t l

‘ ‘1 u ‘u
'1} ill"? I,
‘1‘ l }\
ji H‘M‘Hl
 '| WHI‘ w‘

W} W H ’i A." 5'
i i
u H H w J M»

l i

I

f

o—x ‘, H
\103 ix?

 

SUBEECTIVITY, OBJECTIVIW, CONHGURATIONAL
CONSESTENCY, AND THE MODEL OF "DYNAMEC SELF
I EVALUATEON

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.

MlCHlGAN- STA-TE UNWERSITY

CATHERINE WINSECK SNYDER.
1976

r QA‘ 3")

 
  
 

rf‘IJBRA P Y
,1'7’ Michigan 9 I!
. U215 ‘

9"

 

 

 

 

 

 

293 00007 7663

IQ fllllllfl llfl III III“! II" II“ I!” II II" flll “IIIIIIMII

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
SUBJECTIVITY, OBJECTIVITY, CONFIGURATIONAL
CONSISTENCY, AND THE MODEL OF DYNAMIC SELF EVALUATION
BY

Catherine Winseck Snyder

A model of dynamic self evaluation was presented which
predicted that persons categorized as subjective by the Con-
figurational Properties Scale (CPS) would have greater vari-
ance in self evaluation than those persons categorized as
objective. The CPS is a development in connection with the
Configurational Consistency Theory (CCT) formulated by Phil-
lips and Thompson. In subjective persons, the self has
strong relationships with other cognitive elements (people,
places, events, institutions, etc.). Objective persons are
presumed to cognize fewer ties between the self and other
elements. Twenty-five males and 35 females from Michigan
State University's introductory social science courses acted
as subjects in completing the various questionnaires. The
subjective group was found to have more fluctuation in self
evaluation than the objective group, as hypothesized. Subjec-
tivity-objectivity was predicted to be not significantly
correlated with sex, level of self evaluation, and interna-
lity-externality and these predictions were confirmed.
Predictions of no significant relation between internality-
externality and sex, level of self evaluation, and variance

in self evaluation were also confirmed.

SUBJECTIVITY, OBJECTIVITY, CONFIGURATIONAL

CONSISTENCY, AND THE MODEL OF DYNAMIC SELF EVALUATION

BY

Catherine Winseck Snyder

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1976

DEDICATED
with everlasting gratitude to Jesus Christ, the King of
kings and of all the "little peOple" who let Him be king
of their lives, Who provided the life, strength, and wisdom

whereby this thesis was created and completed.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is deeply indebted to Dr. James L. Phillips
and to Eileen Thompson for theoretical stimulation, assis-
tance, and patience. The undergraduate assistants and the
subjects were very cooperative and invaluable. The author's
husband's love, encouragement, and prayers were the most

essential ingredients in the completion of this thesis.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 O C O O O O O O 0

Results and discussion of psychometric properties of the

 

 

 

subjectivity and objectivity scales . . . . .

 

Results and discussion of the relationships between

 

 

subjectivityeobjectivity and other variables meas-

 

ured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Table

10

ll

12

LIST OF TABLES

Internal consistency
scales . . . . .

Reliabilities for all appropriate scales . . .

Relationship between

variance in self evaluation, as revealed in corre-

lation coefficients

Relationship between

scale and variance in self evaluation . . . .

Relationship between

scale and variance in self evaluation . . . .

Relationship between
jectivity scores and
tion 0 O O O 0

Relationship between

level of self evaluation,

tion coefficients .

Relationship between

self evaluation, as revealed in correlation coeffi-

cients . . . . .

Relationship between
self evaluation with
able . . . . .

Relationship between
self evaluation with
able . . . . .

Relationship between
uation . . . . .

Relationship between
uation . . . . .

Page
figures for all appropriate
. . . . . . . . . . 22
23
subjectivity—objectivity and
O O O O O O O O O O 24
scores on the subjectivity
25
scores on the objectivity
25
the combined objectivity-sub-
the variance in self evalua—
O O O O 0 O O O O O 25
subjectivity-objectivity and
as revealed in correla-
. O O O O O O O O O 28
level of and variance in
O O O O O O O O O O 29
level of and variance in
ELTI as the independent vari—
O O O O O O O O O 0 29
level of and variance in
ELSI as the independent vari-
O O O O O O O O C O 30
sex and variance in self eval-
. O O O O O O O O O 31
IE and variance in self eval—
O O O O O O O O O O 32

V

vi
Table Page

13 Correlational relationships between all pairs of
variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

INTRODUCTION

The concept of self-esteem has existed in psychology
since the time of William James (1890) and has been labelled_
with various names--for example, self concept, self evalua-
tion, regard for self, self-satisfaction, self-acceptance,
self favorability, and congruence (or discrepancy) between
self and ideal self. Hundreds of studies have been done
which either examined self-esteem; tried to find correlates,
causes, or consequences of it; or named it as a factor in
explaining results.

Intuitively, self-esteem is the answer to the question,
"What am I in my own right?" (evaluation of the self on attri-
bute dimensions.) The answer to the question, "What is the
relationship between my self and people and things in my
environment?" will be shown to be linked to self evaluation.
Many authors, Coopersmith (1967) included, considered self
evaluation to be a part of self-esteem. The model presented

here uses the terms self evaluation and self-esteem synony-

 

 

mously.

A review of all the literature relating to self-esteem
would be a major undertaking. Wylie (1961 and 1974) inte-
grates much of the literature, although many studies

1

2
tangentially related to the issue of self-esteem were omitted
in her review because self-esteem was not a central factor
in those studies. An investigation into the mechanics of
self-esteem and how and why it fluctuates may prove to be
valuable.

An obvious problem in a literature search concerning
self-esteem is that there is no single, universally-used
measure. Even the more popular measures (COOpersmith's Self
Concept Scale, Adjective Check List, Butler and Haigh's Self
Referent Items, etc.) do not purport to be measuring the
same construct. The studies to be cited here all labelled
that which they measured "self-esteem" or "self evaluation."
Various measures were used in these studies and no study was
found cross validating these instruments. Thus there is a
limit to the amount of faith that we can place in predictions
derived from the studies cited since they may not have tapped
personality traits and internal parameters identical to
those that are the foundation of the Model of Dynamic Self
Evaluation (to be explained shortly.)

Another problem present in the literature is that most
of it deals with "high" versus "low" self-esteem. Cooper-
smith (l967) at least recognizes the variance in self—esteem
within an individual, but does not attribute it to any source
or personality trait. The present analysis deals with level
of as well as variance in self-esteem and seeks to explain

the variation in self—esteem within an individual.

3

Self-esteem is viewed within the frame of reference of
cognitive consistency. The Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation,
based on Configurational Consistency Theory (CCT) as presented
by Phillips and Thompson (in preparation), will provide this
frame of reference. The language and functioning of the
model will first be detailed and the relevant literature will
be reviewed and interpreted in the language of CCT. Hypo-
theses will be derived as the literature is reviewed.

Phillips and Thompson have theorized that cognitions
are structured in the following way: There exist, for a
given person, many general topics or "domains.? These might
be thought of as areas of life, for example, home, school,
church, social life, and love life. Such a list cannot be
exhaustive, given the different ranges of experience of
different individuals. Within any given domain there are
"elements" (objects, persons, concepts, places, and insti-
tutions) which form the domain. Most or all of the elements
have relationships with all the other elements in that domain.
The "relations" are created by the encoding of information--
incidents in the real world (facts, knowledge, and connec-
tions in time and/or space) and by internally generated infor-
mation (hypotheses, ideas, theories, and private models.)
Note that the self-~or the phenomenal self, as Wylie (1961,
1974) refers to it--may exist as an element in various
domains, such as "people who live in my neighborhood",

"peOple in my socioeconomic class", " my racial or ethnic

4
group", "college students", "males" or "females", "things I
do", "people I like", "ideas I support", and even "places I
love."

When the self exists as an element in a particular
domain, the person maintaining that configuration of cogni-
tions is defined as being "subjective" with respect to that
domain. Persons who have the self as an element in a rela-
tively large number of domains are called "subjective" in
general. Likewise, when the self is not an element of a
given domain, the person is defined to be "objective" with
respect to that domain and is generally "objective" if the
self is an element in relatively few domains. Of course
there is a continuum from subjectivity to objectivity with
most people being classified somewhere between the two ex-
tremes of putting the self in all domains (complete subjec-
tivity) and putting the self in no domains (complete objec-
tivity.)

Within domains, individual elements are assessed accord-
ing to one or more criteria or "evaluative dimensions", such
as good-bad, competent-incompetent, warm-cold, strong-weak,
and talented-untalented. It is logical that, in a given
domain, certain dimensions would be more salient than others.
CCT provides for weighted dimensions, but, for convenience
and simplicity of measurement, the present model assumes
equal salience of all dimensions. Here, as in many other

cases, the present model is supported by a reinterpretation

5

of the theorizing of other researchers. Coopersmith (1967)
hints that persons may use several dimensions in evaluating
themselves as well as in evaluating other people, objects,
institutions, etc.

According to CCT, the relation between two elements has
to be equal to the sum of the dimension—specific constants
times the assessment of the elements on the evaluative dimen—

sions. That is,

rij=kglxkaikajk’ (l)
where aik and ajk indicate the assessment of elements i and j
on dimension k, Ak is a weight corresponding to the salience
of dimension k, d is the number of independent evaluative
dimensions in the domain for the individual, and rij is the
relation between elements i and j. Since we assume equal

salience of all dimensions in the Model of Dynamic Self Eval-

uation, Ak=l, for all k. Thus we have
rij=k§1aikajk- (2)

When new information is encountered relating two ele-
ments i and j, it upsets the balance of rijr aik' and ajk if
the new information is not consonant with previous informa-
tion. For example, if a person who is generally subjective
is informed that he performed poorly on a competence task,
the information is encoded as part of the relation between the

element "self" and the element "the test", perhaps in the

6

domain of "what I do." If this relation is not consonant
with the preexisting relation between the two elements, the
relation rij becomes negative, or at least less positive.
In order to satisfy equation (2), either aik or ajk on one
or more dimensions must change, where ai is the self and aj
is the test. One must also be mindful of other elements m,
n, and 0 which are likely to exist in the domain. The rela-
tions between elements i, j, m, n, and 0 must be consistent
on all dimensions, that is, the relation between any two
elements must equal the sum of the product of the dimension-
specific evaluations of the two elements. Thus, new infor-
mation may result in the juggling of the assessments of sev-
eral elements on several dimensions so as to maintain con—
sistency. Since there is no concrete external referent for
the self as an element whereas there may be such referents
for other elements in the domain, it is logical that the
evaluations of the self would be more likely to be modified
than the evaluations of other elements. Dynamically, a
person experiences something; he sees the relation between
elements change; consequently, he adjusts his evaluations
of these elements so as to satisfy equation (2), thus main-
taining consistency.

It follows that, for a person who has the self as an
element in numerous domains, his evaluations of himself would
change often, since new information is constantly being pro-

cessed; the more domains the self is in, the more likely it

7
is that self evaluations will change. Thus the self-esteem
of subjective persons would be affected more by new infor-
mation than would the self-esteem of objective persons.
According to CCT, self-esteem in the single domain x

is expressed in the following way:

Ox =k21Akask' (3)

where Ox is self evaluation in domain x; Ak is the impor-
tance of dimension k, as previously defined; 3 is the ele-
ment "self"; ask is the assessment of the self on dimension

k; and d is the number of independent evaluative dimensions

in domain x. For our model, this equation reduces to

d
ox -k§la5k (4)

since we assume equal importance of all dimensions. Overall
self-esteem in the model is then the sum of the self-esteem

from all domains in which the person is subjective, or

t
pglop’ (5)

where t is the number of domains containing the self and o
is overall self-esteem.

Cohen (1959) and Fitch (1970) link level of self-esteem
with fluctuation in self-esteem. .Cohen maintains that people
are either generally objective or generally subjective and
reveal that tendency in most domains tested, at least when

dealing with threatening situations. He stated that high

8
self-esteem persons exclude from cognition relevant aspects
of a threatening stimulus complex, i.e., they are objec-
tive in threatening situations. On the other hand, persons
with low self-esteem are more sensitive to threatening stim-
ulus complexes, i.e., they tend to be subjective in such
situations. From Cohen we derive one of the hypotheses
tested: that the self-esteem of low self—esteem persons
varies more than does the self-esteem of high self-esteem
persons, at least in negative situations.

Fitch (1970) speculated that persons with low self-
esteem tend to "internalize" or become subjective in all
situations, positive and negative. Fitch's high self-esteem
group was subjective in positive situations and objective
in negative situations. This evidence suggests that level
of self-esteem is not related to the strict amount of fluc-
tuation in self-esteem, but only to the direction of that
fluctuation in connection with the nature of the situation.

Let us consider these findings in terms of our model.
The persons in Cohen's study probably were maintaining cog-
nitive consistency: persons with high self-esteem attending
to positive information about the self is consistent, as is
persons with low self-esteem attending to negative informa-
tion about the self. Fitch's high self-esteem group main-
tained consistency in this way, but what of his low self—
esteem group? Were they being consistent when in negative

situations and inconsistent in positive situations? The two

9
studies can be reconciled more simply by postulating that
the persons with low self—esteem had lower self-esteem
simply because not all of their self evaluations were as
high as those of the people with high self-esteem; some of
the self evaluations may have been positive and others nega-
tive. Thus, it may have been consistent for them to be sub—
jective in both positive situations and negative situations,
depending on which dimensions were relevant in the situations.
Scales designed to measure subjectivity and objectivity are
currently being developed by this writer. They are part of
a larger instrument called the Configurational PrOperties
Scale (CPS) which will be discussed shortly. The objectivity
and subjectivity scales contain items which concern negative
situations as well as items which consider positive situa-
tions. Thus we have controlled for the findings of Fitch
and are in a position to test the prediction made.

Jones (1973) investigated the interaction between level
of self—esteem and the tendency to reciprocate evaluations
made by other people. He found that the higher a person's
self-esteem, the less he tends to reciprocate evaluations
made by others. Translated loosely into the terms of the
present model, we would say that the higher a person's
self-esteem, the less he tends to rely on the evaluations
of others in evaluating himself. Thus, when self-esteem is
high, people tend to be objective since they do not let the

evaluation of the self be affected by outside influences.

10
People with low self-esteem would then be more likely to be
subjective. We see that there may be a fundamental relation-
ship between level of self-esteem and subjectivity-objectiv-
ity. The Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation gives no basis
for such a relationship; Cohen (1959), Fitch (1970), and
Jones (1973) are the source of the prediction.

A scale called the Configurational Properties Scale is
now being developed, as previously mentioned. Phillips,
Thompson, and the author wrote the items in the scale. Its
seven subscales are designed to measure characteristics of
the ways in which people organize their cognitions. The
seven subscales measure objectivity, subjectivity, self-
love, self-hate, reflexivity, irreflexivity, and self exten—
sity, respectively. Only the first two properties are pre-
sent in the Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation; the others
deal with other constructs that are relevant to CCT. Twenty
objectivity items and 21 subjectivity items were pretested
prior to the present study. A cluster of highly intercor-
related objectivity items was chosen to comprise a tentative
objectivity scale. The same thing was done to obtain a
subjectivity scale. According to the model, subjectivity
and objectivity are significantly negatively related. The
tentative scales did not have a satisfactory negative cor-
relation (r = -.27, n = 160). Thus, when the present exper-
iment was formulated, all of the original 41 items were ad-

ministered along with 22 additional items. From the 63 items

11
then in the pool, two new scales were constructed, using as
data the results from the first administration of the present
experiment. The basis for item selection was a pattern of
significant positive correlations with other items in the
item's own scale agngll §§_a pattern of significant nega-
tive correlations with items in the opposite scale. The
scales compiled from the pretest did not contain the same
items as the scales constructed from the present experiment.
Therefore, the results of the pretest of the 41 items are
of little value and are not reported here. (A list of the
original 41 items, the 22 new items, and an indication of
the items selected each time for inclusion in the scales
does appear in the appendix.)

It is customary to investigate the relationship between
sex and the major variables of interest. Maccoby and Jack-
lin (1974) reviewed the relationship of sex with both sub-
jectivity and self-esteem. They cite McDonald (1968) as
implying that women invest themselves more heavily in affil-
iative relations with other people and are hence more vul-
nerable to self doubt and reevaluation of the self, at least
within the area of social skills, than men. Maccoby and
Jacklin conclude from this evidence that males invest them—
selves in struggles for power and status, that is, are sub—
jective in competitive situations, while females tend not to
be as subjective is such situations. When other variables

similar to subjectivity-objectivity were considered, (for

12
example, field dependence-field independence) sex differences
did arise, with females being more subjective. Thus, Mac-
coby and Jacklin's evidence is ambiguous in predicting sex
differences with respect to subjectivity-objectivity.

With regard to differences in level of self-esteem _
according to sex, Maccoby and Jacklin seem to suggest that
males and females differ on which dimensions are salient and
on average assessment on those dimensions, but, when self
evaluation is summed over dimensions, there is no difference
in level of self-esteem between males and females. It fol-
lows that the self evaluations of women would fluctuate on
certain dimensions, for example, pleasant-unpleasant, attrac-
tive-unattractive, while the self evaluations of men would
fluctuate on different dimensions, for example, powerful—
powerless (or potent-impotent), important-unimportant. As
long as both kinds of dimensions are measured, there should
not be any significant difference in the gross amount of
fluctuation in self evaluation between the sexes.

A review of the social psychological literature points
to the resemblance between subjectivity-objectivity and
internality—externality (IE), as defined by Rotter (1966)
and interpreted by other scholars. The definitions of the
two concepts are somewhat similar: internals view themselves
as having control over what happens to them; externals see
themselves at the mercy of outside forces; objectives permit

few outside forces to influence their self evaluation; the

13

self evaluation of subjectives is constantly fluctuating to
accomodate outside influences. Thus we might expect exter-
nals to be subjective and internals to be objective. In
order to determine if we were studying something already
investigated, we administered Rotter's IE scale along with
the CPS in the present study. No correlations from previous
work were available since the CPS is presently being intro-
duced to the field. Hence there is no empirical basis for
hypotheses concerning the relationship between subjectivity-

objectivity and internality-externality.

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES

The major purpose of the present study was to develop,
validate, and establish the reliabilities of the subjectivity
and objectivity subscales of the CPS. Much further work
with other models based on CCT presupposes a valid and reli—
able measure of subjectivity-objectivity. It was of course
necessary to conduct two experimental sessions in order to
measure the reliabilities of these two scales. The relation-
ship between subjectivity-objectivity scores and fluctuation
in self evaluation measures the validity of the subjectivity
and objectivity scales. The investigation of the relation-
ship between subjectivity-objectivity and other variables
(sex, IE, and level of self evaluation) was of secondary
interest.

A self evaluation scale consisting of 22 semantic dif—
ferential items from Osgood, Tannenbaum, and Suci (1957) and
10 original items was designed to measure the evaluation of
the self on several rather long-term characteristics of the
self. Eight more original items were used to measure some
more temporary dimensions on which the self can be evaluated.
All these items appear in the appendix. Osgood, Tannenbaum,
and Suci's items have been abundantly used, whereas the orig-
inal items had not been pretested.

We have noted that self-esteem within a specific domain
which contains the self is simply the sum of the self

14

15
evaluations on all relevant dimensions (equations (3) and
(4)). Since different events in life are encoded into dif-
ferent domains, it follows that self—esteem in various
domains should not be constant. Overall self-esteem is
simply the sum of the self—esteem measures in all domains
containing the self as an element. When we speak of self—
esteem or self evaluation in the model, we refer to this
composite of self-esteem from all the domains in which the
person is subjective.

Since all of us have information constantly coming in,
one might say that the self-esteem of persons who have the
self as a cognitive element in numerous domains would fluc-
tuate much more than the self-esteem of persons who do not
place the self in as many domains. The reasoning behind
this argument is that new information, if it is not conso-
nant with previously processed information, changes the
relation between the elements involved and forces a change
in the evaluations of those elements. Thus the evaluations
of the self as an element would logically change more in
subjective persons than in objective persons.

Phillips and Thompson maintain that people develop a
habit of being either subjective or objective and thus either
usually place the self in new domains, or refrain from
placing the self in the domain. There is some evidence,
however, from Cohen (1959) and Fitch (1970) that people

can differentially put the self in a given domain as a

16
function of the expected change in self-esteem. This evi-
dence was reviewed earlier. The subjectivity and objectiv-
ity scales of the CPS are designed to measure whether a

person habitually places the self in a variety of domains.

Hypotheses

 

From the Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation derived from
Phillips and Thompson's CCT, we would predict greater vari—
ance in self—esteem for persOns categorized as subjective
than for those categorized as objective. This categoriza-
tion would be done according to scores on the subjectivity
and objectivity subscales of the CPS.

There is no basis in the model or in CCT for predicting
a difference in the average level of self-esteem between
subjective and objective persons. However, such a predic—
tion is made, based on Cohen (1967), Fitch (1970), and Jones
(1973). According to these studies, objective persons
should be higher in self evaluation that subjective persons.

From Fitch (1970) we also predict a significant rela-
tionship between level of self evaluation and amount of
fluctuation in self evaluation. Fitch studied positive and
negative situations separately. He found that the self—
esteem of all persons in the positive situation was likely
to rise, but that only low self-esteem persons should expe-
rience a decrease in self—esteem in the negative situation.

It is safe to assume that most people experience both

17
positive and negative situations in everyday life. If the
self-esteem of high self-esteem people is affected only by
positive situations and that of low self-esteem people is
affected by both positive and negative situations, the self-
esteem of low self-esteem people would necessarily fluctuate
more overall.

No formal hypotheses regarding the relationship between
sex and other variables is made since Maccoby and Jacklin's
(1974) report of previous findings is ambiguous. No hypo-
thesis concerning the relation between subjectivity-objec-
tivity and IE is made since no empirical evidence was avail-
able on which to base such an hypothesis.

Stated formally, the hypotheses are:

(1) There will be greater variance in the level of
self-esteem, reflected by the measures of self evaluation
in persons categorized as subjective than in persons cate-
gorized as objective. This categorization will be done on
the basis of scores on the subjectivity and objectivity
subscales of the CPS.

(2) Subjectivity-objectivity will be significantly
correlated with self evaluation, with objective persons
being higher in self evaluation than subjective persons.

(3) There will be a significant difference in the
amount of fluctuation in self evaluation according to the
level of self evaluation, with low self evaluating persons ‘

having greater fluctuation in self evaluation than high self

evaluating persons.

18

METHOD

Subjects. Subjects were Michigan State University stu—
dents enrolled either in introductory psychology or one of
numerous other freshman and sophomore social science courses.
Two hundred fourteen students participated in the first ad-
ministration of the questionnaires and 77 of these returned
for the second administration. Twenty-five males and 35
females provided complete data.

Questionnaires. The semantic differential-type measure

 

which was used to estimate self-evaluation appears in the
appendix. The first 22 items of this scale were from Osgood,
Tannenbaum, and Suci's list (1957). The next 10 items were
original to the present research. These 32 items measure
rather long-term characteristics of the self. Eight original
items which were used to measure less stable self evaluative
dimensions also appear in the appendix.

The pool of items for the objectivity and subjectivity
subscales of the Configurational Properties Scale (CPS),
which was pretested by Phillips, Thompson, and Snyder, also
appears in the appendix. In the pretest cf the CPS, the
values of coefficient a for the objectivity and subjectivity
subscales were .64 and .84, respectively, and the correla-
tion between these two subscales was significantly negative
(r = -.34, p<.0005). The items selected for inclusion during
the pretest are indicated in the list of items in the

19

20
appendix. The values of coefficient 6 obtained from the
present study were .68 and .58 in the first administration.
As stated earlier, different items were chosen for inclusion
during these two testings of the items since different methods
for determining inclusion were used in the two different
testings.

Subjects' scores were tabulated on the subjectivity and
objectivity scale scores from the first administration of
the questionnaires during the present experiment. Subjects
were labelled as either high or 10w on the subjectivity
scale, depending on whether they scored below or above the
median on that scale. Likewise, a median split was performed
with the objectivity scale. The objectivity and subjectivity
scales were also used in combination for another partitioning
of the subjects. Each subject's score on the subjectivity
scale was subtracted from his score on the objectivity scale.
The subjects were then partitioned into an objective group
and a subjective group, based on a median split of these
calculated scores.

In the first administration, subjects took the CPS and
the self evaluation scale. In the second administration,
from two to six weeks later, subjects were asked to fill out
these two questionnaires again. In addition, another copy
of the self evaluation scale was presented. The instructions
for its completion were as follows:

Imagine that you had filled out the self

21

evaluation scale in this experiment once a day,
every day for the past 4 months. Thus you would
have evaluated yourself on each of the items many
times. We are interested in your most extreme eval-
uations. On the following form, indicate with a
check (/) the farthest to the left on the scales
that you would have evaluated youself. After you
have completed all the items, go back and indicate
with an x (X) the farthest to the right on the
scales that you would have evaluated yourself.
(Left and right refer to physical directions, not
to political positions.) After completing all the
items this way, go back one more time and indicate
with a star (*) the way you would have evaluated
yourself most often. When you are finished, each
scale should have a check, an x, and a star. Two
or more of these symbols may be in the same space,
if you want them to be, or they may all be in dif-
ferent spaces. Consider each item individually and
make each judgment independently. Take your time,
thinking about each evaluation, and be as honest
with yourself as possible.

Lastly, the subjects completed the Rotter Internal—
External Locus of Control Scale.

Debriefing occurred after the second administration of
the questionnaires and consisted of a full explanation of
the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. It was ex—
plained to the students that, since the scales were in the
process of development, little faith could be placed in
individual scores. However, further feedback, if desired,

would be available.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The correlations between all the variables measured
appear in Table 13 in the appendix. There were 60 subjects
used in all correlations. Table 13 contains the obtained
values of r, using the subjects' raw totals on all indepen-
dent variables.

The values of coefficient alpha, the measure of inter-
nal consistency used, appear in Table 1. All are very accep-
table values for scales of this size.

Table 1. Internal consistency figures for all apprOpriate
scales.

Variable First administration Second administration
(n=200) (n=200)

Subjectivity .68 .78
Objectivity .58 .80
OS .69 .54
Evaluation on long-

term items (ELTI) .92 .98
Evaluation on less

stable items (ELSI) .93 .87

All these values are acceptable. Note that objectivity has

the smallest amount of internal consistency.

1The variable denoted "OS" is the combined objectivity
and subjectivity score described on page 20, paragraph 1.

22

23

Results and discussion of psychometric properties 9: the

 

 

subjectivity and objectivity scales

 

Test-retest reliabilities, that is, the correlation
between the first and second administration of the scales,
appear in Table 2. All these values, except that for the

variable ELSI, are acceptable levels for reliability.

Table 2. Reliabilities for all appropriate variables.

Variable Reliability
Subjectivity .73
Objectivity .53
OS .64
ELTI .81
ELSI . 30

The obtained reliabilities require little discussion since
all but one of them are acceptable values. That one unac-
ceptable value is the reliability of ELSI (.30). A low
value is to be expected for this scale because, by defini-
tion, that which it measures is quite changeable when
compared to the other, more stable variables under study.
The major hypothesis (hypothesis (1)) states that sub-
jectivity-objectivity is significantly related to fluctua-
tion in self evaluation with subjective persons having
greater variance in self evaluation than objective persons.
Table 3 presents the correlations relevant to hypothesis

(1).

24

Table 3. Relationship between subjectivity-objectivity and
variance in self evaluation, as revealed in correlation
coefficients

0(ELTI) 0(ELSI)
Subj.(l)2 .22* .36***
Subj.(2) .38*** .56***
-Obj.(l) -.09 .01
Obj.(2) -.07 .04
05(1) .18 .19
05(2) .25** .27**

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01

We see from examining Table 3 that results of the sub-
jectivity scale when used alone support the hypothesis.
(Subjectivity and 0(ELTI) were positively correlated in both
administrations, p<.10 in the first administration, and
p<.01 in the second. Subjectivity and 0(ELSI) correlated
positively at the .01 level of significance in both admini-
strations.) We also note that the objectivity scale by
itself did not support the hypothesis (p>.10). The two
scales, when combined and dichotomized, correlated posi-
tively at the .05 level with both 0(ELTI) and 0(ELSI) only
for the second administration, thus weakly supporting the
hypothesis.

One-tailed t-tests were performed with the objectivity
and subjectivity measures. Dichotomized independent vari-
ables were used and the standard deviation of ELTI and ELSI

were used as the dependent measures. The results of these

2The notation "(1)" and "(2)" refers to the administra-
tion in which the measurement was taken.

t-tests appear in Tables 4,

25

5, and 6.

 

 

 

Table 4. Relationship between scores on the subjectivity
scale and variance in self evaluation

Dependent Adm. Subjective group Objective group t
variable n mean 0 n mean 0

0(ELTI) l 30 79.90 21.79 30 71.07 23.38 1.50*
0(ELTI) 2 30 80.71 20.38 30 70.26 24.12 l.78**
0(ELSI) l 30 21.62 4.76 30 18.92 6.71 l.77**
0(ELSI) 2 30 22.54 4.00 30 18.00 6.71 3.13***
Table 5. Relationship between scores on the objectivity
scale and variance in self evaluation

Dependent Adm. Subjective group Objective group t
variable n mean 0 n mean 0

0(ELTI) 1 30 78.61. 22.19 30 72.36 23.24 1.05
0(ELTI) 2 30 76.32 23.54 30 74.65 22.27 .28
0(ELSI) 1 30 19.67 7.15 30 20.87 4.42 -.77
0(ELSI) 2 30 20.02 7.42 30 20.52 4.02 -.32
Table 6. Relationship between the combined objectivity-sub-
jectivity scores and the variance in self evaluation
Dependent Adm. Subjective group Objective group ‘ t
variable n mean 0 n mean 0

0(ELTI) l 31 80.84 21.33 29 69.76 23.20 l.90**
0(ELTI) 2 34 78.62 23.27 26 71.39 21.81 1.20
0(ELSI) l 31 21.20 6.39 29 19.27 5.31 1.25
0(ELSI) 2 34 21.02 6.20 26 19.29 5.51 1.10
*p<.05, **p<.025, ***p<.0025

Subjectivity had a significant effect for both depen-

dent variables in both administrations.

no significant effects.

Objectivity had

When the subjectivity and objec—

tivity scores were combined by subtracting the subjectivity

score from the objectivity score for each subject, the only

26
significant difference was with 0(ELTI) in the first admin—
istration.

From the results of the t-tests we see that there con-
sistently were significant differences in 0(ELTI) and 0(ELSI)
according to the subjectivity scores (p<.05, p<.025, p<.025,
p<.0025). There were no significant differences according
to the objectivity scores. When the scales were combined
to obtain a subjective group and an objective group, only
1 of 4 t-tests was significant. (The test performed for
0(ELTI) using the combined scores from the first administra-
tion yielded p<.025.)

We conclude from these statistics that the subjectivity
scale as it now stands is effective in distinguishing between
subjective and objective persons whereas the objectivity
scale needs further work. It may be that the domains tapped
by the items in the objectivity scale were not those in
which college students, specifically freshman and sophomore
social science students, vary substantially with regard to
subjectivity-objectivity. On the other hand, it may be
that the self evaluative dimensions that are most relevant
in the domains tapped by the objectivity items were not the
self evaluation items used in the experiment. If either of
these conjectures as to the reason for the failure of the
objectivity scale is correct, properly altering the objec-
tivity scale and/or the self evaluation scale could solve

this problem. We note that using the objectivity and

27
subjectivity scales together yields weaker results than
using the subjectivity scale alone when considering the
correlation matrix (p<.01 for subjectivity during the second
administration, p<.05 for the combined scale the second
time. These significance levels hold for both dependent
measures.) Similarly, the t-tests (with 0(ELTI) as the
dependent measure) involving the subjectivity scale alone
yield more highly significant results than using the com-
bined scale (subjectivity yielded p<.05, p<.025; the com-
bined scale yielded p<.025, p>.05.) With 0(ELSI) as the
dependent measure, subjectivity alone discriminates better
than the combined scale (for subjectivity, p<.025, p<.0025;
for the combined scale, p>.05, p>.05.) We conclude that
the objectivity scale items probably tap domains in which
the self evaluation items used in our measure of self eval-

uation are not particularly relevant.

Results and discussion of the relationships between subjec-

 

 

tivityéobjectivity and other variables measured

 

Hypothesis (2) states that subjectivity-objectivity
and self evaluation will be significantly correlated with
objective persons being higher in self evaluation than
subjective persons. If this were true, the subjectivity
scale would correlate positively with the evaluation scales

and the objectivity scale would correlate negatively with

28
the evaluation measures. Table 7 contains those correlations

relevant to hypothesis (2).

Table 7. Relationship between subjectivity-objectivity and
level of self evaluation, as revealed in correlation coef-
ficients

ELTI(l) ELSI(1) ELTI(2) ELSI(2)

Subj.(1) -.04 -.l3 —.l4 -.l4

Subj.(2) -.13 -.26* -.15 -.07

Obj.(1) .03 .03 -.08 .00

Obj.(2) -.12 .18 -.16 -.18

08(1) -.04 -.10 -.02 -.08

08(2) .02 -.27* .04 .09
*p<.05

We see that this hypothesis is not supported. Two of
24 correlations were significant at the .05 level, with one
in the confirming direction of the hypothesis and one in
the disconfirming direction. All other correlations were
not significant. The two significant correlations involved
measurements taken during different administrations (the
subjectivity scale and the combined scale from the second
administration correlated significantly with ELSI scores
from the first administration.) If subjectivity-objectivity
and self evaluation indeed are related, the relationship
presumably would be revealed in measurements taken at the
same point in time. Recall that Cohen (1959) based his
conclusions on a different measure of self evaluation. Also
recall that we interpreted his conclusions in terms of the

Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation although he did not state

29
or test them in our terms. Perhaps we do not have identical
constructs; perhaps subjectivity-objectivity and self eval-
uation are indeed not significantly related. There is no
basis in our model for a significant relationship between
them. We reject hypothesis (2) on the basis of our results.
Hypothesis (3) considers the relationship between level
of self evaluation and the amount of variance in self eval-
uation. According to the hypothesis, we would expect signif-
icantly negative correlations and t values. Table 8 contains
the relevant correlation coefficients. Tables 9 and 10 con-

tain the t-test results relevant to this hypothesis.

 

Table 8. Relationship between level of and variance in
self evaluation, as revealed in correlation coefficients
0 (ELTI) 0’ (ELSI)

ELTI(l) -.09 -.20

ELTI(2) -.07 -.19

ELSI (1) -.ll -.43*

ELSI(2) -.09 —.13
*p<.01
Table 9. Relationship between level of and variance in
self evaluation with ELTI as the independent variable
Dependent Adm. High self Low self
variable eval. group eval. group t

n mean 0 n mean 0

0(ELTI) l 30 74.70 22.79 30 76.27 23.05 -.26
0(ELTI) 2 30 76.55 21.15 30 74.42 24.54 .35
0(ELSI) l 31 76.37 22.95 29 74.54 22.87 .30
0(ELSI) 2 30 73.81 22.09 30 77.16 23.62 -.56

*p<.05

30

Table 10. Relationship between level of and variance in
self evaluation with ELSI as the independent variable

 

Dependent Adm. High self Low self t
variable eval. group eval. group

n mean 0 n mean 0
0(ELTI) l 30 19.06 6.71 30 21.48 4.84 -l.57*
0(ELTI) 2 30 19.50 7.22 30 21.03 4.24 -.98
0(ELSI) l 31 19.25 6.48 29 21.36 5.16 -l.36*
0(ELSI) 2 30 19.85 7.32 30 20.68 4.17 -.53
*p<.05

The correlation between ELSI scores from the first
administration and 0(ELSI) is significant at the .01 level.
We see from the t—tests that ELSI yielded significant results
(p<.05, p<.05) for both dependent variables and that this
was true only for the first administration. These statis—
tics are in the hypothesized direction. All other correla-
tions and t-tests dealing with this hypothesis were nonsig-
nificant.

Our results dealing with hypothesis (3) are explainable
on the grounds that our measures of self evaluation were not
pretested. The correlation between our measure of self
evaluation and other, more widely used measures is unknown.
Thus, the null hypothesis that the amount of fluctuation
in self evaluation is not significantly related to level of
self evaluation stands.

Our other inquiries dealt with the relationship between
sex and other variables. We investigated the relationship

between sex and subjectivity—objectivity, the relationship

31
between sex and level of self evaluation, and the relation-
ship between sex and the amount of fluctuation in self eval—
uation. Sex did not correlate significantly with any of
the variables tested (see Table 13 in the appendix.) The
results of the t-tests involving sex are presented in Table
11.

Table 11. Relationship between sex and variance in self
evaluation

 

Dependent Females Males t
variable n mean 0 n mean 0

0(ELTI) 35 74.84 23.22 25 76.39 22.49 -.25
0(ELSI) 35 19.64 6.34 25 21.15 5.29 -.96

We see that the t-tests as well as the correlations
show no effect for sex. Two alternative conclusions present
themselves: (1) There is no significant relationship between
sex and the other variables; and (2) there is a significant
relationship between sex and the other variables, but our
scales counterbalance these relationships. We first con-
sider the second alternative.

We did not intentionally counterbalance our scales for
sex or any other variable. Theoretically, it is possible
to construct self evaluation scales for which one sex has
a higher level and/or more fluctuation than the other sex.
According to Maccoby and Jacklin (1974), certain dimensions
on which the self can be evaluated are more important to

men than women, and vice versa. If a certain dimension is

32

not "important" to an individual, that dimension would not
be present in any domain. Thus, there would be no evaluae
tion (equivalent to a zero evaluation) and hence no fluctu-
ation in self evaluation on a scale composed of dimensions
which a person, or class of persons such as a sex, does not
use. The dimensions present in our scales and the domains
relevant to our items appear to be equally shared by males
and females. We conclude that there is no significant rela-
tionship between sex and subjectivity-objectivity, self
evaluation, or amount of fluctuation in self evaluation.

Another variable briefly discussed but not mentioned
in any formal hypothesis is the variable internality-exter-
nality, as measured by Rotter's Internal—External Locus of
Control Scale (1966). Examination of Table 13 in the appen-
dix reveals that IE and subjectivity-objectivity, as meas-
ured by the CPS, are not significantly related. The t—tests
reported in Table 12 below also show negative results.

Table 12. Relationship between IE and variance in self
evaluation

 

Dependent External group Internal group t
variable n mean 0 n mean 0

0(ELTI) 29 76.19 18.18 30 74.99 27.03 .20
0(ELSI) 29 20.48 6.65 30 20.06 5.33 .26

We previously stated that, based on ideological simi-
larity, we might expect a slightly significant relationship

between these two variables with externals being subjective

33

and internals being objective. Since our results do not
support such a conjecture, further thought is required.
Perhaps the relationship between them is at a higher level.

If a person is objective in some domains and subjective
in others, he may eventually learn that he can control how
he evaluates himself by becoming either subjective or objec-
tive in a certain domain, depending on what usually happens
between the external referents for elements in that domain.
A pattern of positive events would raise his self evaluation
while negative events would lower it. We would postulate
that those peOple who are flexible with respect to subjec-
tivity-objectivity would score as internals on IE scales
since they in fact do control what happens to their phenom-
enal self. The simplest controlled investigation of such
an hypothesis would entail submitting subjects to positive
and/or negative experiences in order to measure the effect
of such treatments on self evaluation. The ethics of such
a procedure are highly questionable. Perhaps a large, semi-
controlled field study is the solution. Such an investiga—
tion would be worthwhile, though beyond the scope of a

master's thesis.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation presented here is
a derivative of Configurational Consistency Theory (Phillips
and Thompson, in preparation.) The basic premise of the
model is that people either habitually place the phenomenal
self in the majority of their cognitive domains (correspon-
ding to areas of their life) or they form a habit of not
placing the self in most domains. People who have the self
in many domains are labelled "subjective" and those who
have the self in few domains are labelled "objective." Two
scales were constructed: the scale labelled "subjectivity"
contained items worded such that subjective persons would
tend to agree with them; the objective scale contained items
worded in such a manner that objective persons would agree
with them.

The Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation further states
that people must have various evaluative dimensions in their
cognitive domains in order to encode events in the real world
and internally-generated information. These dimensions are
used to evaluate the elements (peOple, institutions, objects,
places, etc.) in those domains. A mathematical combination
of all of the evaluations of two elements on relevant dimen-
sions represents the relationship between those two elements.
When new information in input to a domain, it must be encoded
as a contribution to the relationship between the elements

34

35
involved. The absorption of the new facts is accomplished
by making adjustments in the evaluations of the elements
involved. Thus, if the self is an element in numerous
domains, it follows that self evaluation varies according
to the nature of incoming information.

The main hypothesis dealt with the relationship between
subjectivity-objectivity and the amount of fluctuation in
self evaluation. It was found that the subjectivity scale
was effective in discriminating between those who were opera:
tionally objective (that is, had little fluctuation in self
evaluation) and those who were operationally subjective
(people with large fluctuations in self evaluation.) The
objectivity scale made no such differentiation by itself.

The objectivity and subjectivity scales used in combination
yielded weaker results than did the subjectivity scale alone.

Other hypotheses dealt with the relationships between
level of and amount of fluctuation in self evaluation, sub-
jectivity-objectivity, sex, and internality-externality.
Except for the hypothesis already discussed, the variables
were found to be mutually unrelated, as predicted.

In conclusion, we maintain the premises and predictions
of the Model of Dynamic Self Evaluation. The subjectivity
scale is quite acceptable at this point. It has relatively
high reliability. Its high degree of convergent validity
was well established by its strong relationship with variance

in self evaluation. We suggest that further work be done

36
to develop a better objectivity scale. Such a scale would
consist of items worded such that agreement with such items
indicates objectivity. The failure of the objectivity scale

in the present study reflects deficiencies in that scale,

not in the model.

APPENDIX

37

Item pool for objectivity and subjecitivity scales

 

Those items in the subjectivity and objectivity scales
which were selected for inclusion during the pretest are
marked with a plus (+). Items selected for the final scale
from the results of the first administration of the present

experiment are marked with an asterisk (*).

Subjectivity:
+*1. The joys of life come from being involved in things.
+2. My opinion of myself changes from time to time.
3. Being a counselor or psychotherapist would drive me
crazy.
4. I prefer reading a good book aloud to someone over
reading it silently to myself.
+*5. Watching a movie usually alters my mood.
+6. I am a sensitive, empathic person.
7. Getting lost in a strange place can be a terrifying
experience.
8. I resent someone saying something bad about a person
I like even if I know it is true.
+*9. I can easily identify with a character in a book or
play.
+10. In order to help someone with a problem, I try to
see the situation from their point of view.

+*ll. I am very uncomfortable when people are mad at me

12.

+13.

+*14.

+*15.

l6.

+*17.

+18.

19.

+*20.

*21.

+22.

+23.

38
or annoyed with something I have done.
I don't enjoy sad or depressing books or movies
because they leave me feeling down.
I find that I can often predict a person's behavior
by thinking of what I would do in a given situation.
When I feel that I have acted badly or stupidly I
try to remedy the situation by making up for what I
did with the other peOple involved.
I like to be deeply involved with peOple and/or
things, even though I sometimes get hurt.
I often feel exhausted after a normal day because I
have been emotionally up and down so much.
When someone close to me hurts, I feel the pain too.
If someone criticizes someone or something I like,
I feel that they have criticized me.
When something I have done doesn't measure up to
someone's standards, I feel that I myself am less
than adequate.
In order to enjoy life, one must be involved so as
to feel the exhilaration of victory or the pain of
defeat.
It is better to break one's heart than to do nothing
with it.
I try to make things relevant to me.
When I watch a competitive sports event, I enjoy it

a lot more when I chose one team and root for them

39

throughout the game.

+24. A violent argument between two people I like is one
of the most upsetting things than can happen to me.
Objectivity:
*l. I can usually analyze my own problems in an impartial
way.
+*2. I prefer to figure out how to play a game over actually
playing it.
3. I understand my friends better than they understand
themselves.
4. It helps me to study a map before visiting a strange
city.
+5. At parties, I often prefer to watch than to partici-
pate.
+*6. Explicit documentaries portraying sexual relations
excite me more than a lover's caress.
+7. Often I am not a participant in my dreams or fantasies.
8. I am a hard person to get to know.
*9. I can usually view the world with a certain amount of
detachment.
+*10. It is very important to me to avoid becoming entangled
with other people.
+11. In order to understand a situation, I first try to

separate the truly important factors from all of the

less important details.

12.

13.

*14.

+15.

16.

+17.

*18.

+*19.

20.

*21.

40
In order for an author to write well about a personal
experience, he must be able to step back from it and
write about it from a distance.
I sometimes think about what our solar system or our
galaxy looks like from somewhere far out in space.
I feel uncomfortable when I read something very per-
sonal that someone has written.
I find it difficult to share highly emotionally
experiences with another person.
I sometimes feel that I am outside life, observing
others grow and live, but not participating myself.
I would rather watch or read an exciting story than
actually be in the situation.
My definition of myself is unchanging, no matter what
group of people I happen to be with at the time.
Nothing I do (work, school) is a part of who I am.
I would have pretty much the same personality that
I have now if I had lived in another century.
I often find it more difficult to recall experiences
that were tremendously involving for me than to

recall those from which I could remain detached.

The following items were administered during the present

study, but were not pretested. They appeared in random

order following all the pretested items. Starred items

were included in the final scales.

41

Subjectivity:

1.

People spend too much time trying to relive their

past--what matters is experiencing things now.

2. My Self is simply what I am, what I experience—-I
cannot talk about parts of my Self, of things or
people my Self consists of.

3. In order to be turned on by sexually explicit photos,
movies, or books, I have to imagine myself as one of
the characters.

4. I feel the need to understand only those things which
affect me.

5. When I hear about the possible disastrous consequences
of something (such as pollution or population growth),
it makes me feel so futile that I find it difficult to
act to try to prevent this from happening.

6. If I do not like a play or a movie, I find it hard to
see its good qualities.

7. I cannot separate what I am from my relationships with
other peOple.

*8. When I am entirely alone, I sometimes lose track of
who I am--I need peOple around to react and respond to.
Objectivity:
*1. In order to be truly wise, one must pay the price of
keeping life always at a distance.
2. Tranquility comes only with detachment.

*9.

10.

11.

12.

*13.

*14.

42

I enjoy working out complex problems simply because

it feels good to understand something completely.

I enjoy playing a game I like to play, even if I am

playing with someone I don't like.

Before I would go to a concert, I would try to find

out as much as I could about the pieces that were to

be played, about the composer, etc.

I learned at an early age to draw things--buildings,

roads, etc.--with perspective.

In the long run, theoretical psychologists-~those con-

cerned with developing theories of how people think

and feel--will help people more than clinical psycho-
logists who focus directly on therapy.

I am able to evaluate a painting or a piece of music

as being very good, even if I don't like it.

I would rather take pictures of scenery than of people.
"I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"
After I have ridden somewhere with someone once, I
can usually find the place easily by myself.

Being alone, with nothing to do but to think, is a
great luxury for me.

If I cannot be with someone I love, knowing that the‘
person cares about me is little consolation.

Memories preserve the illusion that experiences are
permanent, whereas all there really is is what is

happening right now.

CONFIGURATIONAL PROPERTIES SCALE

On the following pages are lists of statements. Read

each item carefully. On the separate answer sheet, indicate

how much you YOURSELF honestly believe that statement is true.

1.

I prefer reading a good book aloud to someone over
reading it silently to myself.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Opposites attract.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would like to live forever.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor

disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When something I have done doesn't measure up to some—
one's standards, I feel that I myself am less than ade-
quate.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am very uncomfortable when people are mad at me or
annoyed with something I have done.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

My opinion of myself changes from time to time.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

It is quite impossible that someday I may kill myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

The harder I try, the more I defeat myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Every person should have the right to commit suicide.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

43

10.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

44

When I feel that I have acted badly or stupidly I try
to remedy the situation by making up for what I did
with the other peOple involved.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Being a counselor or a psychotherapist would drive me
crazy.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

A violent argument between two peOple I like is one

of the most upsetting things that can happen to me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am a jealous person.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Self-inflicted pain can be a thoroughly enjoyable expe-
rience.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am my own worst enemy.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I like to collect mementos of places I have been and
people I have known.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

There can be no real pleasure in doing something harm-
ful to yourself.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

No good deed goes unpunished.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would never deliberately hurt myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I sometimes resent it when a friend has a good time
with someone else.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

45

I can easily identify with a character in a book or
play.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Most so-called "suicides" are really accidents.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

All things considered, I am fairly comfortable with
myself.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

The activities I engage in (my work, my studies) become
a part of me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Eternal life can only be obtained by dying.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

The experiences I have had are an important part of
who I am.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Often I am not a participant in my dreams or fantasies.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I enjoy books and movies in which a clever criminal is
undone by his own evil genius.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

My friends hurt me worse than my enemies do.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

It is better to break one's heart than to do nothing
with it.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

The enjoyable things I do usually are harmful to me.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

46

I try to avoid peOple who are strange or different.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

It helps me to study a map before visiting a strange
city.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am attracted to people who are very different from
me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I find it difficult to share highly emotional experi-
ences with another person.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Happiness is the chief cause of unhappiness.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I am having a really good time I often make an
effort to record the details of it--how things look
and feel, etc.--to help me remember it later.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

A person can best cope with reality if he realizes how
inadequate he is.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Logical thinking is the cornerstone of irrationality.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I have an experience that is very important to me,
I like to have photos, mementos, etc., of the experience
to keep.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would be incomplete without friends and/or relatives.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

47

My friends usually get along better with my enemies
than they do with each other.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Hero-worshipers are always the victims of their heroes.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Every great idea is ultimately self-contradictory.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When someone close to me hurts, I feel the pain, too.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

The joys of life come from being involved in things.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

After working in a place for a few months, the people
and the place become a part of myself.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

A man who has an affair with a married woman--or a
woman who has an affair with a married man--is just a
special kind of thief.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I resent someone saying something bad about a person
I like even if I know it is true.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

A good manager looks after the welfare of his employees
without becoming overly friendly with them.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

A piece of good advice is that everything that can go
wrong, will.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Efforts to end disease invariably lead to worse diseases.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

48

A bitter quarrel between two people whom I dislike is
a very pleasant experience for me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

If someone criticizes someone or something I like, I
feel that they have criticized me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Three world powers in constant conflict would be the
worst of all possible worlds.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

PeOple generally do what is best for themselves.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am fascinated by stories of the unusual, the bizarre,
and the macabre.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I watch a competitive sports event, I enjoy it a
lot more when I chose one team and root for them
throughout the game.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I can usually view the world with a certain amount of
detachment.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I sometimes think about what our solar system or our
galaxy looks like from somewhere far out in space.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I understand my friends better than they understand
themselves.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

49

I try to make things relevant to me.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Human behavior cannot be explained without assuming a
"death wish" or an urge to self destruction.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Each man kills the thing he loves.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I often think about people I knew in the past.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Freedom is the ultimate form of slavery.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Oddly enough, evil men tend to make better leaders
than good men.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Almost without exception, the things that are done to
improve the human condition actually make things worse.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I buy things I really like because they become a part
of me and express the real me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I prefer being the host over being the guest.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Sometimes it is only when I think about it much later
that I realize how important a particular event or
person has been to me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

If I wanted to completely change my personality, I
would get rid of all of my possessions and move to a
place where no one knew me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

50

Suicide is a mortal sin.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

In order to help someone with a problem, I try to see
the situation from their point of view.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

No matter how bad my life might become, it would still
be better than being dead.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

My definition of myself is unchanging, no matter what
group of people I happen to be with at the time.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I believe in the proverb that God helps those that
help themselves.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I have performed well on a task on which I am
particularly competent, I find it annoying to have
someone praise me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Nothing I do (work, school) is a part of who I am.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I can enjoy being alone because I enjoy myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Explicit documentaries portraying sexual relations
excite me more than a lover's caress.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I hate myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I don't enjoy sad or depressing books or movies because
they leave me feeling down.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

51

Watching a movie usually alters my mood.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Hypocrisy is the only genuine form of honesty.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am a hard person to get to know.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am a sensitive, empathic person.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Every institution contains the seeds of its own destruc-
tion.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Getting lost in a strange place can be a terrifying
experience.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Avid seekers of the truth are the most likely to be
misled by falsehood.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

A person has to like himself in order to accomplish
things.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

At parties, I often prefer to watch than to partici-
pate.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

My family "belongs" to me more than I "belong" to my
family.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I can usually analyze my own problems in an impartial
way.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

52

I like to be deeply involved with people and/or things,
even though I sometimes get hurt.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Survival is the most important of all instincts.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I often feel exhausted after a normal day because I
have been emotionally up and down so much.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Irony is the most important part of realistic litera—
ture.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Even though things may look bad for a time, good will
result.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would have pretty much the same personality that I
have now if I had lived in another century.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Birth is just the beginning of death.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I feel uncomfortable when I read something very per-
sonal that someone has written.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When someone whom I have known well suddenly is not
with me anymore, I do not need to "replace" them with
someone or something else.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

In order for an author to write well about a personal
experience, he must be able to step back from it and
write about it from a distance.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

53

I sometimes feel that I am outside life, observing
others grow and live, but not participating myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I find that I can often predict a person's behavior
by thinking of what I would do in a given situation.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

In order to understand a situation, I first try to
separate the truly important factors from all of the
less important details.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

It is very important to me to avoid becoming entangled
with other peOple. '
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would rather watch or read an exciting story than
actually be in the situation.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

In order to enjoy life, one must be involved so as to
feel the exhilaration of victory or the pain of defeat.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I prefer to figure out how to play a game over actually
playing it.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Even though I may do dumb or bad things at times, I
always respect myself.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

My most disturbing memories are of arguments between
my parents.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

All things considered, I don't like myself very much.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

54

I always take photos whenever I go on any kind of trip.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

After I have ridden somewhere with someone once, I can
usually find the place easily by myself.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Sometimes I realize that I think of the peOple I care
most about more as a part of me than as separate indi-
viduals to whom I'm relating.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

In the long run, theoretical psychologists--those con—
cerned with developing theories of how people think
and feel--will help people more than clinical psycho-
logists who focus directly on therapy.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Sometimes it is only when I look at a photograph I
have taken that I realize how beautiful the scene I
saw really was.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I cannot separate what I am from my relationships with
other people.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I feel the need to understand only those things which
affect me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I can divide the people I like into two categories--
1) those who are important to my definition of who I
am, and 2) people I like but do not care a great deal
about-~there is no in between.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I enjoy working out complex problems simply because it
feels good to understand something completely.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

55

A tree or a sunset or a mountain can be so beautiful
that in seeing it I make it actually a part of me.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would rather spend money on things I can keep, some-
thing I can have, rather than on experiences, such as
travel, which leave me with nothing tangible.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

 

In order to be truly wise, one must pay the price of
keeping life always at a distance.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

People spend too much time trying to relive the past--
what matters is experiencing things now.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

In order to be turned on by sexually explicit photos,
movies or books, I have to imagine myself as one of
the characters.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I have souvenirs from most of the places I have visited.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Before I would go to a concert, I would try to find

out as much as I could about the pieces that were to
be played, about the composer, etc.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I hear about the possible disastrous consequences
of something (such as pollution or population growth),
it makes me feel so futile that I find it difficult to
act to try to prevent this from happening.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Being alone, with nothing to do but to think, is a
great luxury for me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

56

Memories preserve the illusion that experiences are
permanent, whereas all there really is is what is hap-
pening right now.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Receiving a beautiful, loving letter from someone I
love is almost as good as being with the person.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

If an experience has been especially meaningful for me
I am able to remember it in so much detail that I can
almost feel I am re-experiencing it.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I could never really think of myself as a freak.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I enjoy playing a game I like to play, even if I am
playing with someone I don't like.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I have some sad memories--such as parting from someone
I love--which are as important to me as my happiest
memories.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am able to evaluate a painting or a piece of music
as being very good, even if I don't like it.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

My Self is simply what I am, what I experience—-I can-
not talk about parts of my Self, of things or people
my Self consists of.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

If I do not like a play or a movie, I find it hard to
see its good qualities.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

57

When I am entirely alone, I sometimes lose track of
who I am--I need peOple around to react and respond to.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I would rather take pictures of scenery than of people.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I often find it more difficult to recall experiences
that were tremendously involving for me than to recall
those from which I could remain detached.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

If I cannot be with someone I love, knowing that the
person cares about me is little consolation.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

"I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I know that a situation is one which will be very
important for me, I find myself viewing it almost from
a distance in order to record it so that I can remember
it later.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

Tranquility comes only with detachment.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I learned at an early age to draw things--buildings,
roads, etc.--with perspective.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I recall an important event in my life, remem—
bering involves picturing the setting, the time of day,
where each person was Sitting, what everyone was wear-
ing, etc.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

152.

153.

154.

155.

58

When I think about the important past events in my life,
I don't just think about the effect they had on me--
instead, I see the events as actually part of myself.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

I am the one who decides what defines me--what other
people say doesn't matter.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I have new clothes, I'm reluctant to wear them—-
I'm more comfortable wearing clothes that are more
familiar to me.

(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

When I'm alone, I find myself thinking about the past.
(1) strongly agree (2) agree (3) neither agree nor
disagree (4) disagree (5) strongly disagree

The purpose of the following scales is to assess your
judgments about yourself. You are asked to rate yourself
on each of these scales in order. Here is how you are to
use these scales.

If you feel that you are very closely related to one

end of the scale, you should place your check mark as

 

follows:
famous X : : : : : : obscure
or
famous : : : : : : X obscure

 

If you feel that you are closely related to one or the

 

other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should
place your check mark as follows:
famous : X : : : : : obscure
or
famous : : : : : X : obscure
If you see yourself as slightly related to one side as
opposed to the other (but not really neutral), then you
should check as follows:
famous : : X : : : : obscure
or

famous : : : : X : : obscure

59

60
The direction toward which you check, of course,
depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seems most
characteristic of you.
If you consider yourself to be neutral on the scale,

if both sides of the scale equally associated with your

 

judgment of yourself or if the scale is completely irrele-
vant, unrelated to your judgment about yourself, then you

should place your check mark in the middle space.

Important:

(1) Place your check marks in the middle of the space you
choose.

(2) Be sure to check every scale.

(3) Just check once for every scale.

(4) Do not try to remember how you checked earlier items.
Make each scale a separate and independent judgment.

(5) Do not puzzle over individual judgments. Give your

first impressions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

good : : : : : : bad

sociable : : . : unsociable
harmonious : : : : : dissonant

superior : : : : : : inferior

graceful : : : : : awkward
beautiful : : : : : : ugly
successful : : : unsuccessful
important : : : : : : unimportant

 

positive
strong
serious
active
complex
stable
reasoning
unusual
interesting
aggressive
competitive
SOphisticated
humble
objective
competent
popular
sexy
dexterous
potent
intelligent
mentally bright
coordinated
alert

creative

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

negative
weak
humorous
passive
simple
changeable
intuitive
usual
boring
defensive
c00perative
naive

proud
subjective
incompetent
unpopular
plain

"all thumbs"
impotent
"slow"
mentally dull
clumsy
dazed

unoriginal

Feelings toward the self
This is an opportunity for you to express how you're
feeling about yourself right now. Place an X in the appro-

priate space between each pair of adjectives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

up : : : : : down
pleased : : : : : displeased
satisfied : : : ' : : dissatisfied
comfortable : : : : : : uncomfortable
contented : : . : : discontented
angry : : . : : : calm
proud : : : : : : ashamed
good : : : : : : rotten

 

62

Imagine that you had filled out the self evaluation and
feelings toward the self scales in this experiment once a
day, every day for the past 4 months. Thus you would have
evaluated yourself on each of the items many times. We are
interested in your most extreme evaluations and your most
frequent evaluations. On the following form, indicate with
a check (/) the farthest to the left on the scales that you
would have evaluated yourself. After you have completed
all the items, go back and indicate with an x (X) the fare
thest to the right on the scales that you would have evalu-
ated yourself. (Left and right refer to physical directions,
not to political positions.) After completing all the items
this way, go back one more time and indicate with a star (*)
the way you would have evaluated yourself most often. When
you are finished, each scale should have a check, an x, and
a star. Two or more of these symbols may be in the same
space, if you want them to be, or they may all be in differ-
ent spaces. Consider each item individually and make each
judgment independently. Take your time, thinking about
each evaluation, and be as honest with yourself as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

good : : : : : : bad
sociable : : : : : unsociable
harmonious : : : : : : dissonant
superior : : : : : inferior
graceful : . : : : : awkward
beautiful : . . : . . ugly
successful : : : : : unsuccessful
important : - : : unimportant
positive : : : : : negative
strong : : : - : : weak
serious : : : : : humorous
active : : : : : passive

 

63

complex
stable
reasoning
unusual
interesting
aggressive
competitive
sophisticated
humble
objective
competent
popular

sexy
dexterous
potent
intelligent
mentally bright
coordinated
alert

creative

64

 

 

 

 

simple
changeable
intuitive
usual
boring
defensive
cooperative
naive

proud
subjective
incompetent
unpopular
plain

"all thumbs"
impotent
"slow"
mentally dull
clumsy
dazed

unoriginal

(For the remaining items, indicate the extremes of how
you felt about yourself during the past 4 months, and the
way you felt about yourself most often during the past 4

months.
uP
pleased

satisfied

Keep using the same symbols as previously.)

down
displeased

dissatisfied

comfortable
contented
angry

proud

good

65

 

 

 

 

 

uncomfortable
discontented
calm

ashamed

rotten

66

Table 13. Correlational relationships between all pairs
of variables

 

Sex ELTI (1) ELTI (2) ELSI (l) ELSI (2)

Sex 1.00
ELTI(l) -.12 1.00
ELTI(2) -.10 .81**** 1.00
ELSI(l) .17 .23* .18 1.00
ELSI(2) -.O3 .19 .25** .30*** 1.00
IE .16 -.4l**** -.39**** —.07 -.21
Obj.(1) -.09 .03 -.08 .03 .00
Obj.(2) -.04 -.12 -.16 .18 -.18
Subj.(1) -.08 -.04 -.l4 -.13 -.14
Subj.(2) -.05 -.13 -.16 -.26** -.07
0(ELTI) -.03 -.09 -.07 -.12 ‘ -.09
0(ELSI) -.12 -.20 -.19 -.43**** —.13

IE Obj.(1) Obj.(2) Subj.(1) Subj.(2)
IE 1.00
Obj.(1) -.07 1.00
Obj.(2) -.01 .53**** 1.00
Subj.(1) -.07 -.22* -.16 1.00
Subj.(2) .02 -.06 -.24* .73**** 1.00
0(ELTI) —.02 -.09 -.07 .22* .38****
0(ELSI) .05 .Ol .04 .36**** .56****

 

0(ELTI) 0(ELSI)

0(ELTI) 1.00
0(ELSI) .58**** 1.00

 

*p<.10' **p<.05, ***p<.02' ****p<.01

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coopersmith, Stanley. The Antecedents of Self Esteem, San

Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1967.

 

 

Cohen, A. R. Some implications of self-esteem for social
influence. in C. I. Hovland and I. L. Janis (Eds.)
Personality and Persuasibility, New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1959, 102—120.

 

Fitch, Gordon. Effects of self-esteem, perceived perfor-
mance, and choice on causal attribution. Journal pf
Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16 (2), 311-
315.

 

James, William. Principles 9: Psychology, New York: Holt,
1890, 2 volumes.

 

 

Jones, Stephen C. Self- and interpersonal evaluations:
esteem theories versus consistency theories, Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1973, 19 (3), 185-199.

 

Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin. The Psychologygf Sex

Differences, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1 74.

 

 

Osgood, C. E., P. H. Tannenbaum, and G. J. Suci. The Meas-
urement 9£_Meaning, Urbana: University of Illin01s Press,
1957.

Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept: A Critical Survey pf Per-
tinent Research Literature, Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press, 1961.

 

 

 

------ . The Self Concept, Revised Edition, Lincoln: Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press, 1974.

 

67

“11111 HEWITT 1'“