members on the list 51 41 56 47 195 0.35
Participated both testings 45 A 40 47 45 177
CLASS LEVEL
Freshman or SOphom. 17 15 12 12 56
Junior 21 14 20 19 74
Senior 7 ll 14 14 46 5.19
GRADE POINT AVERAGE
3. 1.50-1.99 2 l 3
4. 2.00-2.49 '7 5 2 14 28
5. 2.50—2.99 17 15 13 23 68
6. 3.00-3.49 18 ll 22 6 57
7. 3.50-3.99 3 7 8 2 20
8. 4.00 or > 1 1
Mean 5.38 5.40 .7 4.91 5.37
SD 0.83 1.08 .9 0.79 0.96
TIME IN RESIDENCE IN THE HOUSE
1. Since Sept. 1970 20“' 27 19 22 88
2. to 6 months 1 l 3 5
3. 7-12 months 21' 12 l9 13 65
4. 13-24 months 4:; 7 7 1s
5. 24 months or > 1 1
Mean 2.20 .72 2.36 2.11 2.11
SD 1.12 1.24 1.22 1.19 1.20
SIZE OF HOME COMMUNITY
1. Farm 1 1 2
2. 250-2,499 3 3 6
3. 2,500-24,999 5 6 6 10 27
4. 25,000-49,999 11 6 15 12 44
5. 50,000-99,999 11 7 9 7 34
6. 100,000-99,999 10 9 8 5 32
7. 200,009_nz;;: 8 8 5 ll 32
Mean 5.11 4.85 4.53 4.88 4.84
SD 1-28 1.70 1.47 1.51 1.49

 

Note: **p<:0.01

30

Table 1 (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE Sor. A Sor. a Sor. C Sor. D All 1‘ x2
DISTANCE FROM CAMPUS TO HOME
l. < 20 miles 2 4 4 2 15
2. 20-40 miles 1 4 5
3. 41-70 miles 7 8 4 4 26
4. 71-100 miles 22 17 22 19 80
5. 101-200 miles 5‘ 4 4 6 l9
6. 201-300 miles 5) 1 3 l 10
7. 301 or>miles 5 10 6 25
Mean 4.31 3.97 4.51 4.11 4.24
SD 1.36 1.61 1.70 1.54 1.56 6.99
FAMILY INCOME YEARLY
1. $6,000 1 l
2. $6,000-9,999 1 l l 2 5
3. $10,000-14,999 5 8 6 5 24
4. $15,000-19,999 8 10 9 5 32
5. $20,000-29,999 11 10 14 12 47
6. $30,000 or :> 18 ll 14 18 61
Mean 4.93 4.55 4.77 4.84 4.77
SD 1.14 1.17 1.12 1.34 1.19 0.75
FATHER'S EDUCATION
1. Some grade school 1 l
2. GS graduate l l
3. Some HS 1 3 l 5
4. HS graduate 4 9 4 3 20
5- Some college 10 6 9 12 37
6. College graduate 12 7 12 15 46
7. More than college 6 5 8 4 23
8. Professional Training 12 10 12 9 43
Mean 6.20 5.80 6.12 6.04 6.05
SD 1.41 1.70 1.62 1.29 1.50 0.55
AGE IN YEARS
Mean 20.02 20.40 20.45 20.44 20.33
SD 0.92 0.95 0.88 0.92 0.93 2.26
BIRTH ORDER
First 13 14 19 15 61
Second 19 19 16 17 71
Third or After 13 7 12 13 45

 

 

Table 1 (cont'd.)

31

 

 

 

 

 

2
VARIABLE Sor. A Sor. Sor. Sor. D All F
2 OF PRESENT FINANCIAL SUPPORT BY PARENTS
Mean 81.35 79.65 75.11 81.78 79.42
SD 24.04 28.44 26.16 25.23 25.86 0.64
RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE
Protestant 35 22 30 29 116
Catholic 6 l3 9 9 37
Other 4 5 8 6 23 6.75
HAVE A BOYFRIEND
Yes 26 30 35 31 122
N0 19 10 12 14 55 3.97

 

32

and that statistical analysis may be run on the group as a whole, rather than
each sorority separately.

3. Procedures

 

After the Division of Student Activities and Alumni Advisors of the
sororities agreed and approved the conduct of the study, the investigator
met with subjects in their Houses. At this meeting the introductory
letter (Appendix 1) was distributed, questions regarding the study that
subjects had were answered, and the time for the administration of the
questionnnaire was arranged.

The questionnaire with instruments was administered in groups by the
investigator and two graduate students in psychology. The subjects not
present at the time of administration were approached individually as
soon as possible thereafter. The first administration of the questionnaire
was completed during the first week of classes in the last week of
September. The average time for answering the questionnaire was about
40 minutes.

The follow-up administration of the questionnaire was arranged with
the presidents of the sororities. The items dealing with background infor—
mation where there was no reason to expect changes in the elapsed interval
were omitted (Appendix 2, Questionnaire, Part I, items 1 to 20). The
questionnaire was administered in groups, and again, absent subjects were
approached individually. he follow-up took place during the last week
of November. In other 'words, the length of time between the first and
second questionnaire administrations was approximately 8 weeks.

4. Instruments

 

The questionnaire was composed of (a) the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale

--TSCS (Fitts, 1965), (b) the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg,

33

1965), (c) a sociometric rating scale of favorableness of feelings among
members of the group (Newcomb, 1961), and some items formulated for this
study to get data on the importance of the group as seen by the individual,
and information about background variables (see Appendix 2, Questionnaire).

The TSCS was chosen mainly for two reasons: first, it does not have
the weaknesses Of discrepancy measures that were pointed out in the dis-
cussion of the measurement prOblems of self-acceptance; and secondly, it
is reported in the literature as an instrument with satisfying psycho-
metric characteristics (Fitts, 1965). Fitts has reported a reliability
of 0.92 for the total positive score, and 0.88 for the self-satisfaction
score based on test-retest results with 60 college students over a two
week period. Using the research evidence with TSCS, he has also inferred
that the scale possesses satisfactory validity.

In the present study a reliability of 0.79 was obtained for both
total positive and self-satisfaction scores on the test-retest with 177
college sorority girls over an eight week period. It was also found that
the total positive score on the TSCS correlated 0.60 with the Rosenberg
Selmesteem Scale on the first and 0.64 on the second testing.

The sociometric measure for acceptance by peers was used with the
expectation that it also would have satisfactory psychometric character-
istics. The reliability over the 8 week period for the actual acceptance
by peers measure from the sociometric rating scale was 0.81 (N = 177).

The reliability for the actual acceptance by peer—intimates and peer-non-
intimates was 0.65 and 0.42 respectively. There are two factors that
account for those low reliabilities. The first factor is a statistical
one. In these cases correlations of acceptance by peer—intimates and peer-

nonintimates between the first and second testing are based on a restricted

34

range of scores. Thus correlation of acceptance by peer-intimates between
the first and second testing is based on the upper part of the acceptance
by peers scale, and correlation of acceptance by peer-nonintimates is
based on the lower part of the acceptance by peers scale.

The second factor that accounts for attenuation of obtained low
reliability for acceptance by peer-intimates and peer-nonintimates
measures is the fact that the same persons were not among one's peer-

intimates and peer-nonintimates on both testings. The data on peer-

intimates for sorority A may illustrate this. Thus, on the average every
girl in sorority A had 2.4 peer-intimates on the first and 3.6 peer—
intimates on the second testing. Only 1.3 of the intimates on the first
testing were among one's intimates on the second testing, and 2.3 of one's
intimates on the second testing were not among one's intimates on the
first testing. This was very similar in other sororities regarding the
peer-intimates, and changes among sets from first to second testing were
even greater for peer-nonintimates. Given the fact that there were not
the same persons among one's peer-intimates and nonintimates, it is easy
to understand why reliability for acceptance by peer-intimates and non-
intimates was low. The implications Of the chagnes of the set of peer-
intimates and peer-nonintimates over time will be discussed in the
discussion chapter.

Significant differences on sociometric scores were obtained between
peer-intimates and nonintimates. This finding support8 the validity of
the sociometric scale.

5. Coding, derivation and computation of scores
Most of the items were precoded. The code for the length of the time

in residence in the sorority house is given in Table l.

35

The self-acceptance score (SA) originally was to have been the self-
satisfaction score in the TSCS (second raw total). However the self-
satisfaction score correlated very highly with the total positive score
(0.92) on both testings. Since the self-satisfaction score is based on
30 items, and the total positive score is based on 90 items it was
decided that the total positive score should be used as the measure of
self-acceptance, since this estimate is a more stable one.

The sociometric scores were computed as follows:

Actual Acceptance pf Peers (AAOP) is the average of ratings that
a subject gives to all members in the sorority.

 

Expected Acceppance pl Peers (EABP) is the average of ratings
that a subject expects to get from all members in the sorority.

Actual Acceptance py_Peers (AABP) is the average of ratings
that all members of the sorority give to a subject.

 

Expected Acceptance pf Peers (EAOP) is the average of ratings
that all members of the sorority expect to get from a subject.

 

The mentioned sociometric scores were computed on the basis of the
four existent sets of sociometric ratings. When the differences between
the four sets of sociometric ratings were summed with the sign ignored and
then averaged, those scores are referred to as discrepancy scores. There
were 6 possible discrepancy scores computed on the basis of the four
sets of sociometric ratings.

The discrepancy between the expected acceptance by peers and the
actual acceptance by peers was taken to be the measure of the subject's
awareness of the degree of how she is accepted by other girls in the House.
For example, if subject A expected to get 80 from subject B, but actually
gets 70, then the difference is 10. The expectations of subject A from
all girls are compared in this way with the actual ratings that she gets

from them, and the differences across all subjects are summed and averaged

36

with the sign ignored, which gives the discrepancy score between
expected and actual acceptance by peers for subject A.

There are two different types of sociometric scores computed for
each subject. When the average ratings and average discrepancies between
ratings are computed, including all subjects from the sorority who have
participated in the study, those scores refer to all members of the
sorority or all peers. When the sociometric scores are computed, includ-
ing only those who are among one's peer-intimates or nonintimates, those
scores refer only to peer-intimates or peer—nonintimates.

In order to compute sociometric scores on all peers, the whole group
in a sorority house was considered; in order to compute sociometric scores
on peer-intimates and peer-nonintimates it was necessary to arrive at a
set of peer-intimates and peer-nonintimates that were different for every
subject in regard to how many girls composed the set, and who they were.

The basis for obtaining sets of peer—intimates and peer-nonintimates
was three items from the questionnaire. On the first item a subject
checked from the complete list of the sorority names of those whom "she is
frequently with"; on the second item she checked those whom "she thinks
she knows very well"; on the third one she checked those who "she thinks
know her very well." For any two girls to be considered as peer-intimates
it was necessary that they check each other's name reciprocally on all
three items. For any two girls to be considered as peer-nonintimates it
was necessary that they not check each other's names on gpy_of the three
items.

The sociometric scores were computed using the 3600 Computer at
Michigan State University's Computer Center. A program developed by Dr.

John Hunter for this study was used. The sociometric rating scales in the

37

questionnaire ranged from 0-100. In the actual computation of scores they
were slightly restricted to 0-99 for simplicity. Thus all ratings having
a value of 100 were considered to have a value of 99.

The score on the importance of the group as seen by the individual
was obtained by the rating scale, ranging from 1-9, in which the subject
was asked to indicate "how important it is for her to be well accepted by
the other girls in the House.N

6. Statistical Analysis

 

The cross-lagged panel correlation technique (Rozelle:and Campbell, 1969),
t'tests,and partial correlations were used for the statistical testing of

the hypotheses.

C. RESULTS

1. Testing the Hypotheses

 

a. Basic hypothesis.
There is a positive reciprocal relationship between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers.

Table 2 presents correlations obtained in order to test the basic

hypothesis.

TABLE 2
Correlations between Self—Acceptance (SA) and Actual Acceptance

by Peers (AABP), All Members ip_Residence, N.- 177

 

 

 

First Testing Second Testing
SA SA

‘i a 344.52 40.793 ‘r . 340.41
SD = 32.02 SD = 30.17

/.

0.13

AABP /“’ \\\\\AABP

'i . 75:01 .0.813 'x = 78.08
SD = 7.60 so = 7.68

 

 
 

0.12

 

 

 

Note: For N - 177 an r of 0.15 is required for
significance at 0.05 level.

a. Reliability coefficients over eight
week period.

38

39

From the results presented in Table 2, it is evident that the syn-
chronous and cross-lagged correlations Obtained between self—acceptance
and actual acceptance by peers are in predicted directions, but since
none of them is statistically significant the basic hypothesis was not
confirmed.

The basic hypothesis was also tested by subsidiary hypotheses l,

2, and 3. As will be shown, these hypotheses were not confirmed and
failed to support the basic hypothesis.

The distribution of self-acceptance scores obtained in this study
was very similar to the one obtained by Fitts with his norm sample. Thus
Fitts (1965) reported for the normal subjects an average total positive
score of 345.57 and 8138 30.70. For the subjects in the present study
for the total positive score R - 344.52, SD = 32.05 were obtained on the
first, and E = 340.41, SD = 30.17 on the second testing.

The fact that the distribution of self-acceptance scores allowed
identification of some low and some high self-accepting subjects along
with those with average self—acceptance, was used to check whether there
is a curvilinear relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by
peers, since the linear correlations were not significant. Thus the
sample was divided into six subgroups using the standard deviation on
self-acceptance as a cutting point. Then the analysis of variance of
acceptance by peers scores was run for those six subgroups with a differ-
ent degree of self—acceptance. The E's and eta correlation coefficients
were very small and insignificant on both testings, indicating that there
is no relatioship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers.

b. Hypothesis 1

 

There will be significant positive synchronous and cross—lagged corre-

40

lations between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers among old members

in the group.

Hypothesis 1 was tested by correlations based on Old members. Table

3 presents results for this test.

TABLE 3
Correlations between Self-Acceptance (SA) and Actual Acceptance

by Peers (AABP), 01d Members EB Residence, N = 89

 

— — -—-—————...— c-O’-

 

 

 

 

 

First Testing Second Testing
§A §A
x = 349.26 0.808 x = 342.09
SD 8 29.60. SD - 29.51
I \\\ ’
i 07 i
0.04 0.07
l ’/,/’// \\\\\\\\_ '
’ /,e/o7 \
3 /' ‘\‘
AABP 9 // ‘AABP I
x . 77:43 0.818 x - 79.29
SD = 7.72 SD = 7.78

 

Note: For N c 89 an r of 0.21 is required for
significance at the 0.05 level.

3. Reliability coefficients over eight
week period.
Here too the synchronous and the corss-lagged correlations between
self-acceptance and actual acceptance by peers are in the predicted direc-

tion, but none of them is statistically significant. Therefore hypothesis

1 was not confirmed.
c. Hypothesis 2

There will be a significant positive synchronous correlation on the

41

second testing, and significant positive cross—lagged correlations between
self-acceptance and acceptance by peers among new members of the group.

Hypothesis 2 was tested by correlations obtained for new members in

residence. Table 4 presents these results.

TABLE 4
Correlations between Self-Acceptance (SA)
and Actual Acceptance by Peers (AABP),

New Members 15 Residence, fl_= 88

 

“CI..- -07..- ..

 

 

 

 

 

First Testing Second Testing
.EA §A
= 339.73 0.788 .1x = 338.70
D = 33.85 SD = 30.90
I ”
i .15 ,/”/
l ///////
0.15 I/, 0.16
I
l ,//D{I7/ \\\\\\\\\\
. ///' -
AABP ’ .»/’ “AABP
x = 72.56 0.828 72 = 76.85
SD = 6.66 SD = 7.42

 

Note : For N = 88 an r of 0.21 is required for
significance at the 0.05 level.

a. Reliability coefficients over eight
week period.
As the results in Table 4 show, the correlations between self-
acceptance by peers for new members are again not statistically signifi-
cant. Therefore hypothesis 2 was not confirmed by the results.

d. Hypothesis 3

 

The relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peer

42

intimates will be stronger than the relationship between self-acceptance

and acceptance by peer-nonintimates.

Hypothesis 3 was tested by comparisons between correlations for self-

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

acceptance and acceptance by peer-intimates and peer non-intimates. Table

5 presents the data for the testing of this hypothesis.
TABLE 5
Correlations between Self-Acceptance (SA),
and Actual Acceptance by Peers (AABP),
Peer-Intimates 329 Peer-nonintimates
INTIMATES NOMINTIMATES
First Second First Second
Testing Testing Testing Testing
SA SA SA SA
‘2 = 344.52 X = 340.41 'X = 344.52 Rf= 340.41
SD = 32.05____.0.79____.SD - 30.17 SD = 32.02——_—0.79———————SD a 30.17
N = 177 N = 177 N = 177 N - 177
0
0.07 0.07 0.16* 0.01
0. 0.11
, ,/

AABP .AABP AABP J// AABP
R = 93.51 X =- 94.15 X = 63.36 R = 71.91
SD 8 6.77______0.65__———SD s 6.13 SD = 8.06—————0.42—_—————SD - 8.39
N = 163a N = 166 N = 177 N = 177

Note:
level.

For N = 177 an r of 0.15 is required for significance on 0.05

3. Correlations are based on smaller of the two N's.

*p<0.05

As Table 5 shows, only one out of eight synchronous and cross-lagged

43

correlations between self-acceptance and acceptance by peer-intimates

and nonintimates is statistically significant. However, it is very low and
counts for only 2.6 per cent of the variance and may be considered as
practically nonsignificant. Comparisons between the correlations obtained
for peer-intimates and 'nonintimates show that there are no significant
differences between them. The largest z obtained for the differences between
the correlations is 0.88 for peer-intimates and nonintimates on the first
testing (for intimates r = 0.07, for nonintimates r - 0.16). In addition,
two of the four existent nonsignificant differences are in the opposite
direction from the prediction. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not confirmed by the
results.

e. Interactional relationship

 

The basic hypothesis was that the relationship between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers is an interactional one. Hypotheses 1 and 2 did
not state whether one of the variables would have a stronger influence on
the other. However it was assumed that if the relationship between self-
acceptance and acceptance by peers was not completely interactional, then
the variable of acceptance by peers was expected to have a stronger (but
perhaps not statistically significant) influence on self-acceptance.

Ordinarily the correlations presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4 would have
been used to test the above assumption. Although the obtained cross-lagged
correlations are supportive of the assumption that the relationship between
self-acceptance and acceptance by peers is an interactional one, the fact is
that none of cross-lagged as well as synchronous correlations is statistifi

cally significant. ,Therefore the assumption that the relationship between

self-acceptance and acceptance by peers is an interactional one cannot be

confirmed Or disproved with the results of this study.

44

f. Awareness of acceptance and importance of the group.

 

It was assumed that (a) the subject's awareness of the degree to which
she is accepted by peers and (b) the importance of the group as seen by
an individual will influence the relationship between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers. This assumption was tested by partial correla-

tions. Table 6 presents the results for the testing of the above assumption.

TABLE 6
Correlations between Self-Acceptance (SA) and Actual Acceptance
by Peers (AABP) with Awareness of Acceptance (AW)

and Importance of the Group (IMP) partialled out, N = 177

 

 

rSA,AABP rSA,AABP°AW rSA,AABP°IMP

 

First Testing 0.13 0.12 0.09

Second Testing 0.13 0.13 0.09

 

As Table 6 shows, the correlations between self-acceptance and
acceptance by peers are not significantly influenced by the degree of
awareness of acceptance by peers, nor by the importance of the group as
seen by the individual. Thus 2 for the largest difference (r = 0.13
versus r = 0.09) is 0.38 which is statictically nonsignificant. Therefore
the assumption that the awareness of the degree of acceptance by peers,
and the importance of the group as seen by individual will influence the
relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers was not sup—

ported by the results.

45

2. Additional Findings

 

a. Sociometric scores for peer-intimates and peer-nonintimates

The peer-intimates approach was adOpted in the present study, because
it was assumed that acceptance by peer-intimates will relate more strongly
to self-acceptance than will acceptance by nonintimates. Although the
correlations between self-acceptance and acceptance by peer-intimates and
nonintimates do not differ significantly, there are significant differences,
however, in means between peer-intimates and nonintimates on sociometric
scores. Table 7 presents these scores for peer-intimates and nonintimates
on all sociometric scores. This means that subjects give to, expect from
and actually receive significantly higher ratings from their peer-intimates
than from their peer-nonintimates. Also the discrepancies among the
sociometric ratings are significantly lower for peer-intimates than for
nonintimates. This means that subjects are more accurate in predicting
the ratings given to them by peer-intimates than by nonintimates, and also
that the subjects are more congruent in what they give and what they expect
to get on sociometric ratings from their peer-intimates than from their

peer-nonintimates.

46

TABLE 7
Sociometric Scores for Peer-intimates

and Peer-nonintimates,.g a 152

 

 

 

 

 

Peer-Intimates Peer-Nonint. Mean
Mean SD Mean SD Dif. t**
FIRST TESTING
1. AAOP 93.43 5.88 69.76 11.66 23.66 27.19
2. EABP 91.67 6.18 65.74 10.44 25.93 31.35
3. AABP 93.56 6.94 70.01 8.23 23.56 32.82
4. EAOP 91.80 5.47 65.19 5.96 26.61 42.84
DISCREPANCIES
5. AAOP-RAB? 5.28 5.35 11.24 5.16 5.96 12.41
6. AAOP-AABP 7.24 6.55 18.29 6.19 11.05 16.94
7- AAOP-EAOP 7.41 5.28 17.02 5.83 9.61 15.18
8. EABP-AABP 7.14 5.19 16.66 4.57 9.53 17.73
9. EABP-EAOP 6.43 4.56 14.84 4.82 8.41 15.14
10. AABP-EAOP 5.24 3.94 11.01 3.14 5. 8 14.51
SECOND TESTING
1. AAOP 93.98 5.63 70.82 12.22 23.16 25.34
2. EAOP 91.95 6.41 67.74 10.77 24.20 26.41
3. AABP 93.99 6.53 70.72 8.89 23.27 31.11
4. EAOP 92.26 5.25 66.24 6.51 26.01 42.88
DISCREPANCIES
5. AAOP-EABP 4.70 4.92 10.22 5.54 5.52 9.86
6. AAOP-AABP 6.52 6.29 18.81 6.09 12.29 7.98
7. AAOP-EAOP 6.91 4.92 17.12 5.38 10.22 15.86
8. EABP-AABP 7.49 6.11 17.22 5.33 9.73 15.54
9. EABP-EAOP 7.12 5.33 14.76 4.81 7.64 12.20
10. AABP-EAOP 4.64 4.51 10.41 3.18 5.78 12.92
Note: **p<0.001 for all t's

AAOP - Actual acceptance of peers
EABP - Expected acceptance by peers
AABP - Actual acceptance by peers
EAOP - Expected acceptance of peers

47

~00

 

>>ow I monsmw onooonmsoo Om omonm
co m>wv I oxooonma onooonmsnm cw nomad

>>ww I moncpw onooenmsoo we omonm

m>om I oxomonoa monoonmono Om oomnu

mo

no

moonuwonwaonom

 

mo

  

moonlaoananwamnom

we
be
we
No
Ho
o
>>om abwm >>um m>ow >>oml >>owl >>Oml m>wwl m>wwl >>wwl
m>ww >>ww m>ow >>ww m>om w>ow

mwmcno N. moneoaOnnHo uoonou mow ooonuwsnwapnom one moonlsoswanusmnom. meson nomnwam..m I Hm»

48

woo

 

>>om I moncmw moomvnmaoo Om ooonm
m>mm mxoonnoa mnomonooom we wanna
>>ww I mnncow moooonmano we wanna
m>om mxomonoa mnemonmanm Om women

we

we

go

meannesnwaonmu

 

mo

womnnsopuonwamnmm

  

we
be
we
No
HO
O
>>ow m>ww >>mw m>ow >>owl >>owl >>owu m>wwl m>uvu >>uwl
“bum >>wm m>ow >>ww m>ow Mbbw

wumeno w. moowoaOnnwo moonom non vomnawsnwsonou one ooonnsoowanwamnou. mooosa nounwsm..m a Haw

49

b. Correlations among self-acceptance and sociometric scores

Table 8 presents the correlations obtained among the various dependent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

measures.
TABLE 8
Correlations among Self-Acceptance and
Sociometric Scores, All Members, N_= 177
SA AAOP EABP AABP AW IMP
..______ p l J
-SA !_Q.79** 0. 4 0.33** 0.12 0.19* 0.02
AAOP 0.60** 0.77** 0.32** 0.42** 0 24**
EABP 0.63** 0.41** ‘0.60** 0.27**
AABP 0.81** 0.24** 0.22**
AW 0.21** 0.14
mp 0.66m

 

 

 

Note:

Correlations presented are averaged over the
first and second testing.

Diagonal
SA

AAOP
EABP
AABP

AW

IMP

*p<0.05
**p<0.01

reliability coefficients
Self-acceptance
Actual acceptance of peers
Expected acceptance by peers
Actual acceptance by peers
Awareness.0f acceptance by peers
Importance of the group

The results presented in Table 8 are supportive of the following

conclusions:

--self-acceptance is significantly positively related to expected accep-

tance by peers and to awareness of acceptance by peers;

—-actual acceptance of peers is significantly positively related to expected

acceptance by peers, actual acceptance by peers, awareness of acceptance

50

by peers, and importance of the group as seen by the individual;
--expected acceptance by peers is significantly positively related to
actual acceptance by peers, awareness of acceptance and importance of the
group as seen by the individual;

--actual acceptance by peers is significantly positively related to aware-
ness of acceptance by peers, and importance of the group as seen by the
individual.

The correlations among various dependent measures based on the scores
for peer-intimates, and nonintimates, have a pattern similar to the correla-
tions based on the scores for all members (i.e., Table 8). Since there
are no significant differences in the correlations between all members on
the one hand, and peer—intimates or nonintimates on the other hand, the
above conclusions may also apply to peer-intimates and nonintimates.
Implications of these findings will be discussed in the final part of the

next chapter.

D. DISCUSSION

The discussion will be focused on two basic questions: first, what

are the factors that may account for the lack of positive results concerning
the hypothesized relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by
peers? And second, what are the implications of the additional findings
from the study?
1. Self-acceptance and Acceptance by Peers

Given that there are no significant synchronous and cross-lagged correla-
tions between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers, and assuming that
these findings are indicative of the exigting reality and not artifacts, the
followingk/threek¥/factors may serve as possible explanations for the

results:

(1) Self-acceptance lg stabilized §£_age twenty. The average age of the

 

 

 

subjects of the study at the time of the first testing was 20 years and

4 months. It may be assumed that self-acceptance is fairly stabilized at
this age, and may not be influenced significantly by acceptance by peers.
That is, the significant influences of acceptance by peers on self—accep-
tance may very well take place earlier in life.

Psychologically the sorority girls of the study are in a transition
period, before assuming a responsible adult life role. Engel (1959) has
found that the self-concept is pretty stabilized by the time of adolescence.
For sorority girls adolescence is ending, and the college period is the

time of preparation for the future. Sorority life may be seen as something

51

52

temporary, with the main attention focused on the future family life and
husband. The data of the present study confirm this. Thus, among the
ten listed goals in life, "being successful in family life (husband,
children)" was ranked on both testings as most important by the study
subjects. The fact that main attention is focused on the future (and the
present is possibly seen as something temporary) may be a partial
explanation of the lack of findings.

(2) The sorority pg §_peer-intimate group. Table 7 and Figures 2 and 3

 

 

demonstrate clearly that a person is accepted significantly more by his
peer—intimates than by his peer-nonintimates. The fact that the scores

on acceptance by peers are very high even when all members in the sorority
are considered, suggests that the sorority as a group may serve a peer-
intimate group function for its members when compared with the other groups
in which sorority girls may be members. The sorority appears to be a

group where a high degree of mutual acceptance exists among the members.

It is also evident that the members of the sorority perceive it as a

group that highly accepts them. Thus the average expected acceptance

py_pee;§_is 70.88 on the first testing, and 74.55 on the second testing;

x

and actual acceptance by peers is 75.01 on the first_and 78.08 on the second

 

testing.

What is the possible impact of the fact that the sorority is a highly
acceptive peer-intimate group, (and that members are well aware that they
are highly accepted) on the relationship between self-acceptance and
acceptance by peers? It is possible that these two factors weaken the
influence of the acceptance by peers upon self-acceptance. Taking high
acceptance by peers in sorority for granted, the girls might be oriented

toward looking for other Opportunities to prove their self-worth; i.e.,

53

oriented toward other opportunities where both possibilities of being
accepted or rejected exist. Acceptance by peers in a situation where
rejection is also a real alternative may be more influential on self-
acceptance than is the case when only high acceptance is possible.

Also, it is possible that sororities may influence the self-acceptance
of the potential member before one is chosen and accepted as a member during
the rushing period. For this reason it may be fruitful to study self-
acceptance of those girls who are interested in entering the sorority before
they are chosen or rejected, and then following them through the post
acceptance-rejection period.

(3) Truncated rangg pp the "acceptance py_peers" variable. Although the

 

 

 

sociometric rating scale was from 0-100, the subjects in the study used
only a restricted range of the responses on the rating scale. Means and
standard deviations for the acceptance by peers variable (R = 75.01,

SD - 7.60 on the first, and E . 78.08, SD ' 7.68 on the second testing)
indicate that the subjects have used only the upper (positive) part of the
rating scale. This fact itself may have had an influence on the correla-
tions.

It may be argued, however, that although the subjects have used a
restricted range of ratings, the rank-order raltions among ratings still
exists. If the assumption of the relationship between self—acceptance and
acceptance by peers is correct, then the results should reveal that rela-
tionship even with a truncated range of scores. This argument is sensible,
but also it is true that even taken for granted that rank-order relations
among ratings exist, they exist only for the upper (positive) part of the
rating scale. The other parts of the rating scale (the indifference and

rejection regions) were not used at all by the study subjects. The lack

54

of use of the indifference and rejection parts, especially in light of the
facts that the sorority functions as a peer—intimate group for its members,
may account for some of the results. It is possible that the relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers would be different if
ratings of indifference and rejection were present and felt by the subjects
and reflected in their responses.

It is likely that the lack of significant linear and curvilinear
relationships between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers has resulted
from the joint influence of the above three factors, rather than from the
separate influence of any of them. However it is possible to speculate
on the relative potency of these factors in influencing the results. The
fact that self—acceptance appears to be fairly stabilized at age twenty,
seems to play a major role. Thus the prevalent high acceptance by peers
in the studied sororities was not influential enough to increase the self-
acceptance among those low self-accepted subjects at age twenty or over.
The fact that the sorority accepts its members highly, that the members
are aware of it, and that the sorority plays in a sense a peer-intimate
group function for the members appears also to have had strong impact on
the obtained results. The truncated range of values on the "acceptance

' variable is a direct consequence of this peer-intimate group

by peers'
function of sororities for their members. Future research should take
these factors into consideration.

The discussion so far has focused on speculation about the possible
factors that have accounted for the lack of empirical evidence for the
hypothesized positive relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance

by peers. The results of this study may be approached also from a dif-

ferent point of view. That is, the results demonstrate undoubtedly that

55

there is no relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers.
On the basis of the findings of this study it is possible to identify
some groups where no relationship should be expected between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers. Thus, for groups that serve a peer-intimate group
function for their members, for groups where only acceptance by peers is
present and dimensions of indifference and rejection are absent, and for
groups composed of persons above twenty, the relationship between self-
acceptance and acceptance by peers apparently does not exist.
2. Peer-intimates and Peer-nonintimates

There are different degrees of interaction and acquaintance among
members in groups that allow identification of sets of peer-intimates for
each person. The finding that there are statistically significant differ-
ences on sociometric scores between peer—intimates and nonintimates,
obtained from highly homogeneous groups, such as these sororities were, is
supportive of the peer-intimate approach (Rossi, 1965) in studying the
relationship between personality and social interaction variables.

The present study does not reveal that self-acceptance is differ-
entially related to acceptance by peer-intimates as compared to omn-
intimates. This is best understood in terms of the fact that there were
no statistically significant correlations between self-acceptance and
acceptance by peers on any of the comparisons (i.e., all members, peer-
intimates alone, and peer—nonintimates alone). It is reasonable to expect
that persons may be differentially influenced by their peer-intimates as
compared to their nonintimates, in those instances where social interaction
variables are significantly related to personality variables. The obtained
differences on the sociometric scores for the peer-intimates and noninti—

mates (see Table 7) are supportive of this expectation, because persons

56

gg_accept and are accepted differentially by peer—intimates compared with
their nonintimates, and therefore they may be influenced differentially
by them.

However, in this study it was not demonstrated that a person's self-
acceptance is differentially influenced by one's peer-intimates compared
to one's peer-nonintimates. This perhaps resulted because of the lack of
significant correlations between self-acceptance and acceptance by peers
for all members. This lack of significant association between self-
acceptance and acceptance by peers was assumed to be a result of the joint
interaction of the following three factors: a truncated range of scores
on acceptance by peers variable, a peer-intimate group function of the
sorority for their members, and the relative stability Of self-acceptance
at age twenty .

There is another significant finding regarding peer-intimacy in this
study. It was found that the sets of peer-intimates and peer-nonintimates
change over time. The changes occur in regard to the number of one's
intimates (the number increases in this study), and also in regard to who
those are who constitute the set. Thus some persons remain among one's
intimates over time, whereas others are among one's intimates only for a
limited period. Those who remain over time among one's intimates may be
called core intimates and are perhaps preferred because they satisfy one's
deep need to be associated and to belong. On the other hand, those who
are among one's intimates only for a limited period may be called situa-
tional or functional intimates, and are perhaps preferred because they are
the best people to be with in a particular situation, activity or task.
Whether the core intimates are preferred because they satisfy deep person-

ality needs, and functional intimates are preferred because they fit best

57

into a given situation is an open question, since in this study there was
no data collected to answer this question on the empirical ground. However,
this is an interesting and researchable question that deserves to be
pursued in the future.

3. Correlations among Self-Acceptance and Sociometric Scores

 

The results presented in Table 8 allow some comparisons with the find-
ings reported in the literature.

The positive relationship between self~acceptance and acceptance of
others has been reported in a number of studies (Berger, 1952; Omwake,
1954; Sheerer, 1949; Stock, 1949; and Suin, 1961). A positive relationship
between self-acceptance and acceptance of others was also found in the
present study, but the obtained correlation was not statistically signifi-
cant. It may be speculated that the same factors that have accounted for
nonsignificant relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance by
others may have weakened the relationship between self-acceptance and
acceptance of others. It seems that the prevalent "sorority philosophy"
is that everybody accepts "her sisters" highly, regardless of her own or
their level of self-acceptance.

Mill's findings that those who feel inadequate, inferior, and dis-
satisfied with themselves are socially rejected (Hill, 1953) were not
supported in this study. It was found that the sorority girls were highly
accepted by peers in the sorority regardless of the degree of self-
acceptance. The fact that Mill's findings were not supported is perhaps
due to the differences in the two samples. Mill studied male students in
dormitories. and the present study dealt with sororities. It seems that
sororities are more tolerant of whatever personality deficiencies exist

among the members than is the case with male dormitory groups. In study-

58

ing the relationship between personality and acceptance by others, it is
indispensible to take into account the characteristics of the individuals
and groups that accept or reject, or are accepted or rejected.

Dittes' conclusion that "persons made to feel well accepted in a
group found the group more attractive than did those made to feel poorly
accepted" (Dittes, 1959, p. 82) was supported by the present findings.

It was found that the importance of the grOUP in the eyes Of the 1nd1V1dU81
correlates significantly positively with the expected acceptance by others.
If we assume that the expected acceptance by peers is, in a sense, felt
acceptance by peers, then Dittes is correct in concluding that the attrac-
tiveness of the group is partially due to the degree of felt acceptance

by the group.

There are some other findings worth discussing. Keeping in mind
reservations about the psychometric characteristics of the measure for the
awareness of acceptance (reliability of only 0.21, test-retest for 177
subjects over eight weeks), it is noticeable that the awareness of
acceptance by peers correlates significantly positively with self-
acceptance, actual acceptance of peers, expected acceptance by peers,
and actual acceptance by peers. These positive correlations are congruent
with the held beliefs that the psychologically healthier persons (more
self-accepted, more acceptive of and by others) have more accurate per—
ception of interpersonal relationships compared with psychologically less
healthy persons.

Besides that of very low reliability, there is one other reservation,
however, concerning the validity of the awareness of acceptance by peers
measure in the present study. The fact that the measure of awareness of

acceptance correlates very highly with expected acceptance by peers (0.60),

S9

accounting for 36 per cent of the variance, suggests that those girls who
tend to expect high ratings from others appear to be more aware of their
degree of acceptance by peers, because sorority girls tend to give high
ratings to their peers. The question is, then, whether more "aware" girls
are aware of how individual girls accept them, or simply are aware of the
prevalent "high-accepting" sorority philosOphy? It seems that the latter
alternative is more reasonable; one might then conclude that those who

are more self-accepting and more accepting of and by peers in the sorority
also have a more accurate perception of the group climate in the sorority.

The positive significant correlations between importance of the group
as seen by the individual with actual acceptance of peers, and expected
acceptance by peers are indications of personality consistency. Thus,
those who see the group as important to themselves tend to more highly accept
their peers, and to expect to be accepted more highly by them. The signi-
ficant positive correlations of expected acceptance by peers with self-
acceptance and actual acceptance of peers are also supportive of person—
ality consistency. Se1f~acceptance and actual acceptance of peers account
for about 70 per cent of the variance of expected acceptance by peers.
Thus, those who highly accept themselves and their peers tend to expect
that others will view and react to them in a similar way.

The actual acceptance by peers variable is significantly positively
correlated with the actual acceptance of peers measure and with the expected
acceptance by peers one. Actual acceptance of peers, and expected accep-
tance by peers account for about 26 per cent of the variance of actual
acceptance by peers. Since actual acceptance by peers is an independent
measure related to actual acceptance of peers and expected acceptance by

peers, these correlations appear to be valuable indications of the impact

60

of one's attitudes toward others on the others' attitudes toward him. The
behavior that is influenced by one's attitudes tend to provoke similar
attitudes and behavior in return. Thus those that highly accept peers and
expect to be highly accepted by peers (who supposedly behave congruently
with their attitudes) are actually highly accepted by their peers.

The positive correlations obtained among sociometric scores may have
resulted from the response set of the subjects. Sorority girls tend to
give high sociometric ratings, and to rate the sorority as a very important
group to them. Thus the average ratings of actual acceptance of, expected
acceptance by, and actual acceptance by peers are around 75 on the scale
0~99 and the importance of the groups has been rated 7 on average on the
scale 1-9. The response set on rating peers and the group highly is an

indication of the prevalent "high-accepting" sorority phiIOSOphy.

E. SUMMARY

The present study was designed to investigate the relationship
between self—acceptance and acceptance by peers. The basic hypothesis
was that there is a positive reciprocal relationship between self-
acceptance and acceptance by peers. It was also hypothesized that the
relationship between self—acceptance and acceptance by peer—intimates
will be stronger than the relationship between self-acceptance and
acceptance by peer-nonintimates.

A questionnaire, composed of a self-acceptance measure and socio-
metric measures of acceptance by peers was administered twice over an
eight week period to 177 college girls in residence in four sororities.

The cross-lagged panel correlation technique was applied to test the
basic hypothesis and the related ones. The correlations obtained were in
the expected direction, but were not statistically significant. There-
fore, the hypothesized relationship was not confirmed; it was concluded
that there is no significant positive relationship between self-acceptance
and acceptance by peers among college sorority girls. The interaction of
the following three factors was assumed to play a role for the obtained
correlations:

(1) Self-acceptance is a fairly stabilized characteristic by

age twenty; thus acceptance by peers is not as influential
a modifier of self-acceptance as it would be earlier in life.
(2) Sororities serve a peer-intimate group function for all

their members. Since everyone is highly accepted by peers
and is aware of it, the girls are perhaps motivated to

61

62

look for other opportunities to prove their self-worth
(i.e., they might be oriented toward Opportunities where
both possibilities of being accepted or rejected exist).
(3) A truncated range of scores on the acceptance by peers
variable (i.e., the absence of negative ratings of indif-
ference and rejection) attenuated the relationship.
Statistically significant sociometric differences were found between
peer-intimates and peer-nonintimates. Thus a sorority girl actually
accepts, expects to be accepted, and actually is accepted more highly by
her peer-intimates than by her peer—nonintimates. It was also found that
discrepancies among sociometric acceptance ratings were significantly
lower for peer-intimates than for peer-nonintimates. Thus a sorority girl
predicts more accurately ratings given to her by her peer-intimates than
by her peer-nonintimates. Further it was found that one's sets of peer-
intimates and peer-nonintimates change over time in regard to the number
of persons in the set and in regard to who those are who constitute the
set. The speculation was that those who remain over time in the set
(core intimates) are satisfying deeper personality needs, and those who
are in the set only for a limited period (functional intimates) are there
more Specifically because of the reinforcements offered by the situation,
activity, or task. These findings are supportive of a peer-intimate
approach in the study of the relationship between personality and social
interaction, since it is reasonable to expect that peer-intimates and
peer-nonintimates may have different impact on personality.
The following findings not directly related to the original hypo-
theses were reported:
(1) The awareness of acceptance by peers was significantly

positively related to self-acceptance, actual acceptance
of, expected acceptance by, and actual acceptance by peers.

63

(2) Significant positive correlations were obtained between
expected acceptance of guaers, and self-acceptance with
actual acceptance of peers; and between importance of
the group as seen by the individual and expected accep-
tance by, and actual acceptance of peers. This finding
is supportive of personality consistency.

(3) Actual acceptance of, and expected acceptance by peers
are significantly positively related to actual acceptance
by peers.

REFERENCES

Akeret, R. Interrelationships among various dimensions of the self concept.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, l959,_§, 199-201.

 

Armstrong, R. The Leary Interpersonal Checklist: A reliability study.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958, 14, 393-394.

 

Ausubel, D. & Shiff, H. Some intrapersonal and interpersonal determinants
of individual differences in socioempathic ability among adolescents.
Journal of_Social Psychology, 1955, 31, 39-56.

 

Berger, 8. M. The relation between expressed acceptance of self and
expressed acceptance of others. Journal o§_Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1952, 41, 778-782.

 

Block, J. The equivalence of measures and the correction for alternation.
Psychology Bulletin, 1963, go. 152-156.

 

Brownfain, T. Stability of the self-concept as a dimension of personality.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 21, 597-606.

 

Calwin, A. & Holtzman, W. Adjustment and discrepancy between self-concept
and inferred self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 11, 39-44.

Chodorkoff, B. Adjustment and the discrepancy between the perceived and
ideal self. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1954, go, 266-268.

 

Cline, V. & Richards, J. Accuracy of interpersonal perception: A general
trait? Journal of Abnormal and 306181 Psychology, 19609,§Qv 1'7-

Crowne, D. & Stephens, M. Self-acceptance and self-evaluative behavior:
A critique of methodology. Psychology Bulletin, 1961, go, 104-121.

Crowne, D., Stephens, M., & Kelly, R. The validity and equivalence of
tests of self-acceptance. Journal of Psychology, 1961, 21, 101-112.

 

Dittes, D. Attractiveness of group as function of self-esteem and
acceptance by the group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1959, 52, 77-82.

Dymond, R. A scale for measurement of empathic ability. Journal of
Consultinngsychology, 1949, 12, 127-133.

 

Eastman, D. Self-acceptance and marital happiness. Journal of_Consultiog
Psychology, 1958, 22, 95-100.

 

Engel, M. The stability of self-concept in adolescence. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, §§, 211-215.

Fiedler, F., Warrington, w., & Blaisdel, F. Unconscious attitudes as

correlates of sociometric choice in a group. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1952, 51, 790-796.

64

6S

Fitts, W. H. Tennessee Self Concept Scale, Hanual, Counselor recordings and
tests, Nashville, Tennessee, 1965.

 

Friedman, I. Phenomenal, ideal and projected conceptions of the self.
Journal of_Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 21, 611-615.

 

Gross, C. The construction and partial standardization of the scale for
measuring self-insight. Journal of Social Psychology, 1948, 2Q,
219-236.

Guerney, B. and Burton, J. Relationship among anxiety and self, typical
peer and ideal percepts in college women, Journal of Social Psychology,
1963, o1, 335-344.

Jackson, T. Errors in self-judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1929,
.13, 372-377.

 

James, w. The principles of_p§ychology. Vol. 1, Dover Publications. Inc.,
1950.

 

Kenny, D. The influence of social desirability on discrepancy measures
between real self and ideal self. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1956, 29, 315-318.

 

Kidd, J. Personality traits as barriers to acceptability in a college men's
residence hall. Journal of Social Psychology, 1953, 3Q, 127-130.

 

Klausner, S. Social class and self concept. Journal of Social Psychology,
1953 , _3_§, 201-205.

 

Lepine, L. & Chodorkoff, B. Goal setting behavior, expressed feelings
of adequacy and the correspondence between perceived and ideal self.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1955, 11, 395-397.

 

Lockwood, D. & Guerney, B. Identification and empathy in relation to self
dissatisfaction and adjustment. Joornal of Abnormel and Social
Psychology, 1962, 65, 343-347.

 

Lowe, C. The self-concept: fact or artifact. Psychological Bulletin, 1961,
EB, 325-336. ‘

 

Lundy, R., Katkowsky, W., Cromwell, R., & Shoemaker, D. Self-acceptance
and description of sociometric choices. Journal of_Abnorma1 and
Social Psychology, 1955,_§1, 260—262.

 

 

Mann, R. A review of the relationships between personality and performance
in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, go, 241—270.

 

 

Marlowe, D. & Gergen, K. Personality and social interaction. In C- Lindzey
and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of_social psychology, Vol. III.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

 

Martire, J. & Hornberger, R. Self—congruence by sex and between sexes in a
"normal" population. Journal of_Clinical Psychology, 1957,_13, 288-291.

66

Mill, G. Personality patterns of socially accepted and socially rejected
male college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State College, 1953.

Nahinsky, 1- The relationship between the self-concept and ideal—self
concept as a measure of adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1958, ii, 360—364.

 

Newcomb, T. M. The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1961.

 

Norman, R. The interrelationships among acceptance-rejection, self-other
identity, insight into self and realistic perception of others.
Journal gf_Socia1 PsyChOIOgy, 1953, 31, 205-235.

Omwake, K. The relation between acceptance of self and acceptance of others
shown by three personality inventories. Journa1_o§ Consulting
Psychology, 1954, 18, 443-446.

 

 

Raimy, V. Self-consistence in counseling interviews. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 194°, 12, 153-163.

 

 

Rozelle,R. M. & Campbell, D. T. More plausible rival hypotheses in the

cross-lagged panel correlation technique. Psychologica1 Bulletin, 1971,

 

Rosenberg, M. Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, N. J.:
Princeton University Press, 1965.

 

Rossi, P. H. Research strategies in measuring peer group influence. In
T. H. Newcomb & E. K. Wilson (Eds.), College peer groupg, Chicago:
AdIiue Publishing Co., 1966. Pp. 190-214.

Sheerer, E. An analysis of the relationship between acceptance and respect
for self and others. Journal of_Consultiog_Psychology, 1948,'13,
169-175.

 

Singer, E. An investigation of some aspects of empathic behavior. American
Psychologist, 1951, 9, 309-310.

 

Smith, G. Six measures of self-concept discrepancy and instability: their
interrelations, reliability and relations to other personality measures.
Journal of Consultiog Psychology, 1958, 22, 101—112.

 

Stock, D. An investigation into the interrelations between the self-concept
and feelings toward other persons and groups. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1949, 13, 176-180.

 

 

Suinn, R. The relationship between self-acceptance and acceptance of others
A learning theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyohology,
1961, 63, 37-42.

 

 

67

Taylor, 0. Changes in the self-concept without psychotherapy. Journal
of Consultigg Psychology, l955,_12, 205-209.

 

Todoroski, N. Prifatenost vo grupata i dimenziite na nevrotiEnost i
ekstrovertnost kaj litnosta,Prosvetno delo, 1968, No. 3-4, Skopje.
(Acceptance by the group and personality dimensions of neuroticism
and extroversion).

 

Webb, W. Self-evaluation compared with group evaluations. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1952, lo, 305-307.

 

Wylie, R. C. The self concept: .A critical survey of pertinent research
literature. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

 

APPENDICES
1. Introductory letter to all subjects
2. Questionnaire

3. Front page of questionnaire on second testing

APPENDIX 1

INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO ALL SUBJECTS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY September, 1970
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

To all girls living in the sororities*

Dear Students:

Let me first introduce myself. I am Naum Todoroski, Assistant
Professor at the University of Skepje--Yugoslavia, on leave, and presently
involved in the doctoral program in the Department of Psychology at MSU.

I am writing this letter in order to describe briefly THE SORORITY
STUDY which I intend to conduct this fall at your campus. The study,
which will be the basis of my dissertation, deals with some aspects of
informal communications among sorority girls and will include four sororities
from .* After consultations with the Office of the Division of
Student Activities and the Alumni Advisors, it was recommended and approved
that your sorority be one of the four included in the study. I hope that
all of you will agree to participate in the study.

The success of the study depends entirely on your cooperation. We
will need about 40-60 minutes of your time to be spent in answering one
questionnaire. The questionnaire deals with your opinions and feelings,
as well as your perception of yourself and the other girls in the House.
The questionnaire is easy to answer, and I hope that you will find it
interesting, too.

On the ”035 convenient day for the girls in your sorority I will come
to your House to administer the questionnaire. It is extremely important,
for the success of the study, that all of you will be present in the House
at that time. I am aware that there are many other things going on on the
campus these days, but I hope that you will find time to cooperate.

Your answers will be treated with complete confidentiality. Nobody,
but me, will ever know what your answers are, and no respondent nor the
sorority will ever be identified in any way.

The sorority study has both practical and theoretical significance and
deals with an issue of interest to many of us. I hape that the findings of
the study will help in improving sorority life.

I expect that you will agree with my belief that the sorority study
may succeed only with full support and cooperation of the sorority girls,
and I hope to see all of you very soon.

Thank you in advance for your help and assistance.

Yours,

Naum Todoroski

 

*Names of the studied sororities and university are deleted.

68

APPENDIX 2

QUESTIONNAIRE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

SORORITY STUDY

Dear Student:

You are one of some 200 students from four sororities we are asking to
participate in the study of some aspects of the informal communications among
sorority girls. One of the long-term goals of this study is the improvement
of the sorority life. By finding out more about interests, background,
friendship patterns, and so forth we should be able to get a better under-
standing of how girls are able to get enjoyment out of living in the sorority.

This questionnaire deals with your opinion and feelings about a variety
of things-~your likes and dislikes, your friendship patterns, and your per-
ception of yourself and the other girls in the House. It should take about
40-60 minutes to answer all the questions. Since the questions deal with
your opinions and feelings, there are no right or wrong answers: every
answer which really reflects how you feel and what you think is a right one.

Your answers will be treated with complete confidentialityo Only 1 W111
ever know your answers, and even for myself I will translate your names into
a number code at the earliest opportunity. No respondent or sorority will
ever be identified in any way.

Your cooperation is very important for the success of this study. I
hope that you will be as Open and frank as you possibly can be in answering
this questionnaire. Your anwsers will provide a meaningful contribution to
the study. The potential findings have both practical and theoretical
significance and deal with a relevant problem of interest to many of us.

Thank you so much for your help and cooperation.

Naum Todoroski
Doctoral Candidate in Psychology

69

70
NAME

 

‘h-----

 

(Tear off when the name is trans-
lated into a code number.)
CODE NUMBER

 

P A R T I

Please record your answers ig_PART I_directlyno§_the questionnaire itself.

 

Let us start with some background data.

1. What is your current class level? Check (v’) one.

 

 

 

1. freshman 4. senior
2. sophomore 5. graduate student
3. junior 6. other (specify)

 

 

2. What is your major curriculum area? (e.g., music, agruculture,
engineering, etc.) Please write in.

 

3. What is your approximate grade point average? Check (yr) one.

 

 

 

 

 

1. less than 1.00 5. 2.50-2.99
2. 1.00-1.49 6. 3.00-3.49
3. 1.50-1.99 7. 3.50-3.99
4. 2.00-2.49 8. 4.00 and over

 

 

4. Since when have you lived in this House? (Do not consider rushing or
pledging period or other time of membership when you have not lived in
the House. Consider only the month and year when you entered to live
in the House; e.g., September, 1969; March, 1970; etc.) Please write
in.

 

5. Before coming to the University in what kind of a community have you lived
most of your life? Check (yr) one.

farm

village, 250-2,499 pepulation
town, 2,500-24,999 population
city, 25,000-49,999 population
city, 50,000-99,999 population
city, 100,000-199,999 population
. city over 200,000 population

H

 

N
o

 

w

 

g

 

O‘U‘

 

\l

 

6. How far is your home community from the campus? Check (,1) one.

 

 

 

1. less than 20 miles 5. 101-200 miles
2. 20-40 miles 6. 201-300 miles
3. 41-70 miles 7. 301 or more miles

 

4. 71-100 miles

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

71

To the best of your knowledge, what was your parents' total family
income for the last year? (If you are not sure, please guess.)
Check .C-V) one.

 

1. less than $6,000 4. $15,000-$19,999
2. $6,000-$9,999 5. $20,000-S29.999
3. $10,000-$14,999 6. $30,000 or more

What is your father's wage earning occupation? What does he do? (If
your father is retired or deceased, please indicate what his usual line
of work was.) Please write in.

 

 

Is he self-employed? Check (V’) one.

1. yes 2. no

 

 

Describe as accurately as possible what he makes or does in the job.
Please write in.

 

 

Does his job require that he supervise other people? Check (\I) one.

1. yes 2. no

 

 

If his job requires supervision of other people, how many does he
supervise? Please guess if you are not sure. Please write in.

 

How much formal education did your father receive? Check (y/) one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. some grade school

2. grade school graduate

3. some high school

4. high school graduate

5. some college or past high school

6. college graduate

7. finished college and additional education
8. finished graduate professional training

 

What degrees or diplomas does your father have? Please write in.

 

72

List yourself and your brothers and sisters in birth order below. Please
indicate their sex, and age. If you are not sure about age please guess.
Include all your brothers and sisters in the list, regardless whether
they live at home or not. (If you have deceased brothers and sisters,
include them in the list and write the years of their births and deaths.)

Brothers, sisters, fiSex Age, years and
and self months
lst

 

 

2nd

 

 

3rd

 

 

4th

 

 

5th

 

 

6th

 

 

 

7th

 

8th
9th

 

 

 

 

What is your religious preference? Check (v’) one.

 

1. Protestant 4. Agnostic
2. Catholic 5. Atheist
3. Jewish 6. Other (Specify)

 

 

How often do you attend religious services? Check (\/) one.

 

 

 

1. once a day 4. a few times a year
- 2 once a week or more 5. very rarely
3. about once or twice - 6. never
a month

How do you pay your present expenses for living and tuition? On the list
of possible sources below indicate the percentage to which each source
covers your college expenses. Please be as accurate as possible.

Sources Percentage (Z)
1. your own work now

2. your personal savings
3. loans

4} scholarship
5. parents
6. other (specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

lllll

 

73

19. How many times do you usually go to your parents' home during one academic
quarter? Check (v’) one.

 

 

1. none 5. five to eight times
2. once only 6. nine to twelve times
3. twice 7. thirteen or more times

 

4. three or four times

 

Now a few questions about dating-

21. Do you have a boyfriend presently? Check (v’) one.

gs? 1. no i 2. yes

22. How often are you with your boyfriend? Check (v’) one.

 

. no boyfriend presently g 4. a few times a week
. boyfriend far from campus 5. almost every day
3. few times a month 6. every day

wk

\J
‘\D

 

23. How often do you write to each other? Check (v’) one.

k

. no boyfriend presently 4. a few times a week
533 /Z{ boyfriend at the campus 5. almost every day
3. a few times a month 6. every day

24. How often do you speak with your boyfriend over the phone? Check (of) one.

4 no boyfriend presently 1.6 almost every day
.5'a few times a month <5 once a day
a? a few times a week ,617 several times a day

7H1
PLEASE CONTINUE NOW WITH PART II

U4

P A R T II

Please record your answers 12 PART II 25 the separate IBM-answer sheet.

 

 

First write your name on the IBM-answer sheet and then continue according to
the instructions.

The following statements are to help you to describe yourself as you see
yourself. Please respond to them as though you were describing yourself to

 

yourself. Read each statement carefully and then select one of the following
responses which you should record on your IBM-answer sheet.

 

Responses
1 2 3 4
completely mostly partly true mostly
false false and true

\OWNO‘J-‘UNl-i
O

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHgHHHHHHHHHH

partly false

have a healthy body.

am an attractive person.
consider myself a sloppy person.
am an honest person.

am a bad person.

am a cheerful person.

am a calm and easy going person.
am a nobody.

5
completely
true

have a family that would always help me in any kind of trouble.

am a member of a happy family.
friends have no confidence in me.
am a friendly person.
am popular with men.
am not interested in what other people do.
do not always tell the truth.
get angry sometimes.
like to look nice and neat all the time.
full of aches and pains.
a sick person.
a religious person.
a moral failure.
am a morally weak person.
have a lot of self-control.
am a hateful person.
am losing my mind.
am an important person to my friends and family.
am not loved by my family.
feel that my family doesn't trust me.
am popular with women.
am mad at the whole world.
am hard to be friendly with.

n

@235;

Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about.
Sometimes, when I am not feeling well, I am cross.

Pihihihihdhdhdhihihdhihi

am neither too fat nor too thin.

like my looks just the way they are.

would like to change some parts of my body.
am satisfied with my moral behavior.

am satisfied with my relationship to God.
ought to go to church more.

am just as nice as I should be.

despise myself.

am satisfied with my family relationships.
understand my family as well as I should.
should trust my family more.

am as sociable as I want to be.

75
Responses
completely mostly partly true mostly ‘ completely
false false and true true

48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

61.

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.

I
I
I

partly false

try to please others, but I don't overdo it.
am no good at all from a social standpoint.
do not like everyone I know.

Once in a while, I laugh at a dirty joke.

hihihdhihihihihihihi

am neither too tall nor too short.

don't feel as well as I should.

should have more sex appeal.

am as religious as I want to be.

wish I could be more trustworthy.

shouldn't tell so many lies.

am as smart as I want to be.

am not the person I would like to be.

wish I didn't give up as easily as I do.

treat my parents as well as I should. (Use past tense if parents

are not living.)

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH>HHHHHH

am too sensitive to things my family say.

should love my family more.

am satisfied with the way I treat other people.
should be more polite to others.

ought to get along better with other people.
gossip a little at times.

t times I feel like swearing.

take good care of myself physically.

try to be careful about my appearance.

often act like I am "all thumbs."

am true to my religion in my everyday life.

try to change when I know I'm doing things that are wrong.
sometimes do very bad things.

can always take care of myself in any situation.
take the blame for things without getting mad.
do things without thinking about them first.

try to play fair with my friends and family
take a real interest in my family

give in to my parents. (Use past tense if parents are not living.)

try to understand the other fellow's point of view.
get along well with other people.

do not forgive others easily.

would rather win than lose in a game.

feel good most of the time.

do poorly in sports and games.

am a poor sleeper.

do what is right most of the time

sometimes use unfair means to get ahead.

have trouble doing the things that are right.
solve my problems quite easily.

 

 

76

Responses
completely mostly partly true mostly completely
false false and true true

partly false

92. I change my mind a lot.

93. I try to run away from my problems.

94. I do my share of work at home.

95. I quarrel with my family. rT‘.
96. I do not act like my family thinks I should. .1
97. I see good points in all the people I meet.

98. I do not feel at ease with other people.

99. I find it hard to talk with strangers.

100. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. i a

 

The next ten statements are of similar nature as the preceding 100 statements;
they are to help you to describe yourself as you see yourself. Here you have
only four possible responses. Read each statement carefully and then select
one of the following responses, which you should record on your IBM-answer
sheet.

 

 

 

Responses
1 2 3 4
strongly disagree agree strongly
disagree agree

101. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
102. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

103. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.

104. I am able to do things as well as most other peOple.

105. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

106. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

107. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.

108. I wish I could have more reapect for myself.

109. I certainly feel useless at times.

110. At times I think I am no good at all.

77
PLEASE CONTINUE NOW WITH PART III.
P A R T III

Please record your answers 13 PART III directly so the questionnaire itself.

 

1. It is natural that we feel differently toward different peeple. Toward
some of them we feel favorable, toward some of them we feel unfavorable,
and toward some of them we feel neutra1--neither favorable nor unfavorable.
This question deals with how you feel toward other girls in the House.
First look at this scale:

 

0 10 20 30.1,, 40 50 60 7O 80 90 100~
most neither favorable most
unfavorable nor unfavorable favorable

In using this scale you will assign a value of "100" to a girl toward
whom you feel §s_favorab1e as possible; a value of "0" to any one
toward whom you feel §§_unfavorab1e as possible; and a value of "50"
to a girl toward whom you feel neutral, i.e., neither favorable nor
unfavorable. These are only illustrations, of course. You may not
want to use any of those particular values, and you will probably
want to use some numbers not divisible by 5, like 36 or 79. On the
next page you will find a list of the girls in the House, with a
blank preceding each name. First insert an "X" before your own

name, andrthen=insert in each blank whatever number, from O to 100,
that represents Ehe degree £3_which you feel favorable o£_unfavor§ble
toward the girl for whom the name stands.

 

 

 

One further point: avoid assigning the same number to many girls.

 

78

YOUR FEELINGS TOWARD OTHER GIRLS IN THE HOUSE

 

O 10 20 30 4O 50 6O 7O 80 90 100
most neither favorable most
unfavorable nor unfavorable favorable

79

Naturally you do not spend equal time with each girl in the House.
This question deals with how much time you spend with other girls.
Below you will find a list of the girls in the House with a blank
preceding each name. Put a check mark (v/) in the blanks preceding
names of girls that you are frequently with. You may check as many
names as you want, but remember that you should check names of the
girls that 223 age freguently with.

 

f v
. .

.14

3.

80

Usually we do not know equally well all the people around us--some of
them we know very well, some of them we know slightly well, and some of
them we do not know at all. This question deals with how well you know
other girls in the House. By "knowing well" we mean here that you know
the girl so well that you will be able to say pretty accurately what
kind of person that girl is (regardless of whether your feeling is
positive or negative). Look at the list below and put a check mark
(v/) in the blanks preceding the names of girls that you know very
well. You may check as many names as you want, but remember that you
should check only names of the girls you think you know very well.

 

81

Not only do we not know all the people around us equally well, but also
they all do not know us equally well. This question deals with how
well other girls in the House know you. Again by "knowing well" we
mean here that they will be able to state pretty accurately what kind
of person you are (regardless of whether their feeling is positive or
negative). Look at the list below and put a check mark (v’) in the
blanks preceding names of the girls that you think know you very well.
You may check as many names as you want, but remember that you should
check only the names of the girls who you think know you very well.

82

5. List six most important persons in your life presently from those that
you personally know. By "most important persons" we mean here those
people whom you most enjoy being with, whom you care much about, whom
you want to have a good Opinion and attitude about you, and who you
think play an important role in your life now. Naturally you may
include in the list any of the people that you know personally, regard-
less of age, sex, place of living, and nature of the relationship.

On the right side of the provided line you should indicate the nature
of the relationship with the person in your list (e.g., boyfriend, a

member in the same club, neighbor, school friend, relative, teacher,

etc.).

six most important persons nature of the relationship

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. There are natural differences among people in the degree of how impor-

tant it is for them to be well accepted by other members of the group
to which they belong. This question deals with how important it is
for you to be well accepted by other girls in the House. Please, by
circling one figure in the following scale, indicate how important it
18 for you to be well accepted by the other girls in the House.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
unimportant to very important to
be well accepted be well accepted

 

7. Not only is it natural that we feel differently toward different peeple,
but it is also natural that other peOple differ in their feelings
toward us. Some of them feel favorable toward us, others appear to feel
neither favorable nor unfavorable, and some of them feel unfavorable.
This question deals with your guesses how other girls in the House feel
toward you. First look at this scale:

 

O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100
most neither favorable most
unfavorable nor unfavorable favorable

In using this scale you will assign a value of "100” to a girl you guess
feels §§_favorable.gs possible toward you; a value of "O" to any one you
guess feels gs unfavorable gs possible toward you; and a value of “50"
to a girl you guess feels neutral toward you--neither favorable nor
unfavorable. These are only.illustrations of course. You may not want
to use any of these particular values, and you probably will want to use
some numbers not divisible by 5, like 27 or 83. On the next page you

 

83

will find a list of the girls in the House, with a blank preceding
each name. First insert an "X" before your own name, and then insert
in each blank whatever number, from O to 100, that represents your
guess of the degree to which other girls, for whom the names stand,
feel favorable or unfavorable toward you.

One further point: avoid assigning the same nuMber to many girls.

YOUR GUESSES OF THE FEELINGS OF THE GIRLS IN THE HOUSE TOWARD YOU

0 10 20 3O 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
most neither favorable most
unfavorable nor unfavorable favorable

Below are listed ten goals in life.
of importance that they attribute to each of these
goals in terms of their importance to you.
whichever one of the ten is most important to you,

84

People differ in the emphasis or degree
goals. Rank order these
"1" in the blank before
"2“ before the next most

Insert

important one and so on down to "10" for the one that is least important to

you.
8.

9.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

—-

being
being
being
being

being

successful in financial arrangements

well liked by other persons

successful in your family life (husband, children)
successful in your chosen occupation

intellectually capable and increasing your knowledge

living in accordance with religious principles

being

being

able to help other persons in this world

8 normal, well adjusted person

working» c00perative1y with people

doing

a thorough and icarerI 10b

Your comments, suggestions and criticism about this study and this question-
naire are not only welcome, but also they may help us to improve it in the
Please feel free to write them in the provided space below.

future.

Thank you again for your help and cooperation.

APPENDIX 3

FRONT PAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON SECOND TESTING

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

 

SORORITY STUDY

follow up

Dear Student:

This is a follow up of the sorority study that you are familiar with.
It includes the same questionnaire that you answered at the beginning of
this term. Only a few questions are omitted.

With this follow up we hope to find out how people's opinions and
feelings develop over time. In order to do this, we need to collect the
same material twice. We are again asking you about a variety of things:
your likes and dislikes, your friendship patterns, and your perception of
yourself and the other girls in the House.

Since the questionnaire is the same as before, you may wonder how to
answer it. This is not a study about your memory or consistency, and
therefore the only right answers are those which really reflect how you
feel and what you think RIGHT NOW, regardless of how similar or different
your answers are from those of last time.

As before, your answers will be treated with complete confidentiality.
Nobody, but me, will ever know what your answers are, and no respondent
nor sorority will ever be identified in any way.

I want to emphasize how important your cooperation is for the success
Of this study. All effort already put into it will be useless if we do
not complete it this second time.

Thank you so much for your help and cooperation.

Naum'Todoroski
Doctoral Candidate in Psychology

85

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
1|“WWIWWW"WWIIHIIHWWIHHI
31293104625235