self-concept thesis - digital library/67531/metadc663808/m2/1/high... · combs and snygg define the...

377A/Il

SELF-CONCEPT AND SOCIOMETRIC

CHOOSING AND STATUS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

D. Jack Nicholas, B. S. E., B. D.

Denton, Texas

May, 1963

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES , .Page

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTTIIOO,., , ,,, , I

Statement of ProblemRelated Research

II. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SubjectsMaterialsMethodStatistical Treatment

III. RESULTS * . . . . , . , . , , , * * 19

Presentation of DataDiscussion of Data

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .. . . 32

APPENDIX * . . . * . . * . . * . . * . . . . . 36BIBLIOGRAPHY - .9...... .9... .. 54

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

I.

II.

III,

IV.

t-Ratios for Choices Received, Population

bo-Ratios for Choices Received, Population

t-Ratios for Mutual Choices, Population I

t-Ratios for Mutual Choices, Population II

V. t-Ratios for Choices Given, Population I

VI. t-Ratios for Choices Given, Population II

VII. t-Ratios for Intelligence Quotients,

. Population I . . . . . . . . .. ..

VIII. t-Ratios for Intelligence Quotients,PopulationlI . . . . . . . . ..

IX. t-Ratios for Intelligence Quotients,Population I . . . . . . . . .

X. t-Ratios for Intelligence Quotients,Populationll . ..... ..

XI. An Intercorrelation of Variables,Population I * . . . . . . ..

XII. An Intercorrelation of Variables,PopulationIl . *. . .. .*. * .

XIII. Raw Data, Population 1 . * , . * . . .

XIV. Raw Data, Population II . . . . . . . * .

Page

I . . 20

II . 21

. . . 22

. . 23

. . . 24

. . . 25

. . . 26

. . . 27

. . . 28

. * . 29

. . . 37

. * . 38

. . . 39

. * . 40

iv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

One of the oddest events in the history of modern

psychology is the manner in which the ego (or self) became

sidetracked and lost to view. (2, p. 451).

The concept of self was introduced as early as 1890

when William James devoted a chapter to the self in his

Principles off spcholry (15). Sigmund Freud, in his

later writings (12), developed his concept of the ego.

Despite the possibilities pointed up by these men, the

implications of their theories were not followed up until

the past two decades. The behaviorists and the func-

tionalists who reigned in American psychology from the

1920's until the 1940''s carefully ignored the concept of

self. There has been, within the past two decades, a

renewed interest in the self. A survey of psychological

literature of the past twenty years reveals a barrage of

writing and empirical investigation in this area.

The research dealing with the self falls generally

into one of two categories: the phenomenal (or conscious)

self and the nonphenomenal (unconscious or agent) self.

The present study is restricted to the consideration of the

conscious self.

1

2

The phenomenal theorists are in general agreement

concerning the definition of the self. Raimy first defined

self-concept as follows: "The self-concept is the more or

less organized perceptual object resulting from present and

past self observation . . . Lit isJ what a person believes

about himself." (20).

Rogers defines self-concept as:

an organized configuration of perceptionsof the self which are admissible to awareness.It is composed of such elements as the per-ceptions of one's characteristics and abilities;the percepts and concepts of the self in relationto others and to the environment; the valuequalities which are perceived as associated withexperience and objects; and goals and idealswhich are perceived as having positive ornegative valence. (21, p. 136).

Combs and Snygg define the phenomenal self as "the

individual's own unique organization of ways of regarding

self; it is the Gestalt of his concepts of self." (7, p.126)

Statement of Problem

Rogers states: "The person who accepts himself will,

because of this self-acceptance, have better interpersonal

relations with others." (21, p. 520).

According to Roger's hypothesis, those who are genuine

self-accepting should fare better socioetrically than those

who have negative self-feelings. Those who possess positive

self-concepts will so behave that others will react towards

them positively. Those who possess negative self-concepts

3

will so behave that others will react to them negatively.

In an investigation attempting to confirm Rogers' hypothesis,

Fey suggests: 4 . . . it is quite possible that the genuinely

self-accepting person truly accepts others, that he does not

threaten them, and is rewarded in turn by their acceptance."

(10, p. 276). Jervis maintains "There is general agreement

that a negative self-concept indicates stress and tension."

(16, p. 3355). Bills states, "From the point of view of

phenomenological psychology, maladjustment may be defined

as any discrepancy between the concept of self and the

concept of the ideal self." (4, p. 258).

It would appear, on the basis of the above theoretical

constructs, that self-accepting individuals enjoy better

sociometric status than those individuals who foster

negative self-feelings. The purpose of this study is to

investigate the relation between two of the most important

indices of adjustment: self-concept and sociometric status.

Hypothesis It Those with low self-ideal-self discrepancy

will receive more sociometric choices than those with high

self-ideal-self discrepancy.

fypothesis IT: Those with a low self-ideal-self

discrepancy will make more realistic sociometric choices

than those with high self-ideal-self discrepancy.

4

Hyothesis II: Those who are self accepting (low

self-ideal self discrepancy) will be more accepting of

others (more expansive in sociometric choosing).

Hpotheis iV Those with low self-ideal self

discrepancy scores will have higher IQts than those with

high self-ideal self discrepancy scores.

Hypothesis t Those with high choice-status will

have higher IQ's than those with low choice-status.

Related Research

It has been noted that investigation in the area

of the self-concept has been restricted, for the most

part, to the past two decades. It will be observed that

the studies referred to in this chapter are, with one

exception, subsequent to 1950.

Self-Concept and Sociometric Status

Most of the studies which have been made relative to

self-concept and sociometric status reflect a positive

relationship between the two. In Coopersmith's study

(8, p. 94) of 102 fifth and sixth-grade children, "signifi-

cant correlations were obtained between self-esteem and

sociometric choice" (r = .37 : p. 01). Self-concept was

measured by a 50-item inventory and sociometric choice

was determined by the subject's choice of those desired as

friends.

5

Schiff (22, p. 216), in a study of 141 high school

students, found that those who underestimate their socio-

metric status perceive themselves as being below the group

average in their acceptance by others.

Zelen (28, p. 316), after administering the Bonney

Sociometric and the Who-Are-You test to 145 sixth-grade

children, found positive correlation between self-acceptance

and peer-acceptance (r = .39).

In a study of 62 college men, Brownfain (6, p. 605)

concluded that those with more stable self-concepts not

only are better liked and considered more popular by the

group but also know more people in the group and are better

known by the group, indicating more active social partici-

pation.

Katz, in a study dealing with the relationship between

the stability of the self-concept and sociometric status

and sociometric perception, obtained significant positive

correlations between stability of self-concept and socio-

metric status (17, p. 877).

In their study of college students, Turner and Vander-

lippe found that those with high self-ideal self congruence

ranked higher on all eleven sociometric items than those

with low self-ideal self congruence, eight of the eleven

items yielding an acceptable level of significance. (27,

p. 205).

6

While the preponderance of research indicates a sig-

nificant positive relationship between positive self-concept

and sociometric status, several studies fail to reflect this

relationship.

The efforts of McIntyre and Fey (10) to confirm the

Rogerian hypothesis mentioned in the statement of the

problem met with negative results. McIntyre found, no sig-

nificant positive correlation between self acceptance and

sociometric status. Fey's study showed that those with

high self-acceptance scores tend to accept others, to feel

accepted by others, but actually to be neither more nor

less accepted by others.

Silvers study (24, p. 167), involving 56 male

adolescents, produced results similar to those obtained

by Fey (10). His results indicate that level and stability

of self-concept ratings is significantly associated with

perceived measures of peer acceptance but not with actual

measures of peer acceptance or with accuracy of social

perception.

Fiedler et al. (11, p. 350) also failed to find

significant correlation between self-esteem and sociometric

status. Their study involved four nonclinical groups of

males in which they investigated the relationship between

self-esteem and sociometric status and self-esteem and

7

mean esteem by others. Only one r between self-esteem and

mean esteem by others was significant at the 5 per cent

level.

Larson's investigation of the association between

accuracy and stability of self-concept and sociometric

failed to show significant correlation. (18, p. 1847).

Of the five studies mentioned which failed to produce

significant positive correlation between self-concept and

sociometric status, two conclude that their hypotheses were

untested or untestable (Fey and Larson). The majority of

the studies investigating the relationship between self-

concept and sociometric status indicate significant positive

correlations.

Self-Concept and Sociometric ChoosingResearch relative to acceptance of self and acceptance

of other has been stimulated by Adler (1), who suggested

that depreciation of others is characteristic of those who

themselves felt inferior and by Horney (14), who insists

that the individual who does not love himself is incapable

of loving others.

Stock (25, p. 180), in a study of case histories of

ten clients, noted a definite relationship between the way

an individual feels about himself and the way he feels about

8

other persons. "An individual who holds negative feelings

toward himself tends to hold negative feelings towards other

people in general."

Sheerer (23, p. 175), also studying therapy interviews,

reported that as acceptance for self increased during inter-

views acceptance for others also increased. She found "a

definite and substantial correlation between attitudes of

acceptance of and respect for self and attitudes of acceptance

of and respect for self and attitudes of acceptance of and

respect for others."

The findings of Omwake's study (19, p. 445) support

the hypothesis that there is a positive relation between

the acceptance of self and the acceptance of others in

that there is a marked relation between the way an

individual sees himself and the way he sees others. Those

who reject themselves tend to reject others.

Berger's study (3, p. 781), which involved 315 subjects,

including adults, college students, prisoners, speech problem

cases, and counselees, confirmed the generalization that

expressed acceptance of self is positively correlated with

expressed acceptance of others.

In a study already quoted, Schiff (22, p. 134) reported

that those who consistently underestimated their own socio-

metric status were below the group average in their acceptance

of others.

9

Studies which failed to show a positive relationship

between self-concept and acceptance of others were made by

Zelen (28, P. 316), who hypothesized that such a relation-

ship did exist, and by Jervis (16, p. 3356), who hypothe-

sized that such a relationship did not exist.

Intelligence and oigmetric Status

Bonney (5, p. 106) asserts that when intellectually

gifted children (as a group) are contrasted with those of

only average intelligence there are marked and consistent

personality advantages in favor of those in the highly

intelligent grouping; he quotes the studies of Terman,

Feinberg, and Grossman and Wrighter as substantiation.

(5, p. 106).

Terman (26, p. 223) found, in his study of 1,500

children of IQ 140 or higher, that they are appreciably

superior to unselected children in social adjustment as

rated by teachers.

Grossman and Wrighter (13, P. 349) report the usual

low positive correlation between intelligence and socio-

metric status on the assumption of a rectilinear relationship.

However, when the sample was broken down into three cate-

gories--below normal, normal and superior, very superior and

near genius--a significant difference was found in the

average sociometric score between those in the below normal

10

group and the normal--superior group. Thus, intelligence

makes a difference up to a certain point--normal intelli-

gence--but thereafter it does not materially affect the

sociometric score.

Feinbergts findings (9, p. 211) indicate that those

who were accepted had marks in the top 25 per cent of their

class and had received prizes because of excellence in

school grades. Those rejected, on the other hand, fell

academically in the third 25 per cent of their class.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adler, Alfred, The Neurotic Ceaitution, New York,Dodd, Mead, 1926.

2. Allport, G. W., "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology,"Psychological jefey, L (1943, 451-478.

3. Berger, Emanuel M., "The Relation Between ExpressedAcceptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance ofOthers," Jurnal of Abnormal and Socialflyholog7, ILVICI19,i778Zf2.

4. Bills, R. B., Vance, E. L., and McLean, 0. S.,"An Index of Adjustment and Values " Journal

Consultia Percholory, XV (19515, 257-261.

5. Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health iEn nationn, Boston,Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1960.

6. Brownfain, John J., "Stability of the Self-Conceptas a Dimension of Personality," Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psycholon, 2III 1952),597-606.

7. Combs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald, InjdualBehavior A fPercetual 4pProach t kkha ,New York, Harper and Brothers, 1959.

8. Cooperemith, Stanley, "A Method for Determining Typesof Self-Esteem," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LII (1959), 87-94.

9. Feinberg, M. R., "Relation of Background Experience toSocial Acceptance," Journal of Abnormal andSocial P ehlo , XLVIII (1953), 206-214.

10. Fey, William F., "Acceptance by Others and ItsRelation to Acceptance of Self and Others:A Revaluation," Journal of Abnormal andSocial yrcholog , L (1955), 274-276.

11

12

11. Fiedler, F. B., Dodge, Joan S., Jones, R. B., andHubhins, B. B., "Interrelations Among Measuresof Personality Adjustment in NonclinicalPopulations," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LVI (1958), 345-351.

12. Freud, Sigmund, TheEgg and jdtId, London, HogarthPress, 1927.

13. Grossman, B. and Wrighter, J., "The RelationshipBetween Selection-Rejection and Intelligence,Social Status, and Personality Amongst SixthGrade Children," Sociometry, XI (1948), 346-355.

14. Horney, Karen, ewWays in Psychoanalysis, New York,V. W. Norton, 1939.

15. James, William, Principles of Pycho , Vol. I,New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1 90.

16. Jervis, F. M., "The Meaning of a Positive Self-Concept," Dissertation Abstracts, XIX (1958),3355-3356.

17. Katz, I. S., "A Study of the Stability of the Self-Concept and its Relationship to SociometricStatus and Sociometric Perception," DissertationAbstracts, III (1958), 877.

18. Larson, J. R., "An Analysis of the RelationshipBetween Accuracy of and Stability of Self-Concept and Sociometric Status," DissertationAbstracts, XIX (1958), 1846-1847,

19. Omwake, Katharine T., "The Relation Between Acceptanceof Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by ThreePersonality Inventories," Journal of ConsultingPrsholo , XVIII (1954), 443-446.

20. Raimy, V. C., "The Self-Concept as a Factor in Counselingand Personality Organization," unpublished doctoraldissertation, Ohio State University, 1943.

21. Rogers, Carl R., Client-Centered Thera r, Boston,Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951.

13

22. Schiff, Herbert, "Judgmental Response Sets in thePerception of. Sociometric Status," Sociometry,XVII (1954), 207-227.

23. Sheerer, E. T., "An Analysis of the RelationshipBetween Acceptance of and Respect for Self andAcceptance of and Respect of Others in TenCounseling Cases," Journal of ConsultingPs gjggy, Xiii (134WJ7169-175.

24. Silver, Albert W., "The Self-Concept: Its Relationshipto Parental and Peer Acceptance," jqijjrtationAbstracts, XIX (1958), 166-167.

25. Stock, Dorothy, "An Investigation into the Inter-relation Between the Self-Concept and PeelingsDirected Toward Other Persons and Groups,"Journal Consultfgsin Pshology, XIII (1949),

26. Terman, Lewis M., "The Discovery and Encouragementof Exceptional Talent," jThe American Psychologist,XIX (1954), 221-230.

27. Turner, Ralph H., and Vanderlippe, Richard H.,"Self-Ideal Congruence as an Index of Adjustment,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVIIj1958), 202-206.

28. Zelen, Semour L., "Acceptance and Acceptability: AnExamination of .Social Reciprocity," Journal ofConsulting Psh loy, XVIII (1954),T36j

CHAPTER II

PROCEDURE

Subjects

The members of two sixth-grade classes of the public

schools of two small North Texas towns constituted the

subjects of this research. The two populations were

tested separately and the data were treated separately.

Population I consisted of sixteen girls and twelve boys

from the lower middle social class. Population II

consisted of eleven girls and eight boys from the upper

lower social class.

Materials

Measure of Self-Concept

Thinking bout Yourself (1, p. 103) was selected to

measure self-concept. This self-concept inventory was

developed by Carl A. Larson and Eli M. Bower of the

California Department of Education. It is published in

two forms--Form A for boys and Form B for girls. The

test consists of fifty-three items each of which in some

way describes a boy (or girl) and asks: (1) Are you like

him (or her)? (2) Do you want to be like him (or her)?

Each question is checked "always," "frequently," "seldom,"

or "never."

14

15

The test yields a self-ideal self discrepancy score

which represents the difference between perceived self and

wanted self.

Sociometric Measure

In order to determine sociometric status, choosing,

and reciprocity, the following instruction was given to

each class: "List in order of preference those with whom

you would most like to go on a picnic."

Measure of Intelligence

Intelligence was measured by the California Test of

Mental Maturity, Short Form 5. This test, developed by

B. T. Sullivan, W. W. Clark, and E. . Tiegs, is published

by the California Test Bureau. It offers separate

"Language" and "Non-language" IQs and a profile made up of

subscores for memory, logical reasoning, and other

intellectual indices.

Method

The subjects were first presented with the form of

Tinkig About Yourself appropriate to their sex and

instructed to fill in the information requested on the

cover page. The directions were read to them, and they

were led through the examples. The examinees were assured

that this inventory would not affect their class grades,

16

that their responses would be kept in strictest confidence,

and were urged to answer each item as honestly as possible.

After completion of the Thinking About Yourself

inventory, the subjects were given two blank sheets of

paper: one to write on and the other to cover the former.

They were then presented the sociometric question: *Listin order of preference those with whom you would most like

to go on a picnic." They were urged to reflect their

preferences frankly and again assured that their responses

would be kept in confidence.

The IQs of the subjects were taken from the permanent

records of the students on file in the school offices.

Statistical Treatment

Pearson coefficients of correlation between the various

variables were computed from scattergrams for both popu-

lations. These were checked against correlation coeffi-

cients of the same variables obtained from an IBM computer.

Where discrepancies occurred, the results of the IBM

computer were accepted as most accurate and are used in

the tables.

The subjects of each population were divided into

three groups--high, middle, and low--on the basis of

(1) self-ideal self discrepancy and (2) choice-status.

17

A t-ratio test was utilized to test the significance of the

difference between the means of the high and low groups

with reference to choices received, mutual choices, choices

given, and intelligence quotient. As a double check,

k--ratios for small populations were also obtained from an

IBM computer. No serious discrepancies were noted between

the two.


I . Bower, Eli M., Earty Identification f EmotionalHandieapd Ci dren i School, Springfield,Charles C. Thomas, 19I.

18

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Presentation of Data

The results obtained from the procedure described in

Chapter II were statistically examined as described.

Coefficients of correlation, which demonstrate the

relationship between the variables, are summarized in

Tables XI and XII in the Appendix. They are also stated

when needed at various points in thit discussion. Tables

containing the t-ratios are presented within the body

of the discussion.

Self-Concep and Choices Received

The first hypothesis stated that those with low self-

ideal self discrepancy scores will receive more sociometric

choices than those with high self-ideal self discrepancy

scores. A test of correlation between the self-ideal self

discrepancy scores and choices received in Population I

revealed a significant positive correlation (r .44,

significant at the 5 per cent level). A similar test,

however, between self-ideal self discrepancy scores and

choices received in Population II shows an insignificant

negative correlation.

19

20

A t-ratio of the difference between the means of the

high and low SIS discrepancy groups in choices received is

presented in Table 1. It indicates a difference between

mean choices received of five which was found to be

significant at the .1 per cent level.

TABLE I

t- RATIOS FOR CHOICES RECEIVED

Population I

Standard Level Level ofRatios Means Deviation of t Significance

Low self-idealself discrepancy 10 4.7207(Upper 1/4)

1.916 .1High self-ideal

self discrepancy 5 4.3094(Lower 1/4)

Table II, containing the i-ratio of the difference

between the mean choices received for the high and low $15

discrepancy groups of Population II, fails to show a

significant difference.

21

TABLE II

t-RATIOS FOR CHOICES RECEIVED

Population II


Low self-idealself discrepancy 3.666 .7453(Upper 1/3)

-1.603 -

High self-idealself discrepancy 5.666 2.6874(Lower 1/3)

The t-ratio is, in fact, in the negative direction though

not at a significant level.

The coefficient of correlation and the t-ratio of the

results of Population I appear to confirm the first hypothe-

sis while those of Population II fail to do so.

ejf-Concept p4d M l Choices

The second hypothesis stated that those with low self-

ideal self discrepancy scores will make more realistic

(reciprocal) sociometric choices than those with high self-

ideal self discrepancy scores. A test of correlation

between the self-ideal self discrepancy scores and mutual

choices in Population I indicated a positive r of .413

which is significant at the 5 per cent level. The same test

22

between 5IS discrepancy scores and mutual choices in

Population II disclosed a positive relationship, but it

was too low to be significant.

TABLE III

t-RATIOS FOR MUTUAL CHOICES

Population I

Standard Level Level ofRatios Means Deviation of tSignificance

Low self-idealself discrepancy 4.285 2.3123(Upper 1/4)


self discrepancy 2.142 1.8070(Lower 1/4)

Table III contains the t-ratio between the mean mutual

choices of the high and low $ discrepancy groups of

Population I. It shows a difference of the means signi-

ficant at the .1 per cent level. It will be observed that

the mean mutual choices of the low SIS discrepancy group

is approximately twice that of the high 31 discrepancy group.

The I-ratio between the mean mutual choices of the high

and low SIS discrepancy groups of Population II is presented

in Table IV.

23

TABLE IV

t-RATIOS FOR MUTUAL CHOICES

Population II

Ratios Means Standard Level Level ofRatiosMeansDev:iation of t Signifcance

Low self-idealself discrepancy 2.500 1.5000(Upper 1/3) .7726 -


A t level of .7726, which is too low to be significant,

is indicated.

The coefficient of correlation and the t-ratio of the

results of Population I appear to confirm the second

hypothesis while those of Population II fail to do so.

Self-Congp nd Sociometric Choosin

The third hypothesis stated that those with low self-

ideal self discrepancy scores will be more accepting of

others (more expansive in sociometric choosing) than those

with high self-ideal self discrepancy scores. A correlation

coefficient of -.23 was obtained between SIS discrepancy and

choices given for Population I, while the same variables

24

in Population II yielded a correlation of .12. Neither

correlation reached a level of significance.

Table V discloses a substantial, though insignificant,

negative t-ratio between the mean choices given by low and

high SIS discrepancy groups in Population I.

TABLE V

t- RATIOS FOR CHOICES GIVEN

Population I



-1.44High self-ideal


The appreciable difference between the means of the

two groups is in the opposite direction to that hypothe-

sized.

Table VI reveals a slight positive but insignificant

difference between the mean choices given by low and high

SIS discrepancy groups in Population II.

25

TABLE VI

t-RATIOS FOR CHOICES GIVEN

Population II

Standard Level Level ofRatios Means Deviation of i Significance



Both Tables V and VI fail to reflect significant

differences between mean choices given by low and high SIS

discrepancy groups in the two populations. Thus, the third

hypothesis is confirmed by neither correlation coefficients

nor t-ratios from either of the two populations.

Selff-Cnep and Itlli2enwe

The fourth hypothesis stated that those with low self-

ideal self discrepancy scores will have higher IQs than

those with high self-ideal self discrepancy scores. A

test between these two variables in Population I indicates

a positive correlation significant at the 5 per cent level,

However, no relationship was found between SIS discrepancy

and intelligence in Population II.

26

Table VII reveals a significant difference between the

mean IQs of low and high $I5 discrepancy groups in Population

I. A t-ratio of 2.644 is indicated which is significant at

the 5 per cent level.

TABLE VII

t-RATIOS FOR INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS

Population I




self discrepancy 9444 12.8158(Lower 1/4)

It will be noted that there is a difference of fifteen

points between the mean IQs of the low and high $I discrep-

ancy groups.

The significant difference indicated in Table VII for

Population I is not found in Table VIII with Population II.

A slight difference between the means is shown, but it is

far too small to reach a level of significance. The

unusually large standard deviations (13.6 in each group)

militate against a significant t-ratio even if a substantial

difference between the means existed.

27

TABLE VIII


Population II



.1934-High self-ideal


Both the coefficient of correlation and t-ratio

obtained on Population I tend to confirm the fourth

hypothesis while those obtained on Population II fall

short of significance.

Sociometric Status and Intelligence.

The fifth hypothesis stated that those with high

choice-status will have higher IQ's than those with low

choice-status. A test of correlation between choice-

status and intelligence in Population I revealed a sig-

nificant positive relationship (r = .46, significant at

the I per cent level). The same test between choice-status

and intelligence in Population II yielded a substantial

but insignificant correlation.

28

A t-ratio between mean intelligence of the high and

low choice-status groups is given in Table IX. A difference

of thirteen points was found between the mean IQs of the

two groups rendering a _- ratio of 2.19, which is significant

at the 5 per cent level.

TABLE IX

t- RATIOS FOR INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS

Population I


High choice-status 110 6.9165(Upper 1/4)

2.197 .05Low choice-status 97 12.9173

(Lower 1/4)

Table X, dealing with the difference between the

means of high and low choice-status groups in Population II,

reveals a t test ratio of 1.47 (substantial but insignifi-

cant).

29

TABLE X


Population II

Standard Level Level ofMeans Deviation of Significance

High choice-status IOZ&1 8.8585(Upper 1/3)

1.,471Low choice-status 93.5 9.7425

(Lower 1/3)

The data from Population I confirm the fifth hypothe-

sis while those from Population II fail to do so. This

held true for the first, second, and fourth hypotheses

as well, and will be further discussed in the next section.

Discussion of Data

The results presented in the foregoing section are, like

much of the research quoted in Chapter II, somewhat inconclu-

sive. None of the five hypotheses stated in Chapter I are

confirmed by the results of both populations. The results

of Population I confirm the first, second, fourth, and fifth

hypotheses by both correlation coefficients and i-tests.

The results of Population II, on the other hand, fail to

confirm any of the hypotheses either by correlation

coefficients or t-tests. The inconsistency of the results

30

between the two populations may possibly be explained as

follows: (1) Population II is considerably smaller in

number than Population I; and (2) the prevailing atmos-

phere affecting Population II is rather 'authoritarian"

while that affecting Population I is somewhat more

influenced by the philosophy of "progressive education."

Although no hypothesis was confirmed by the results

of both populations, it is worth noting that the first,

second, fourth, and fifth hypotheses were confirmed by

the results of Population I both by correlation coef-

ficients and i-tests.

The failure of the third hypothesis--those with low

self-ideal self discrepancy scores will be more accepting

of others (more expansive in sociometric choosing) than

those with high self-ideal self discrepancy scores--to be

confirmed by the results of either population demands

further consideration. The majority of the related

studies dealing with this hypothesis conclude that those

individuals who are self-accepting are more accepting of

others than those individuals who are not self-accepting.

The failure of this study to confirm this hypothesis may

be due in part to a fallacious assumption within the

hypothesis itself--that is, that expansiveness of socio-

metric choosing accurately represents acceptance of others.

31

An individual may be generally highly accepting of his

peers and yet desire only a certain few individuals as

close friends.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the

relation between two of the most important indices of

adjustment--selfaconcept and sociometric status. The

following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis It Those with low self-ideal self

discrepancy will receive more sociometric choices than

those with high self-ideal self discrepancy.

Hypothesis Ii Those with a low self-ideal self

discrepancy will make more realistic sociometric choices

than those with high self-ideal self discrepancy.

Hypothesis III: Those who are self accepting (low

self-ideal self discrepancy) will be more accepting of

others (more expansive in sociometric choosing) than

those with high self-ideal self discrepancy.

Hfypthjs IV Those with low self-ideal self

discrepancy will have higher IQt s than those with high

self-ideal self discrepancy.

Hypth is Vt Those with high choice-status will

have higher IQ's than those with low choice-status.

32

33

The members of two sixth...grade classes of the public

schools of two small towns were used as subjects. The

two populations were tested separately and the data were

treated separately.

Thing About Yourself,, a self-concept inventory, was

administered to the subjects to measure self-ideal self

discrepancy. In order to determine sociometric choosing,

status, and reciprocity, the subjects were instructed:

"List in order of preference those with whom you would

most like to go on a picnic." Intelligence was measured

by the California Test of Mental Maturity, Short Form 5.

Coefficients of correlation between the variables of

each hypothesis were computed for each population. In

order to test between the high and low ends of the con-

tinuums, the subjects of each population were divided

into three groups--high, middle, and low--on the basis of

(1) self-ideal self discrepancy and (2) choice-status.

A t-ratio test was utilized to test the significance of

the difference between the means of the high and low

groups with reference to choices received, mutual choices,

choices given, and intelligence quotient.

The results of this study, like much of the related

research in this area, are somewhat inconclusive. Although

no hypothesis was confirmed by the results of both popu-

lations, the first, second, fourth, and fifth were confirmed

34

by the results from Population I both by correlation coef-

ficients and t-ratios. No data from Population II yielded

an acceptable level of significance.

The conflicting nature of the results of this study

precludes the statement of any dogmatic conclusions. While

the Rogerian hypothesis which prompted this study has not

been indisputedly confirmed, neither has it been decidedly

disproved. In the words of Fey (1, p. 276), "It is quite

possible that the genuinely self-accepting person truly

accepts other, that he does not threaten them, and is

rewarded in turn by their acceptance.a

Since the bulk of the data of this study as well as

those of related research indicates strongly a positive

relationship between self-concept and sociometric status,

it is recommended that further investigations along the

lines of this present study be conducted. By varying

subjects and instruments, it may be possible in time to

determine those conditions under which a positive relationship

might be reliably predicted to hold.


I. Fey, William F., "Acceptance by Others and ItsRelation to Acceptance of Self and Others:A Revaluation," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Lsyho , L (1955), 274-276.

35

APPENDIX

36

37

TABLE XI

AN INTERCORRELATION OF VARIABLES

Population I

Choices Mutual Choices IntelligenceVariables Received Choices Given Quotient

Self-idealDiscrepancy .440* .413* -.23 .369*

Choice-Status - .463**

signirican ai 5 per cent

**Significant at 1 per cent

ieve

level

38

TABLE XII

AN INTERCORRELATION OF VARIABLES

Population II

Variables Choices Mutual Choices IntelligenceReceived Choices Given Quotient

Self-idealDiscrepancy -.428 .092 .120 .008

Choice-Status - - .328

39

TABLE XIII

RAW DATA

Population I

Student S-I-S C. R. 1. C.

1 33 7 32 18 15 63 28 6 54 35 3 25 17 13 56 33 9 417 33 6 28 18 6 49 4 5 2

10 15 14 711 32 2 112 32 4 113 33 2 214 27 1615 33 5416 41 15 617 49 1 018 32 5 31 45 6 32

45 3 221 21 3 022 22 6 223 22 10 324 39 3 125 13 14 626 45 3 227 30 0 028 54 4 1

I. Q.

99106

9396

119112115103110110119

9393

118

112101

84102

1189772

1098796

103

.iC.pC.

66

15

86667577

1046875

10533576689

C. G.

40

TABLE XIV

RAW DATA

Population II

Student S-.I-S C. R. M. C. I. Q. C. G.

1 38 11 4 108 52 20 3 2 124 43 34 1 0 93 54 29 0 0 98 75 33 1 1 74 56 28 3 3 97 77 29 2 1 93 68 46 8 4 106 49 31 12 8 93 4

10 18 4 0 98 311 20 5 5 84 6

1 457 2 87 413 42 9 2 110 314 39 6 2 109 315 47 4 2 73 416 49 5 1 85 717 24 3 3 90 618 48 10 106 419 15 4 2 84 4

41Form AFor Boys

THINKING ABOUT YOURSELF

Prepared by Carl A. Larson and Eli M. BowerCalifornia State Department of Education, Sacramento

The questions in this booklet will make you think aboutyourself. Because all of you like different things, eachof you will probably answer the questions differently. Whatyou say will help us to find out what boys like you arethinking and wishing. Do your best to make your answer toeach question tell what you really think and really wish.

Name

Age School District

School

Grade in School Date

HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THIS BOOKLETAlways Freuently Se dom Never

This is an EIAMPLE of thequestions you will be adkedto answer?

This boy is usually pickedfirst to play on a team. -

1. Are you like him?2. Do you want to be like

him?

In answering the first question, "Are you like him?"--you can place an "I" in any one of the four boxes. If youfeel you are like this boy always, place the "V' in Box 1.,If you feel you are like this boy frequently, place an "I"in Box 2. If on the other hand you feel you are like thisboy seldom, place the "" in Box 3. If you feel you arenever picked first to play on a team, place the "I" inBox 4.

In answering the second question, you have to thinkabout what you want to be and put an "I" in the box whichwould be mst true for you. If you would like tobe some-one who is picked first always, place the "I" in Box 5. If

you would like to be picked first frequently, place the "I"

in Box 6. .If on the other hand you would like to be thigboy seldom, place the "X" in Box 7. If you don't care at

all and would never like to be chosen first, place an "I"in Box 8.

42

Now try to complete the two examples below.

Thsis boy Tlides to d daring Al sFremuenlySedom Nevrthings.

1. Are you like him?

2. Do you want to be likehim?

This boy worries about Always Frequently Seldom Nevertests.

1. Are you like him?

2. Do you want to be likehim?

If you still dontt understand how to answer thequestions, raise your hand. Also, if you need helplater on, rai se your hand. Your teacher will give you thehelp you need.

Now turn the page and begin.

43

AlwaysFrequentl Seldom Never

1. This boy has baddreams.

Are you like him?

Do you want to belike him?

2. This boy likes totease girls.

Are you like him?


3. This boy hates school

Are you like him?


4. This boy thinks hismother doesn't like

him.

Are you like him?


5. This boy has lots ofspending money.

Are you like him?


44

ways Frequently eTi ever6. This boy gets in

trouble in school.

Are you like him?


7. This boy can goto the movies anytime he likes.

Are you like him?


8. This boy is happy.

Are you like him?


9. This boy wouldlike to be agirl.

Are you like him?


LO. This boy is afraidof teachers.

Are you like him?


45

AlwayaFre uentl Seldom Never

11. This boy plays withis dad.

Are you like him?


12. This boy gets toclass late.

Are you like him?


13. This boy wouldrather play withgirls than withboys.

Are you like him?


14. This boy is askedby the teacher to b.in charge when theteacher leavesthe room.

Are you like him?Do you want to be

like him?

15. This boy tells hisparents when helorries.

Are you like him?


46

lways Fre uentl Seldom Never

16. This boy wishes he weregrown up right now.

Are you like him?

Do you want to be likehim?

17. This boy likes to playwith younger children.

Are you like him?


18. This boy gets goodmarks in his schoolwork.

Are you like him?


19. This boy cries easily.

Are you like him?


20. This boy picks onsmaller children.

Are you like him.

Do you want to be likehim

47

Always Frequently Seldom Never

21. This boy would quitschool if he could.

Are you like him?


22. This boy gets upset.

Are you like him?


23. This boy likes to playby himself.

Are you like him?


24. This boy wants histeacher to like him.

Are you like him?


25. This boy likes to stayin bed late in themorning.

Are you like him?


48

AwaYs Freouently Seldom 1 Never

26. This boy hates dogs.

Are you like him?


27. This boy plays gamesbetter than other boyshis age.

Are you like him?


28. This boy feels thatteachers treat otherchildren better thanthey do him.

Are you like him?


29. This boy would liketo run away from home.

Are you like him?


30. This boy gets angryeasily.

Are you like him?


49

Always FreuentlyfSeldom Never

31. This boy gets invitedto many parties.

Are you like him?


32. This boy is the best-liked boy in this room.

Are you like him?


33. This boy is made tostudy at home.

Are you like him?


34. This boy gets tiredeasily.

Are you like him?


35. This boy is a sissy.

Are you like him?


50

Always Frequently| Seldom Fever

36. This boy is the leaderof the class.

Are you like him?


37. This boy is afraid ofhis father.

Are you like him?


38. This boy has troublegoing to sleep.

Are you like him?


39. This boy thinks thatmost of the childrenlike him.

Are you like him?


40. This boy can stay up anight as long as hewants to.

Are you like him?


51

AlwaYs Fregmentl Seldom Never

41. This boy likes todaydream.

Are you like him?


42. This boy would liketo be famous.

Are you like him?


43. This boy thinks hismother picks on him.

Are you like him?


44. This boy is afraidof the dark.

Are you like him?


45, This boy worries abouschool.

Are you like him?


52

Always Frequentl Seldom Never

46. This boy feels likehurting otherchildren.

Are you like him?


47. This boy likes to bea bad boy in school.

Are you like him?


48. This boy likes to playwith older children.

Are you like him?

DO you want to belike him?

49. This boys mothertreats him like ababy.

Are you like him?


50. This boy's fatherspanks him.

Are you like him?


53

Always Freqcent l Seldom 'even

51. This boy feels thathis teacher likeshim.

Are you like him?


52. This boy likes to playwith dolls.

Are you like him?


53. This boy wants to bea stunt flyer.

Are you like him?


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adler, Alfred, The Neurotic Constitution, New York, Dodd,Mead, 1926.

Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in education Boston,Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1960.

Bower, Eli M., Early Identification of Emotionally Handi-ca d Children in School Springfield, Charles C.Thomas, 1960.

Combs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald, I ndvidual Behavior:A Perceptual Aproach to Behavior, New York, Harperand Brothers, 1959.

Freud, Sigmund, The _d d the I, London, Hogarth Press,1927.

Honey, Karen, New ays in Psychoanalysis, New York,W. W. Norton, 1939.

James, William, Principles f Psychology, Vol. I, New York,Henry Holt and Company, 1890.

Rogers, Carl R., Client--Centered Therapy, Boston, HoughtonMifflin Company, 1951.

Articles

Allport, G. W., "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology,"Pch oical Review, L (1943), 451-478.

Berger, Emanuel M., "The Relation Between ExpressedAcceptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance ofOthers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,XLVII (1952), 778-782.

Bills, R. E., Vance, E. L., and McLean, 0. S., "An Indexof Adjustment and Values," "Journal of. Consltig

ycholo , XV (1951), 257-261.

54

55

Brownfain, John J., "Stability of the Self-Concept as aDimension of Personality," Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psycholojy, XLVII (1952),597-606.

Coopersmith, Stanley, "A Method for Determining Types ofSelf-Esteem," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LIX (1959),~87-94.

Feinberg, M. R., "Relation of Background Experience toSocial Acceptance," Journal of Abnormal and SocialP ycholy, XLVIII (1953),206-214.

Fey, William F., "Acceptance by Others and Its Relationto Acceptance of Self and Others: A Revaluation,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L (1955),274-2766'..

Fiedler, F. E., Dodge, Joan S., Jones, R. E., andHuchins, E. B., "Interrelations Among Measures ofPersonality Adjustment in Nonclinical Populations,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVI195 , 345-351

Grossman, B. and Wrighter, J., "The Relationship BetweenSelection-Rejection and Intelligence, Social Status,and Personality Amongst Sixth-Grade Children,"Sociometry, XI (1948), 346-355.

Jervis, F. M., "The Meaning of a Positive Self-Concept,"Dissertation Abstracts, XIX (1958), 3355-3356.

Katz, I. S., "A Study of the Stability of the Self-Concept and Its Relationship to Sociometric Statusand Sociometric Perception," Dissertation Abstracts,XIX (1958), 877.

Larson, J. R., "An Analysis of the Relationship BetweenAccuracy of and Stability of Self-Concept andSociometric Status," Dissertation Abstracts, XIX(1958), 1846-1847.

Omwake, Katharine T., "The Relation Between Acceptance ofSelf and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Person-ality Inventories," Journal of Consulting Psychology,XVIII (1954), 443-446.

56

Schiff, Herber, "Judgmental Response Sets in the Perceptionof Sociometric Status," Sociometry, XVII (1954), 207-227.

Sheerer, E. T., "An Analysis of the Relationship BetweenAcceptance of and Respect for Self and Acceptance ofand Respect of Others in Ten Counseling Cases,"Journal of Consulting Pfycholojo, XIII (1949),169-175.

Silver, Albert W., "The Self-Concept: Its Relationshipto Parental and Peer Acceptance," DissertationAbstracts, XIX (1958), 166-167.

Stock, Dorothy, "An Investigation into the InterrelationBetween the Self-Concept and Feelings DirectedToward Other Persons and Groups," Journal ofConsulting tacholocy, XIII (1949), 176-180,

Terman, Lewis M., "The Discovery and Encouragement ofExceptional Talent," The.AericAn Psycholocist,XIX (1954), 221-230.

Turner, Ralph H., and Vanderlippe, Richard H., "Self-Ideal Congruence as an Index of Adjustment,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LVII (1958), 20 2-206.

Zelen, Semour L., "Acceptance and Acceptability: AnExamination of Social Reciprocity," Journal ofConsulting yjchog, XVIII (1954), 361.

Unpublished Materials

Raimy, V. C., "The Self-Concept as a Factor in Counselingand Personality Organization," unpublished doctoraldissertation, Ohio State University, 1943.

self-concept thesis - digital library/67531/metadc663808/m2/1/high... · combs and snygg define the...

Documents