relation PDF

Preview

Summary

THE RELATION BETWEEN EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS1 EMANUEL M. BERGER Student Counseling Bureau, University o] Minnesota OTING a study in which Sheerer (5) relationship of attitude toward the self and at- N found a correlation between attitudes of acceptance of the ...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

relation Erin Massimi

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

A Mult it rait -Mult imet hod Approach t o t he Const ruct Validat ion of "Accept ance of Self" and "… Gene Glass A dark side of t he American dream Correlat es of financial success as a cent ral life aspirat ion Amy Percival Fruit s of Fear, Seeds of Terror: T he Polit ical Implicat ions of Psychological Aut horit arianism Chanchal Bhat t acharya

THE RELATION BETWEEN EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS1 EMANUEL M. BERGER Student Counseling Bureau, University o] Minnesota

OTING a study in which Sheerer (5) found a correlation between attitudes of acceptance of the self and acceptance of others, Rogers (4) has suggested that such a relationship would be of significance to social psychology. Such a relationship would imply that self-rejection may be a factor in individual hostility toward groups or toward other individuals. Fromm (2), for instance, sees the disproportionate hostility expressed against Jews in Germany as being related to a kind of cultural self-rejection which, in turn, derived from an authoritarian tradition of upbringing that tended to suppress spontaneity. It appears that such a relationship might supply social psychology with a principle which would be helpful in understanding and explaining problems of social conflict and hostility. However, before it can be used in explanation, there is a need to test whether or not the generalization can be made with confidence. The existing evidence is limited. For the most part, observations of a relationship between feelings toward the self and feelings toward others have been based on clinical experience alone, and only very recently have there been any attempts to study this relationship systematically. Alfred Adler (i) was probably among the first to make such an observation when he contended that "a tendency to disparage" arose out of feelings of inferiority as an overcompensation. More recently, Horney (3) has stated that the person who does not believe himself lovable is unable to love others. According to Fromm (2) we should love ourselves, for self-love and the love of others go hand in hand. Moreover, he proposes that a failure to love the self is accompanied by a basic hostility toward others which arises out of the suppression of the individual's spontaneity or of his "real" self. Other evidence regarding the

N

relationship of attitude toward the self and attitude toward others has come out of studies done at the University of Chicago under the influence of Carl R. Rogers. Rather than being generalizations from clinical experience, these studies have been attempts, to measure, by the use of rating scales, the attitudes of individuals toward themselves and others. The data have been statements made by individuals in recorded counseling sessions. Using the method described above, Sheerer (5) found a "definite and substantial correlation between attitudes of acceptance and respect for the self and attitudes of acceptance and respect for others." Part of a study by Stock (6) confirmed the results obtained by Sheerer. It should be noted, however, that seven of the same counseling cases were used in both studies. It appeared to us that there was a need to test this relationship with larger numbers of cases and more varied samples than had thus far been studied. The problem was thus twofold: 1. To develop a group instrument for the measurement of self-acceptance and the acceptance of others. 2. To test the relationship between these variables in a variety of groups, using the developed instruments.

METHOD Construction of Scales Definition of the variables. The following definitions are essentially those used by Sheerer (5), except that they have been abridged and slightly modified. The self-accepting person: 1. Relies primarily upon internalized values and standards rather than on external pressure as a guide for his behavior. 2. Has faith in his capacity to cope with life. 3. Assumes responsibility for and accepts the consequences of his own behavior. 4. Accepts praise or criticism from others objectively. 5. Does not attempt to deny or distort any feelings, motives, limitations, abilities or favorable quali-

paper was presented at Amer. Psychol. Ass., Chicago, 1951, and was abstracted from a doctoral thesis completed in 1950 at the Univer. o£ Pittsburgh. 778

ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS ties which he sees in himself, but rather accepts all without self-condemnation. 6. Considers himself a person of worth on an equal plane with other persons. 7. Does not expect others to reject him whether he gives them any reason to reject him or not. 8. Does not regard himself as totally different from others, "queer," or generally abnormal in his reactions. 9. Is not shy or self-conscious. The person who is accepting of others: 1. Does not reject, hate, or pass judgment against other persons when their behavior or standards seem to him to be contradictory to his own. 2. Does not attempt to dominate others. 3. Does not attempt to assume responsibility for others. 4. Does not deny the worth of others or their equality as persons with him. This does not imply equality in regard to specific achievements. He feels neither above nor below the people he meets. 5. Shows a desire to serve others. 6. Takes an active interest in others and shows a desire to create mutually satisfactory relations with them. 7. In attempting to advance his own welfare, he is careful not to infringe on the rights of others.

Selection of Items Using the various elements that made up the definitions as a guide, statements about the self and others were selected2 or constructed so that they conformed to these elements. It was decided that four items would be required for each element. This would be desirable in order to have the number of items usually necessary to give satisfactory reliability. Also, it permitted the matching of two halves of the scale for the purpose of obtaining matched-half reliability.

The Preliminary Scales The preliminary scales consisted of 47 statements on self-acceptance, 40 on acceptance of others. The statements were modified where necessary so that strong agreement with them sometimes received a high score, sometimes a low score. Items from both scales were mixed together on the same form. The two scales together may be considered a "form." At the top of each form were the directions which briefly stated the purpose of the test in a general fashion, told the subject (S) how to mark the I.B.M. answer sheet when responding to the scales, and emphasized that S need not put down his name, thereby encouraging him to answer as honestly as possible. Regarding the directions for marking the answer sheet, S was directed to blacken space one following an item number, if the statement on the test form was "not at all true of himself," space five if it was "true of himself." The intervening spaces rep2 A total o£ 30 items was selected for the preliminary scales from a list of self-references collected for study by Margaret Hartley at the Univer. of Chicago.

779

resented intermediate degrees to which the statement was true for the individual. The scales are essentially self-administering since all the directions needed to respond to them are on each form. Each S had as much time as he wished to respond to the scales. Scores for any item ranged from one to five. If a response "true of myself" (space five) indicated high acceptance of self or others, then that response received a score of five. The response "mostly true of myself" (space four) received a score of four for that item, with three, two, and one representing lesser degrees of acceptance of self or others. When the response "true of myself" indicated low acceptance of self or others, that response received a score of one, with spaces four, three, two and one receiving higher scores. The definitions were the basis for determining which response indicated high or low acceptance of self or others. The answer sheets were scored by I.B.M. machine, using keys prepared for the purpose of giving half scores on each scale. An individual's score on a scale was his total score for all items on that scale.

Item Analysis The preliminary scales were administered and scored for 200 5s who were students in first-year sociology or psychology. Such classes are usually made up of students with widely different socioeconomic backgrounds and vocational interests. Their ages ranged from 17 to 45. However, about 90 per cent of them were in the 17 to 30 age group. In doing the item analysis, those 5s whose total scores were in the top 25 per cent were compared on each item with those whose total scores were in the bottom 25 per cent. Thus there were 50 in each criterion group. The difference between the mean scores of the criterion groups was computed for each item. This difference was used as an index of the discriminating power of the item. The standard error of the difference of the quartile means did not exceed .30 for any item. All items used in the final form of the scales except three had critical ratios of 3.00 or more. The three had critical ratios close to 2.00.

The Final Form of the Scales The final selection of items was made on the basis of the appropriateness of the items to the element of the definition and discriminating ability. Thirtysix items were selected for the self-acceptance scale, 28 for the acceptance of others scale. Each scale of the test was divided into two matched halves. Items of both scales were then mixed together on each half in a random manner.

Reliability Matched-half reliabilities were computed for the groups named in Table i except for the two small groups of speech rehabilitation cases and counselees. The Spearman-Brown formula was then used to estimate whole-test reliability. These estimates of

;8o

EMANUEL M. BERGER would score lower on this variable. They did, the difference being significant at about the .02 level. Empirical evidence from other studies also suggested that prisoners could be expected to score lower on self-acceptance as well. The difference between the groups on this variable was significant at better than the .01 level. The small group of speech problem cases and the three counselees scored very low on self-acceptance when compared with college students of the same age, sex, and race. This difference, too, was in the direction expected on an a priori basis. The mean scores and standard deviations for the various groups are shown in Table i. A third kind of data obtained in order to get evidence of validity was that of a comparison of the average ranking of the members of the speech rehabilitation group (2V=7) by clinical assistants, and the scores of this group on the scale. This was done for self-acceptance only, the assistants using

whole-test reliability were all .894 or greater for the self-acceptance scale, except for one group for which it was .746. For the acceptance of others scale the estimated whole-test reliabilities ranged from .776 to .884.

Validity One approach to the validity of the scales consisted in having one group of 5s (N=io) write freely about their attitudes toward themselves, and a second group (W=ao) write freely about their attitudes toward others. Both groups used the elements of the definitions as a guide. No names were recorded, but 5s were instructed to write the same five-digit number on both the essay book and the answer sheet which they had previously used to respond to the scales. The paragraphs were then rated by four judges and the mean ratings for each individual were correlated with his scores on the corresponding scale. The Pearson product-moment

TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS SELF-ACCEPTANCE GROUP Day-Session College Students Evening-Session College Students Prisoners Stutterers Speech Problems at Univer. of Pittsburgh Adult Class at Y.M.C.A. Counselees

ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS

N

MEAN

SD

MEAN

SD

183 33 33 38

I35-50 142.63 128.45 141.36 116.43 128.77

22,36 13-43 23.09 27.70 11.30 26.57 10.71

105.15 106.39 101.30 111.45 98.00 112.38 100.33

14.38 14.87 12.89 10.79 10.90 11.83 7-45

7 18 3

correlation between scores and ratings was .897 for self-acceptance, and .727 for acceptance of others. Both of these correlations were significantly greater than zero. These measures were considered to be one means of testing whether or not the scales actually measured the conscious, expressed attitudes of the individuals. The average of the intercorrelations among judges' ratings was .869 for self-acceptance, .769 for acceptance of others. The second approach to validity involved comparisons between different groups. The group of stutterers was expected on both an a priori and an empirical basis to score lower on self-acceptance. Although their average score was higher than that of the large group of students, when they were matched for age and sex widi a group of nonstutterers, their mean was lower, the obtained t being 1.97. This was .06 lower than that required for the .05 level of significance. This suggests that age may be positively correlated with expressed selfacceptance. A comparison was made of the mean scores on acceptance of others by prisoners and by a group of college students matched for age, sex, and race. A priori considerations and also some empirical evidence had led to the expectation that prisoners

102.00

the definitions as a guide for their rankings. A rho of .59 was obtained. This was not significantly higher than might have been obtained by chance. This test, then, did not support the other evidence of validity.

RESULTS For the purposes of this investigation, an individual's acceptance of self was represented by his score on the scale for self-acceptance and his acceptance of others was represented by his score on the scale for acceptance of others. The Ss included 183 day-session college students, 33 evening-session college students, 33 prisoners, 38 stutterers, 18 adults in a class at the Y.M.C.A., 7 speech problem cases in a rehabilitation program, and 3 counselees. The procedure was simply to have the various 5s respond to the two scales. Data on the prisoners were obtained by the prison psychologist. Data on the stutterers at Iowa and Purdue were gathered by clinical as-

78r

ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS sistants there with the permission of the clinical director. All other data were obtained by the writer. The Pearson product-moment correlations between expressed acceptance of self and expressed acceptance of others is shown for the various groups in Table 2. All of the correlations are significantly greater than zero at better than the .01 level of confidence (p= .006 or less), with one exception. That for the "Y" group just misses significance at the .05 level of confidence (p= .06). These results permit us to hold with greater confidence the generalization that expressed acceptance of self is positively correlated with

and this serves to support and strengthen the theoretical considerations of Fromm (2), Horney (3), et al. to the effect that acceptance of self is positively related to acceptance of others. A consideration of factors which might lower the correlations seems to be in order. For one thing, the variables measured are "expressed" attitudes toward self and others. Thus they are subject to such distortions as we know take place in individuals with respect to both their perceptions of themselves and their perceptions of their own acceptance of others. Also, it appears that as a group, girls tend to score higher on acceptance of others for

TABLE 2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OP SELF AND EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS

GROUP Day Students Evening Students Prisoners Stutterers Y.M.C.A. Class

N 183 33 33 38 18

rw» .356 65 • 3 .556 .695 45 • 3

s

z ax

P

• 377 • 775 • 633 .848 .485

5-057 4.244 3-466 5.016 1.878

.00006 .00006 .0006 .00006 .06

* ^^self-acceptance; y=acceptance of others.

expressed acceptance of others, thus answer- a given score on self-acceptance. Probably ing the question with which this research this has a cultural basis, but in any event began. it seems likely that the correlations would What can be said of the results as a con- have been higher if the sexes had been septribution to psychological theory? Correla- arated and the sex differences taken into tions cannot tell us about causation, but on account. the basis of theoretical considerations disSUMMARY cussed at the beginning of this paper, selfacceptance can logically be assumed to be This study was undertaken to determine the more basic variable in the relationship. whether or not the evidence for a positive reWith correlations for the different groups lationship between acceptance of self and acranging from .36 to .69, residual variances ceptance of others would be strengthened by (i—r2) would range from 52 to 87 per cent. an approach using larger groups and more In other words, variation in expressed self- varied samples than had previously been acceptance accounts for a relatively small por- studied. In order to do this, scales were tion of the variation in expressed acceptance constructed to measure expressed acceptance of others. It follows from this that the relaof self and expressed acceptance of others. tionship is not so invariable or of such a high degree that individual predictions can The scales were found to have satisfactory be made with accuracy, and we do not have a matched-half reliability and considerable evidence was found in favor of the scales' valid"law" in this sense. The results do, however, indicate a good ity. The scales were administered to a variety degree of association between the variables of groups and correlations between accept-

782

EMANUEL M. BERGER

ance of self and acceptance of others were determined. These were all very significantly positive, with one exception (p= .06). It was concluded that evidence for a positive correlation between acceptance of self and acceptance of others was definitely supported and strengthened by the results of this study. REFERENCES 1. ADLER, A. The neurotic constitution. Moffat, Yard, 1921. 2. FROMM, E. Selfishness 1939, 2, 507-523.

and self-love.

New York: Psychiatry,

3. HORNBY, KAREN. The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton, 1937. 4. ROGERS, C. R. A coordinated research in psychotherapy: A non-objective introduction. /. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 149-153. 5. SHEERER, ELIZABETH. An analysis of the relationship between acceptance of and respect for the self and acceptance of and respect for others in ten counseling cases. /. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 1691756. STOCK, DOROTHY. An investigation into the interrelations between the self-concept and feelings directed toward other persons and groups. /. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 176-180. Received November 19, 1951....