A STUDY OP THE SELF CONCEPTS OF A GROUP OP ADOLESCENT
STUDENTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE
SELF CONCEPTS AND BEHAVIORAL RATINGS
Miller Grierson
A THESIS
Presented to the School of Education
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
June 1961
:
■ t 'I
t:
v,-;''
11^ A-
VV
1
APPR
(Adviser for the Thesis)
'/  V'fi^r.. ;
"■ . i|r
.-^ J. ,-. .<■" '"% ■#''A y • ,, ^ u,tf tr jji,
^  ■■■ ■/ •
i>y-
\}MlVIRSnV OF
igt^lNL OREOON
ACKNOWLEDGEMEliTS
The writer gratefully acknowledgea the inspi-
ration* encouragement and continuing intereat provided
by the writer's original adviser* the late Dr* Patrick
Killgallon. The writer is deeply indebted to Dr. John
Lallas for his invaluable guidance and support during
the latter phases of this study. To the other members
of the doctoral committee* Dr. Leona Tyler* Dr. Raymond
Lowe* Dr. Charles Warnsth and Dr. Walter Hill is ex
tended sincere appreciation for their interest. Special
thanks are due to Miss Nancy Clarke* Mr. Andrew Melny-
chuck and Mr. George Ewanchuck for their willing partic
ipation as evaluating teachers.
lb ^
^ 0S'.
TABLS OP ooirfmps
Chapter
I. ISTRODDGTIOH
II. HEVIIW OP LITSEaTURB
Philosophical Background of Interest
in the Self-Theory .......
Theoretical Structures ......
III. HBSBARCH DESIGN
Procedures
The Pilot Study
IV. ANALYSIS OP FINDINGS
Results of the Self-Concept Scales , . .
Results of Behavioral Rating Scores . . .
The Relationships between the Different
Self-Concepts and the Behavioral Ratings
The Relationships between Pairs of
Self-Concept Discrepancies
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMSHDATIONS .
Summary ... .
Conclusions . .
RecommeMa tlons
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES .
LIST OF TABLES
T«bl« Page
1« IQ Distribution of the Sample 31
£. Mean, Standard Deviation and Critical Ratios
for the Three Self-Concept Scales la
Comparison between Expected and Obtained Fre
quencies for the Self-Concept Quotient
Distribution
q.* Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit of the
Self-Concept Quotient Distribution . .
>* Comparison between Expected and Obtained Fre
quencies for the. Peer Self-Concept Quotient
Distribution
6. Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit for the
Peer Self-Concept Quotient Distribution . . kb
Comparison between Expected and Obtained Fre
quencies for the Teacher Self-Concept Quo
tient Distribution kl
o* Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit for the
Teacher Self-Concept Quotient Distribution
9* Mean and Standard Deviation of Behavioral
Rating Scores ...... k9
10. Goodness of Fit for Behavioral Rating Scores
Obtaining Expected Frequencies 50
11. Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit for the
Behavioral Rating Scores 50
12. Correlations between the Self-Concepts and
Behavioral Ratings 51
13 Correlations between Discrepancy Scores of
Three Self-Concept Discrepancies . . . •  « 53
CHAPTER I
IHTRODUCTION
Current psychological literature shows revitalized con
cern about the exploration of self as a legitimate subject
for psychological study* It is seldom possible to locate
precisely the stimulus for re*awakened interest in a field
of study. So it is in the area of self-concept. 0. W. All-
port (19i4-3) did much to stimulate interest in this field and
was responsible in large measure for providing a turning
point in modern psychology. He felt that there should be an
intense study of the ego (or self). He contended that modern
psychology had become sidetracked into other avenues of study
which would not be as productive and useful as the self ap
proach.
The importance of the self in the field of educational
psychology is obvious idien one considers the impact of the
school upon the fostering or fixation of certain attitudes*
interests* aspirations* values and ideals. All these are im
plicit in the view an individual has of hioiself. For educa
tors, more than any other professional group, the study of
self has an importance and application which demands full ex
ploration of all possibilities for utilization of such a the
oretical construct.
1% 1  30 S*
4» g -"
Si a «* • <H H
*> 3 m ® I S I
9 d Q 9  19 M 9 i I
<«4
a 4 9  44 I I .
M m
8  9 tit  9I
6  <M Si
•  -9 *4 fH 9 S H
4» «4 9 $ tA 9
C 9
r4 m *4
a % 9 1 I.  4» «00  ® ^ • t| c S 9
I - i I i
•9
>  O *>
^ I 61 3 S 9 9 ^9 44 44«4 40 9 Hit JS
^ i •4 9 9 9
®
J3 tt ■9 94S
*4 #4 9  e. >» S3 *  9
a  9 tik £ i w4 <H 9 5 *4 9|
m I  i:
m m
9  ns i S
I I § 9  99 HI 49 44 • 9«9  * 4* *4 «4 O s  «
#-l ♦» §  4 » S • I
9  tf4
*4 tJ
«> «% S* J3 C
9
*4 I •  :a 9  9 C  9%4 9 I 9 »  449  O 9 ik 99̂
I J £k 4«>
9 ^ *4
f  r4 4» H  £k
•  s I ^ «4 9 & %49 3^ H 9 9
U  h I i 9  9 O  *49  in>9 0 H  4* 9  Sif3  4H»
9  • S •« ^ I HI H ^  9X> H 9  «4 9
9
I I • M • % 5 S%  Oi t t 9 H 9H 9
9 9 HI ii c
I a S §
<>4 9
releases the Individual emotionally so that he Is free to
face facts and to deal with them rationally. In relation to
choosing an occupation Super contends that one Is In effect
choosing a means of Implementing a self concept. It Is clear
therefore that more than the labor market situation needs to
be explored In order to conduct effective vocational coun
selling.
In the field of personal guidance considerable support
to this view can be obtained* N« Hobbs (191^9) perhaps speaks
for most when he states that the self provides direction for
the life of the individual by selectively responding to the
environment, admitting those stimuli which are tolerable to
the self, and excluding, or distorting those which are unac
ceptable to the self.
Adolescent psychology falls within the field of general
psychology. Many problems are peculiar to this period In an
individual's life. It Is a period of great turbulence In the
development of attitudes toward self and others. The effects
of adolescent changes In the self are not widely known nor
are their implications generally appreciated. The adolescent
Is struggling to attain Independence and self-direction which
should accompany maturity. This process of necessity requires
some periodic re-evaluation of oneself in terms of tdae adult
world into which one is rapidly approaching.
Although there has been mounting Interest In, and study
of the self. In recent years the preponderant emphasis has
b«en placed on the self of the adult. Very little has been
directed toward the self In adolescence, and very few studies
Indeed have attempted to explore the self of Grade IX level
pupils. In this regard there are some unanswered questions
which constitute the problems of this particular study.
1. In what manner are se]^f-concept scores of adoles
cents distributed?
2. How consistent are the self-concept scores of ado
lescents In the following three areas, self-concept, peer
self-concept and teacher self-concept?
3* What are the relationships between self-concept
scores and observed behavioral ratings?
How consistent are the discrepancies between differ
ent pairs of self-concepts? This refers to the magnitude of
the differences between self-concept scores in one area when
compared with self scores In another area.
The present study was undertaken to attempt specifically
to answer these questions In an effort to contribute to clos
ing the large gap of lack of Information of adolescent concept
of self.
CHAPTER II . '
m
»
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Th® self theory approach toward understanding person
ality has achieved tretaendous popularity and support within
the past fifteen years* This sudden surge of^interest in the
field brought with it many and varied approaches toward® the
analysis of self* Many of the approaches had coitaon- elements
and differed only in the emphasis given to one particular ..
aspect of the self. In much of the experimental work con
ducted lines between the various approaches were crossSdt'' 
i.e., relationships between one certain kind of self and an
other were explored. • • .
r
Although the self should in broad perspective be oonsid-\
ered a single entity, yet due to the different stresses placed *
on the manner of examining the self, different "schools" seem
to have been formed each with a special point of view* It
will be noted in reading the literature that these "schools"
far from being mutually exclusive actually have conducted re
search which strengthens the position of another "school" as
well as its own.
Realizing the dangers inherent in classifying the liter
ature of self an attempt will be made to set forth the prin
cipal outstanding approaches together with some of the
experinental work done relative to those frames of reference*
Again it should be pointed out that the differences are in
emphasis rather than basic beliefs.
Philosophical Background of Interest
in the Self-Theory
In philosophical literature, Kant and Schopenhauer dis
cussed the self. At this time a distinction was created be
tween the subjective "I" and the objective "me." The "l" was
considered as the "knower" and "me** as the "object of know
ledge*" This dual concept of self has been the subject of
much discussion and controversy*
B* Transcendentalism
This particular conception of self is described by J* S*
Hoore (1933) who stated that the self was an integration of
feelings, desires aM ideas* He rejected the dualism of Kant
and Schopenhauer by uniting the "l" and the "me*" The soul,
he contended, was not another self from the mind.
Theoretical Structurea
William James (191^) in referring to the self as the
"empirical ego" provides a definition of self which is ex
tremely inclusive* To him self is the sum total of all that
a person possesses, his body structure, his abilities, his
frlendi, his ennmles, his family, his avocations, his material
possessions, and all other events or objects which have im
pinged on his life. He classified the self under three head<-
ingsj (1) its constituents, (2) self feelings, and (3) ac
tions of self seeking* James was one of the earlier and in
tensive theorists in this field and did much to spark the
imagination of others to come, including Allport.
Sarbin (1952) undertook to review some of the main con
ceptions of the ego, finding over a dosen variants, some of
which were: the physical self, the material self, the pro-
jective self, the pure ego, the ethical self, the inferred
self, and the social self* He considered these as substruc
tures of the total cognitive structures which are required
through experience. In his discourse the use of the term
"self" was synonymous with the term "ego*"
B. Pavchoanalvtio Self
Symonds (1951) approaches the ego and the self from the
psychoanalytic point of view. Although the self and the ego
are different entities, he contends that there is considerable
interaction between the two* The self is how a person thinks
of and values himself* It also helps to determine how he
will attempt to enhance these thoughts or to defend them. If
the self is enhanced, he feels, the ego processes are more
likely to function more effectively* Symonds also introduces
an element of self which he terms self-ideal; he goes on to X
describe how this develops through childhood into adolescence.
In this approach to self, Symonds baa the support of some
theorists influenced by Freud, such as Adler who put consider
able stress on the importance of understanding how a person
feels about himself in situations to which he is exposed*
Hilgard (1953) maintains that the theories that have evolved
from Freud, J\ing, Adler and others all imply a self-reference.
To feel guilty for example, is to conceive of the self as hav
ing made bad choices, therefore self-reference enters in* A
basic human need to Hilgard is to restore or maintain an ade
quate level of self-esteem* Anxiety is produced by the fear
of the loss of self-esteem which essentially is self-concept.
C* Evolving Self
Allport, (1937) one of the earliest exponents of and
contributors to the study of self, postulated an evolving self.
This self is made up of many different selves each of which
may develop in different ways and at different rates until
they become integrated into a complete personality structure.
Some of the entities include bodily sense, self-identity,
self-esteem, self-image, and the rational self* Generally
the "ego" and the "self" are not distinguished. However, he
does make one distinction. The ego is the product of the ac
tions of the self. The self can be considered as the acting
process, whereas the ego is the resultant object.
Allport reviewed the sensationaliatic and Geatalt con
ceptions of self from which he evolved the idea that the ego
develops gradually and wlt^ great difficulty* An infant, he
states, does not recognize himself as an individual* With
growth, self-involvementa and concepts develop which are in
dispensable to the production of memory, judgment, motivation,
intelligence, etcetera*
Allport, in one of his early works, collected from the
different psychological constructs different conceptions of
the ego as found in the literature of that time. From these
he selected the following which he felt to be of primary im
portance.
The ego as the knower.
The ego as object of knowledge.
The ego as primitive selfishness.
The ego as dominance-drive.
The ego as a passive organization of
mental processes.
The ego as a "fighter for ends."
The ego as a behavioral system.
The ego as the subjective organization
of culture.
He felt that these eight concepts are not separate entities
but that they could be subordinated under one inclusive theory
of the ego, and citing from experimental evidence concluded
that ego involvement or the total participation of the self
as knower, organizer, observer, status seeker and social being
incorporates several if not all of the former entities listed.
Another outstanding contributor to t^e study of an evolv
ing self is Jersild (19^7) who compiled a comprehensive sum
mary of psychological conceptions of the self. Five years
earlier in his book. ', he set forth a number
of different selves including self, self-ideal, social-self.
However, they were not clearly enough differentiated nor was
it shown adequately how these selves were synthesized into a
unified whole. His later work demonstrated more clearly the
integration and synthesizing of different selves in the total
functioning of the individual. He brings in self-perceptions,
self-impressions, values, convictions, attitudes, role, feel
ings, and background, all intertwining and impinging upon
each other to make up the overall feeling of a unified self.
He stressed the importance of understanding of self in the
educational program. He contended that the most important
contribution which could be made to a person is to help him
achieve a realistic concept of self. This would go far in
reducing anxiety prevalent within young people and would re
sult in better functioning, more productive, happier people.
Jersild makes a statement which appears paradoxical. He
states that the self is both constant and changeable. He
explains this by saying that it includes the constant nature
of the individual plus all that is conditioned by time and
space and that is changeable. That is, the self is the nu
cleus around which experiences are integrated into the unique
ness of the individual.
To Chain (1914).) the self evolves as a state of awareness.
It has no reality apart from awareness* The ego is a moti
vational-cognitive structure built around the self.
Wattenburg (1955) who is primarily concerned with
personality development during the adolescent years visual
izes the growth of the concept of self as a vital aspect in
personality growth of adolescents. Level of aspiration,
attitudes of superiority and inferiority as well as other
aspects relating to the self are discussed in his book.
Wattenburg states the thesis that maturing personality growth
evolves with increasing self-insight and development of a
concept of self which is realistic.
Qverstreet (19^2) discusses the development of building
the self-concept as partly dependent on cultural factors. He
states that in an authoritarian era the self-concept of self-
depreclatlng submiasivenesa and obedience is promoted. He
deplores the factors which go into the emergence of such an
era. In order to build a sound self-image, i.e., development
of feelings of worth, an individual must develop goodwill
feelings toward those in authority over him. This can best
be done by reducing fears, hostilities and irritations bred
of parental exercise for power.
The change in self-concept la derived through time and
experience or is an evolving self, so postulates Super (19^1)
who also states that a rather firm degree of stability is
attained by the time late adolescence is reached. The deriv
ation of self-concepts according to Super stems from Inherent
aptitudes, physiological make-up, opportunity to play roles,
and the meeting of approval (or disapproval) by superiors and
peers.
Some eaqperlmental efforts to explore the growing or
evolving self have been made. Caplln (1955) observed four-
year-olds In a play therapy situation. The self-evaluation
as observed through behavioral change demonstrated a gradual
adjustment toward a pattern more consistent with cultural
norms. In children of this age group, Caplln noted that ex
periences In social situations assisted In evolving a more
adequate concept of self. Klausner (1953) ̂ as demonstrated
eaqjerlmentally that socio-economic factors Influence the de
velopment of the self-concept.
Following Allport* s paper of 1937 we® to be found a mon
umental effort In a book entitled Self Consistency written by
Prescott Lecky (1945)* In this volume he presents his funda
mental thesis which is that the nucleus of all actions,
thoughts and feelings. Is the Individual's Idea or conception
of himself. Any Idea Impinging upon the Individual, If Incon
sistent with the Individual's conception of himself, cannot
be assimilated, but Instead gives rise to an inconsistency
which must be removed as promptly as possible. He further
states that personality integration is the result of unifying
attitudes aM beliefs (either by selection or rejection) In
the direction of self consistency. This means that an Indi
vidual must define for himself the nature of the totality
which he Is. This having been done. It Is difficult to alter
the opinion one holds of oneself* Nevertheless it is
aometlmes necessary. The change In concept of self will then
of necessity be very gradual. Lecky gives a striking Illus
tration of the effects of such resistance in the case of an
intelligent student who is deficient in spelling. This stu
dent defined himself as a poor speller. In order that he be
true to himself, his misspelling of a certain proportion of
words became a moral issue. He misspelled words for the same
reason that he refused to become a thief. That is, he behaved
in a manner consistent with his idea of himself.
Brownfain (19^2) specifies some of the most important
selves in one's personality structure. Here he includes the
self he really believes he is, the self he aspires to be,
the self as he feels others view him, the self he hopes he
is at present and the self he fears he is at present. The
problem in developing a sound personality structure is to
crystallize and identify these selves, then to make them as
consistent as possible to each other. This unification into
a consistent pattern would be the process which would streng
then the personality and would ameliorate strength-sapping
anxieties.
Rogers and Dymond (19514-) introduced a special dimension
into the explanation of maladjustment. This dimension they
termed the self-ideal, and concerned the discrepancy between
the real-self and ideal-self. Maladjustment to them meant
that the discrepancies between these two entities was too
great and the reduction in the discrepancy would result in
diminishing the maladjustment.
Bugental (1914-9) contended that well integrated individ
uals were more likely to view themselves in a similar way in
various situations. This is directly in line with Lecky's
self-consistency theory.
McQuitty (19^0) is basically in agreement when he takes
the position that the self-concept is an integrating phenom
enon. An adequate personality to him« is one which is well
integrated or the parts consistent, which is to say the indi
vidual can accept into his organized concept of self all the
interpretations of reality, including of course perceptions
relating to himself.
Of late years, Hurlock (1953) hiaa taken the stand that
the individual's concept of self is the fundamental core of
the personality structure. What a person thinks of himself,
his abilities and his disabilities, will determine the char
acteristic form of his behavior. She feels that the self-
concept is reasonably fixed, and although certain changes do
occur, the changes are for the most part slight. Hurlock
opposes Lindgren's view (which is stated later) with respect
to self-concept stability during adolescence* She claims
that the self-concept becomes quite stable in adolescence.
Sharif and Cantril (1914-7) as well as Smith (1950) bas
ically emulate the writings of Lecky. Abnormal behavior is
produced through a distortion of the ego reference. They do
attach much more importance to the sociological factors than
Leoky doea, however, contending that diverse sociological
groups exert great influences on the development of the ego.
Ausubel (1954) generally echoes the views of most author<
ities in developmental psychology. In discussing adolescent
behavior he expresses the view that self-concept occupies a
prominent place in the individual's psychological field. At
this age he notices a considerable upward revision of self-
estimate and level of aspiration. This reaction produces a
marked contrast to the carefree and extroverted self of later
childhood. The adolescent self becomes a more crucial and
clearly delimited object of awareness. This implies a nar
rowing of the gap between the self-concept and self-ideal and
is thus in agreement with Havighurst (1949) who states that
the ideal-self is especially important in directing behavior
and shaping character during the years of adolescence when
major life decisions must be made and when parental example
and precept are no longer accepted with blind faith.
Of the many approaches or emphases of self, Lecky's
"school" more than most has prompted exploration by empir
ical methods. The idea of the importance of consistency was
found to be a provocative stimulation to many persons who en
deavored to put his idea to the test. The studies cited are
designed to illustrate the nature and scope of the experi
mental work done rather than provide an exhaustive survey of
the field.
A procedure for obtaining self-group discrepancy scores
is reported by Calvin and Holtsman (1953) who demonstrate
that these scores are sufficiently stable to warrant serious
consideration as new measures of personality. Very recently
Hickman (1957) in investigating the self-related concepts in
five areas observed that the size of the discrepancies between
the self-concepts clearly served as a measure of personality
adjustment. His criteria were the M.M.P.I. and the Horschaeh.
Phillips (1951) used a sociometric device to study self-
other relationships. With the use of his questionnaire he
demonstrated positive relationships (in excess of .^O) between
attitudes towards self and towards others. A similar type of
study is reported by Berger (1952) in which he found the self-
accepting person much more likely to accept others than the
non-accepting person. A further confirmation of these find
ings can be noted in Mclntyre'a (1952) results which showed
considerable positive relationship between attitudes toward
self and towards others. Zuckerman (1956) reporting on a
study of ninety mental patients and normals of adult level
found that self-acceptance served as a measure of adjustment
amongst normal adults but that it did not serve as an accu
rate index of adjustaaent with the patient group. However,
as a group the patients ware more dissatisfied. This is one
of the few researches showing contrary evidence to most ex
periments concerning self-acceptance and adjustment.
Fein (1951) and Fey (1955) used the Frunkel Brunswick P
Scale and other instruments. Fein found that self-acceptance
was most closdly linked with the discrepancy between the self
and ideal-self.
1« Homeoatatic Self
This refers to the concept that a being or individual
lives in a state of equilibrium* The organism resists any
attempt to disturb this condition. It is constantly seeking
to regain equilibrium if Impinged upon by any disrupting
force. Stanger (1951) views self-concept as an entity in
this principle of homeostasis. The state of homeostasis is
disrupted If one's concept of self is unrealistic in the com
plex interactions between the self and the external situa
tions. 
Axline (1914-7} supports this view when she suggests that
poor reading and resultant emotional disturbances probably
stem from the inability of the child to resolve the conflict
between a conception of himself as a poor reader and a con
cept of himself as a good reader. Until the child can modify
his conception of himself to the extent that he will consider
himself as an adequate reader he will resist efforts to change
him into being a good reader.
P. Self As the Directing Force
This emphasis toward self resembles that of Lecky and
Bogers but differs very slightly in the interpretation of how
the directing force is developed. Lindgren (19514-) considers
the self as it relates to mental health, le states that the
self is the directing force which produces the activities and
skills required to meet one's needs and to maintain a high
level of mental health. This self has been formed through
the perceiving of a portion of the world gradually differen
tiated and set apart from the rest of the world. If objects
or events outside of his immediate sphere are seen as being
important to his welfare he becomes ego-involved in them.
Lindgren goes on to say that separating or splitting
within the self occurs, resulting in different selves. On
occasion the gap or disparity between the selves can be very
great such as between the real self and the idealized self.
The greater the disparity the greater the development of feel
ings of anxiety and insecurity. Lindgren contends that this
discrepancy is likely to be greater during adolescence than
at any other time.
Hanlon concurs with Lindgren's contention. He
too put particular emphasis on the two selves, namely real-
self end ideal-self. He asserts that maladjustment would be
gauged by noting this discrepancy regardless of age or intel
ligence level of the individual.
Although Lindgren believes essentially as Rogers does
with respect to self theories, he makes a distinction in how
the self develops. To Lindgren a portion of the world which
an individual perceives gradually becomes differentiated from
the rest of the world. This becomes the self. It is that
portion which is within the control of the individual. He
goes on to state that this self operates to organise and di
rect the activities of the individual in ways that assist
to meet his needs.
Here again the distinction between this "school" and
others is not great. Reaction to outside influences is given
more emphasis in this construct. Snygg and Combs (19^1-9} have
stimulated considerable interest in developing the theory of
phenomenological psychology. Their contention is that the
behavior a person displays is dependant upon the concept he
has of himself. In short, the self can be considered as both
the "doer" and the "object" at the same time. In order for a
shift of the self-concept to be effected, many repetitive ex
periences of a specific kind are required. Generally the
self can be considered as stable. Outside forces if oaployed
consistently and often enough however, can effect the manner
in which the self is perceived.
Combs (19i|-9) in a separate publication ejqpanded on this
somewhat by stating that the two frames of reference are first,
the external where we observe the behavior of an individual
as an outside observer and secondly, the phenomenological
frame where we are concerned with the individual perceptions
of himself in his environment. Combs leaned most heavily on
the latter although he attempts a marriage of these frames of
reference. He considers maladjustment as a perceived threat
to the self. Therapy may attempt to produce change in the
Individual's perception of self or his perception of external
events or both. If the environment is immodifiable, he con
tends' therapy will only be effected by a change in the per
ception of himself.
Hobbs (1914-9) suggests that there are a number of person
ality theories but in these continually there is a re-emerg
ence of a concept of self which at first supplemented and
later superseded other theories because the other theories
have been tried and found wanting. If one were to select a
single criterion of what a person is to become that criterion
must be in terms of the phenomenological self.
McLeod (19ll-9) cautions us to beware of over-simplifica
tion of a single simple theory of self. Having made the
warning, he goes on to say that a great contribution is being
made to human understanding through the phenomenological ap
proach. He points out that the self is a natural system cap
able of generating its own needs and concludes that the self
is the point of origin of all motivation, i.e., every act
springs from disequilibrium within the self.
Smith, Bruner and White (1950) stress the importance of
accepting self-concept as a fuller and more adequate currant
personality theory. Whether we use the term Phenomenal Self,
Ego, Self-image or some other, it is evident to thsNra a major
contribution to the understanding of behavior results from
noting a person's reactiona to his experiences in terms of
self-reference.
H« Self"Actualigatlon
This theoretical approach grew out of the work done in
non-directive counseling under the leadership of Carl Rogers
at the University of Chicago. Rogers, the most prolific con
tributor to modern self-theory, has provided the greatest
impetus to study and research in this field in recent years*
Rogers (19^-7) contends that the key to understanding human
behavior is to see the way an individual perceives himself.
The self is composed of perceptions concerning the individual,
and it is the organization of these perceptions idaioh affects
the behavior of the individual.
As the most notable researcher in the area of the study
of self, Rogers (195^} and his associates have accumulated
much evidence during the past fifteen years. The evidence
has been in the form of sound film recordings, sound record
ings, transcripts, behavioral observations and use of self-
analysis scales. It must be recognized that the experimental
group with which he dealt was a rather select one, the sub
jects being made up of college students who sought out coun
seling service. Although this group may not have been repre
sentative, the high incidence of effective counseling based
on this theoretical construct would make it appear that it
might be considered for general application. This type of
approach in research might be termed the qualitative approach
where prime detezmiiner of values is the counsellor's subjec
tive judgment of the degree to which change in self-concepts
has occurred.
Rogera personally supervised many of the research studies
in the realm of self* He also set the stage for other inves
tigators by posing problems to be solved and suggesting var
ious approaches to the solving of those problems. He achieved
this by exposing the methods and techniques which he had
found to be fruitful* It was Rogers more than anyone else
who promoted the development of assessment techniques of
self* His inspiration and empirical approach was profoundly
instrumental in carrying on appraisal of and varying inter
pretations of self and how understanding of self could be ap
plied in life situations.
To illustrate the extent of his influence and to focus
attention on the kinds of questions researchers have been
trying to solve in this field a number of the most widely
known studies are presented* They have all evolved in one
way or another from Rogers* influence.
The most widely accepted self-concept scale is that of
Bills (1951) known as the Index of Adjustment and Values. It
is made up of l^9 adjectives which subjects rate on a five
point scale* The Index attempts to measure in three areas
nurnely, self-concept, self-ideal, and self-acceptance* Reli
ability coefficients ranging from .83 to *91 are reported for
the different measures* This Instrument has been most useful
in detecting considerable depression, extremes in level of
aspiration, and extreme emotionality.
Wabb (1952) devised a list of traits for each of which
a rating of from 1 to 7 was possible. The subjects were asked
to rate themselves on these trait continua. Then each was
asked to rate the others in the group. Generally there was
some disparity between the individual* s concept of himself
and the group's concept of him* Generally in a desirable
trait there was self-overevaluation aM in undesirable traits
self-underevaluation.
Another instrument developed within the past decade was
that of Brownfain (1952). He selected twenty-five personality
traits and had college students rate themselves on these
traits* He then separated the negative self-concepts from
the positive ones. The conclusion Brownfain reached from his
study was that subjects with stable self-concepts were better
adjusted than those with unstable self-concepts. A somewhat
similar type of test was devised by Worchel (1958) in which
a self-rating scale of fifty-four items was employed. This
was called the S.A.I, or the Self Activity Inventory. The
results indicated a positive relationship between one's self-
evaluation of adequacy and ability to perform in a frustrating
situation.
Another recent study is that of Taschuk (195?) who se
lected seventy-seven statements from self-descriptive essays
and placed each statement on a five point scale from "very
true about me" to "not true about me." From the responses
self-concept scores in four broad categories were developed.
The Self Rating Inventory was the basic instrument in two
other studies, those of Gowen (1956) and Zimmer (1954).
Cowen studied the adjustment of college students idao scored
high and low on negative self-concepts. He found no indica
tion that low negative self-concept ratings were character
istic of the best adjusted individuals. On the other hand
Zimmer, using the same tool with the same type of subjects,
found supporting evidence for the idea that low negative self-
concept scores were related to better adjustment. Further,
Zimmer observed that discrepancies between self-concept and
ideal self scores did not directly indicate conflict.
One attempt has been made to examine several instruments
designed to measure self-other relationships. This was done
by Orawake (1954) who examined Berger's, Phillip's and Bills'
instruments. She found that all three served as useful tools
in studying the self-concept.
One kind of approach employed in self-concept research
might be termed 'self-concept in terms of some external frame
of reference.' One external frame of reference is perform
ance in class. SuBUier (1949) noted least discrepancy between
self-values and aspirations in the upper quarter of the class.
Torrance (1954) revealed that there was little relationship be
tween self-estimates and achieved standings but, when given an
opportunity to re-evaluate themselves, a general downward re
vision was found in the direction of a more realistic
KuL/'iO
aelf-evaluatlon* Thia la aasantially the finding of Mitchell
(1945).
Still another frame of reference la that of personality
tests* Colvln (1956) used the M.M.P.I, to study relation
ships between adjustment and self-ideal discrepancies. He
observed that students who show poor insight into their level
of adjustment are more likely to be maladjusted than those
showing good Insight. Another observation made was that the
more poorly adjusted were more self-depreciating. Similarly
Taylor and Combs (1952), using the California Teat of Person
ality, demonstrated that children with satisfactory self-
concepts, also scored satisfactorily on the personality test
as well as being able to better accept damaging statements
about themselves.
The T.A.T. was used by Dymond (I9I4.8) to study self-other
patterns and she concluded that the T A.T. seems to provide a
valid method of revealing Internalized patterns which repre
sent the subject's view of his intorperaonal relations.
Dymond, after having just concluded her study, was taken to
task by Child (1956) who checked the T.A.T. against a self-
rating questionnaire of two hundred Iteami. He found no sig
nificant relations and hence could not corroborate Dymond.
A third technique employed in self-concept research
might be termed analysis of behavior. This deals primarily
with the psychotherapeutic setting. Rogers and Dymond (1954)»
using self-statements made In therapy, demonstrated that
discrepancy between the self and ideal indicated stress, ten
sion and maladjustment. Brownfain (1952) noted that subjects
with consistently stable self-concepts were better adjusted
than those with unstable self-concepts, fjohanson (1953) ob
served that the effectiveness of vocational counseling sig
nificantly increased with the development of increase of self-
knowledg|e* Sh eerer (19i|-9) in examining counseling cases con
cluded that a definite relationship existed between acceptance
of self and acceptance of and respect for others. Raimy (19lf8),
using transcribed recordings of fourteen cases, found that
iiD^roved clients were making preponderantly more self-approv
ing statements, therefore he concludes successful counseling
involved essentially a change in the client's self-concept.
Berdie (195^4-) voices the same conclusion as he too noted
improvement of self-ratings after successful counseling.
Rogers, Kell and McReil (191+8) in studying delinquents found
that future adjustment depended primarily on the individual's
understanding of himself and the reality situation. Stock
(191+9) found that a person who had negative feelings about
himself almost invariably had negative feelings toward others.
Holt (1951) found that self-insight showed statistically sig
nificant relationship to intelligent living and social adjust
ment. Jersild (1957) from studying self-referent statements
deduced that the more genuinely a person at any level of age
or social prestige, realises his own selfhood, the greater is
his capacity to relate to others and greater is his opportunity
to fully realise his potentlalltiea.
Another technique quite widely used is the W.A.Y. (Who
Are You) technique. Bugenal (1952) and Hanlcn (1954) and
many others used this method for acquiring self attitudes*
The Q technique, developed by Stephenson (1953) has been re
ceiving more popularity recently as u method for investigating
the self-concept. hcGregor (1955) adapted the sort to study
self-group, self-ideal, self-group ideal and ideal-group re
lationships in adolescents. He observed some tendency for
self-concepts to conform to group ideals. Block and Thomas
(1955)# using self-sorts and ideal-sorts showed a relation
ship between self-satisfaction and the social dimension of
adjustment. Levy (195^) using actual-ideal sorts, arrived
at the conclusion that discrepancies between the actual and
Ideal self-concepts appeared to he far more significant than
considering both separately. Chodorkoff (1954}> olao uaing
the Q sort as well as adjustment rating by judges, concluded
that an individual's perception of himself and self-descrip
tion are good criteria for his personal adjustment. Butler
and Haigh (1954) employed the Q sort to test the hypothesis
that people who came for counseling are dissatisfied with
themselves and following counseling their dissatisfaction
with themselves was reduced. They concluded that self-este^
(which to them is the congruence between self and ideal-
sorts) increases as a direct result of client-centered coun
seling.
Gross (19ii.8) constructed and partially standardized a
scale for measuring self insight from which evolved a formula.
The formula was subjected to rather rigorous examination and
was found to provide valuable information with respect to
identifying sense of achievement, reasoning ability, cont«a-
plative attitude and initiative. Grossman (1951) went fur
ther and constructed and validated two tests. Adaptations of
the Quilford Martin and T.A.T. tests were employed. The
amount of insight a subject possessed was measured by the de
gree of discrepancy between the manner liie subject answered
certain items and the way the psychologist felt he should •
answer the item.
Gough (1955) developed the adjective check-list as a
personality assessment technique and found it useful in dif
ferentiating between social stereotypes.
The research that has been conducted clearly indicates
that no absolute conclusions can be reached either about the
beat specific technique or indeed about the self-theory itself.
However, there are some strong indications as seen by much
corroborative research cited that self-concept theory and
specific practices in specific situations are effective.
With further future research, refining of instruments, and
perhaps synthesizing of points of view a great contribution
may be made toward a fuller understanding of human person
ality.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study is sn attompt to analyza adolescents' con
cepts of themselves in three frames of reference and to re
late their concepts of themselves to the types of behavior
they display in the school setting as observed by teachers.
Procedures
The design has been prepared to explore the following
research questions.
1. Are self-concepts of adolescents normally distrib
uted?
2* Do adolescents who are self-deprecatory, tend to
think that other groups think of them in deprecatory terms?
3. Do adolescents who are self-enhancing tend to think
that other groups think well of them?
I4.* Are self-deprecating adolescents those who generally
display behavior traits considered to be more undesirable than
traits displayed by self-enhancing adolescents?
5. Are self-concept discrepancies between different
pairs of selves consistent?
The Pilot Stud3
Three Grade IX classes served as the pilot study group*
Four other pupils were selected arbitrarily as representing
a cross-section of pupils on the basis of social acceptability,
achievement and intelligence* These four pupils served as
judges to evaluate each of the adjectives on the check list.
The kinds of rating appeared to adequately differentiate be
tween self-enhancing and self-deprecatory words* The actual
distributions of self-concept scores were sufficiently varied
to give an indication that this plan of research would be
feasible with another group* The study provided much infor
mation for the refining of administrative and scoring proced
ures employed in the actual research.
A* Selection of the Sample
One hundred pupils were selected from the four Grade IX
classes of one junior high school in the city of Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada* The particular school selected was one in
which the writer taught* The writer, however, did not teach
the pupils who were in the sample group. This particular
school was selected because of the cooperation which could be
elicited from the staff toward relinquishing their classes
for the periods required for the administration of the tests.
The willingness of the three teachers involved as evaluators
of pupil behavior was also instrumental in the selection of
this school.
In thla sarajjle thane were 56 boyi and I|lj. girls. Of
these 100 students there were ̂  for whom no IQ ratings were
available. For those for whom IQ results were available there
were two different IQ tests on record. The Detroit beginner's
test was administered in Grade I. The Laycock Mental Maturity
Test was administered in Grade V. Table 1 shows the distri
bution of the IQs for the two tests.
Table 1. IQ Distribution of the Bas^le
Mean IQ for the group from Detroit Test 109 (M » 57)
Standard Deviation of Detroit Test 14
Mean IQ for the group from Laycock Test 109 {M » 9ij.)
Standard Deviation of Laycock Test lij.
It should be noted at this point that both the Detroit
and Laycock tests have an elevated IQ in terms of the popula
tion of Grade IX Edmonton pupils. Investigation with test
results of both of these teats have shown the Laycock IQ av
erage for Edmonton to be 106 and the Detroit IQ test average
for Edmonton to be 110. In view of these results it would
appear that the IQ mean of the sample group approximates that
of the city population from which the sample was taken. It
can be concluded then that in terms of intelligence ratings
this sample can be considered as a representative group. The
particular school from whidb the sample was selected drew from
both the upper and lower income groups.
In order to obtain some criteria of the worth or value
of each adjective checked^ It was felt that some person or a
group would have to determine the degree to which a specific
adjective was self-enhancing or self-deprecatory. It was
first thought that a group of mature, experienced teachers
who had a fairly complete understanding of adolescent psy
chology would be a suitable group to serve as judges. How
ever unbiased a teacher may be, his value system might not
be in accord with those of Grade IX students. Therefore, it
was felt that the judges for evaluating the adjectives should
be from the peer group of the subjects in the study.
Initially it was planned to select randomly from the '
sample those who would serve as judges. This posed two prob
lems: (1) Would a small sample chosen randomly be represen
tative? and (2) Would the rating of the adjectives influence
the manner in which the students would later check the items
when the self-concepts were appraised?
It was felt that representative peer judgment could beat
be obtained by utilizing those pupils who had been selected
by all the adolescents in the school to represent the views
of the entire student body in the various affairs within the
school. This group was the student council and classroom rep
resentatives, duly elected by ballot. Edwards^ has indicated
similarity between different groups within a sample when rating
the desirability of statements to be used in a self-reference
scale. The views of these judges then can probably be con
sidered as representative.
^Allen L. Edwards, The Social Desirability Variable in
Personality Assessment and Research (New York: The Drvden
Press, 1957.
Development of Instrumenta
Introduction to Gouah* a Ad: »ctive Checi
He Gough^ working in the Institute of Personality Assess
ment and Research at the University of California devised an
appraisal Instrument for assessing the self-concept of adults.
He selected the ad4eotive check list approach which he felt
iws meaningful, sufficiently complex in scope to cover the
ordinary range of behavior observed, and susceptible of sys
tematic analysis. He found this a satisfactory method for
determining the self in various experiments he conducted.
Several reliability studies have been conducted with
this instrument. Reliability coefficients obtained range
from .63 to .73» which although somewhat lower than other
psychological instruments displays sufficient consistency
that it can be considered a useful psychological tool.
The self-concept instrument employed in this research
is the identical tool devised by Gough. The use of the in
strument differed only in the weighting of adjectives which
formed a part of this study. The reasons for selecting this
instrument for this particular study were as follows.
1. There is a wide coverage of descriptive adjectives
which permits considerable scope in expression of how one
feels about himself.
2. Pupils are not forced to commit themselves about any
attitude or feeling about which they are uncertain or confused.
3# This list could be readily administered in a single
37-rain«te period thereby oiinimizing disruption of the regular
school instructional program.
k.» The responses to the list could be objectified and
subsequently treated statistically.
Oomputation of Self-Concept Values.—'Each adjective was
assigned a numerical value ranging from 0 to 5 based on the
ratings of the judges. The total number of points earned by
any particular individual was the sum total of all values at
tached to the words he checked. This total was divided by
the number of items he checked. The final quotient was multi**
plied by 100 to remove the decimal.
An illustration may assist in clarifying the procedure
followed. (See Appendix 3.) pupil number 1 on the self-
concept administration checked 86 words. The total value of
the words was 288 points. This total divided by the number
of words gave the following « 3.34» The quotient was
then multiplied by ICQ to remove the decimal producing the
Self-Concept Quotient 33if.
Three separate administrations provided three different
sets of self-quotients depending on the frame of self-refer
ence attached to each adndnistration.
Luea«**There was in
corporated into this study an examination of self-concept
discrepancies and the interrelatedness of these discrepancies.
In this particular study the object was to determine how
consistent were the discrepancies between the various pairs
of self-related concepts. Do pupils who have minimal dis
crepancies between Self-Concept and Peer Self-Concept also
have small discrepancies between Self-Concept and Teacher
Self-Concept as well as between Peer Self-Concept and Teacher
Self-Concept? Do pupils who have greatest discrepancies be
tween two sets of self-related concepts, have most divergent
scores between the other paired categories?
In order to obtain the information to answer such ques
tions the following procedures were followed.
(a) Three different discrepancy scores were obtained
for each pupil, namely,
Self-Concept, Peer Self-Concept discrepancy
Self-Concept, Teacher Self-Concept discrepancy
Peer Self-Concept, Teacher Self—Concept discrepancy*
(b) Discrepancies in each category were set up in table
form showing the distribution of discrepant scores
ranging from 0 to 119, the range of discrepancies.
(c) By use of the Pearson product moment of correlation
the relationships between the various discrepancies
were calculated. The results are noted in Table 13.
The Behavior Rating Scale.—The Behavior Rating Scale
was devised to obtain an external measure for the sample group.
The external group selected in this study was the teachers
most intimately connected with the pupils for whom self-con
cept scores were obtained.
The scale was devised so as to assess in a simple manner
adult judgment values for these pupils. In order to simplify
the decision making for the teachers doing the rating and to
make for more simple statistical treatment, each trait was
dichotomized in terras of whether each specific individual
possesaed that trait to a greater or less degree than the
average. (See Appendix 2)
The traits selected for the ecale were taken from a
number of sources. An attempt was made to extract those
traits most commonly recognized as important and indicative
of the entire personality structure of the adolescent indi
vidual. Of necessity when limiting the number of traits to
27» many traits had to be eliminated. However, those traits
found most often amongst forms of behavior assessed by well
known experts were drawn together to form the list.
The sources from which the trait names were obtained
included HcQuitty*s (1950) list of personality traits,
Yeager's (1935) traits of prospective teacher candidates;
Haggorty, Olson and Wickman's (1930) well known Behavior Rat
ing Schedule; Rogers' (1931) adjustment scale, Kelley's (1935)
essential traits of human life, selected self-referral type
items from the California Psychological Inventory and
Allport's (1936) comprehensive list.
In many instances different terms were ttaployed by dif
ferent authors to inply the same basic trait. In such cases
the most commonly understood trait name was selected. At all
times throughout the delineation of traits an effort was made
to maintain as coi^rehensive coverage of traits as possible
and still secure a simple well understood short list for easy
checking.
The ratings were further set up in such a way that the
statements were of a positive, desirable nature. When checked
on t^e left column this indicated that the particular indi
vidual being assessed was considered to have better than aver
age quality in each trait examined. In this way a positive
value of plus 1 was awarded to each check in the left column.
Similarly, a value of minus 1 was awarded to each cheek in
the less desirable or right column* Simply by adding all the
check marks in the left column and subtracting from this to
tal the number of check marks in the right column a whole
number behavior rating score could be obtained. The behavior
rating score for each individual was obtained by averaging
the behavior rating scale score of all ̂ e teachers involved
with that invidivual.
I. Administration of Instruments
Rating of the Ad.ieotivea.—Each of the judges was asked
to evaluate each adjective in terms of how much or how little
a 8elf•statement using the adjective would be indicative of
feelings of personal worth. Each judge was asked to affix
values to each adjective ranging from 1 to (See Appendix
5.) These judges were asked also to indicate the words which
to them were not understandable. This request was made to
determine which words were beyond the understanding of most
pupils. The plan was to discard any words which fewer than
half of the judges knew. Interestingly enough, none of the
300 adjectives had to be discarded as all the words were in-|^■^\iVn 1
dicated as being known by a majority of the judges.
The values given to each adjective by each of the judges
were added and the worth of that adjective thus ar
rived at, i*e., the total score obtained for a certain adjec
tive was divided by the number of judges idio assigned a value
to that adjective. This average score was considered as the
self-concept score for that particular adjective. An example
may help to clarify the manner in which this self-concept
value was obtained.
The first term, absent-minded, was given a weighting of
X (very aelf-deprecatory) by thirteen of the judges. Fifteen
other judges gave it a value of 2. One judge gave it a value
of 3* average these, the following method was used:
Number of judges responding
Hence absent-minded was given a self-concept value of 1#59«
(See Appendix 1^.)
This procedure was followed for each of the 300 adjec
tives of the check list.
The Self-Concept Scale Administration.—Each of the 100
pupils in the selected sample was given a copy of the adjective
check list. Directions as to how to use the scale were issued
orally while the pupils read the directions to themselves.
(See Appendix 6.) Any questions as to the clarification of
what was required was dealt with immediately after these di
rections were read. One regular class period was required
for the completion of this test. This procedure was followed
in tlM four clasarooma involved on the same half day so that
no opportunity was afforded the pupils to discuss the check
list with the other pupils*
One week later the same test was administered in the
same manner with the emphasis being placed on peer-self*
(See Appendix 7*) One week after this the teacher self-con
cept was elicited in precisely the same manner. (See Appen
dix 8*)
Behavioral Rating Scale Administration*—Each of the
evaluating teachers was asked to rate each pupil in the traits
listed. (See Appendix 2*} Two specific suggestions were made
to them. First, they were encouraged to evaluate all of the
pupils to be dealt with one trait at a time, i.e., trait
number 1 about being outgoing and freely expressive to be
rated for all of the pupils before going on to trait number
2, etc. This request was made in order to avoid a "halo"
effect and thus obtain a more objective evaluation for the
entire group* Second, each teacher was asked to evaluate
only those traits he or she felt in a position to evaluate*
For example, if a particular pupil was not well known to the
teacher only a few traits were to be checked whereas a pupil
known intimately could be evaluated on all 27 traits.
E* Analysis of the Data
The data gathered was examined and the following kinds
of analyses were madet
1» The self-concept scores were examined as to the
means, and standard deviations# Critical ratios were cal
culated to determine the significance between the means.
2« The distributions of the sets of self-concept scores
were tested for normality using the chl-square method.
3* The distribution of scores of the behavioral rating
scale was tested for normality by the ehl-square method.
k., Intercorrelations were calculated for the following
pairs of relationships (fearson product moment method).
Self-Concept aM Peer Self-Concept
Self-Concept and Teacher Self-Concept
Self-Concept and Behavior Rating Scale
Peer Self-Concept and Teacher Self-Concept
Peer Self-Concept and Behavior Rating Scale
Teacher Self-Concept and Behavior Rating Scale
Self and Peer Self-Discrepancy, and Self and Teacher
Self-Discrepancy
Self and Teacher Self-Discrepancy, and Teacher Self
and Peer Self-Discrepancy
Self and Peer Self-Discrepancy, and Pear Self Teacher
Self-Dls crepancy.
"k \ >
&
\ ̂ Tg'' I''' -AP »
'•'a Ia
'j -V ^ ipr
CHAPTER I?
AML3fSIS OP FINDINGS
The distributions of the three self**eonoept scales were
examined. Comparisons between the distrilxitions were tabu
lated. The results of the calculation of mean scores, stand
ard deviation and critical ratio for the three different self-
concept scales are noted in Table 2. The means of the self-
concept and peer self-concept scales ware obsej?ved to be very
similar, whereas the teacher self-concept score mean was some
what divergent. The t teat was employed to determine the de
gree of significance of the differences between the means.
Table 2, Mean, Standard Deviation and Critical Ratios
for the Three Self-Concept Scales
H S S>
Self-Concept 3i^2.8 32.7
Peer Self-Concept 3l|2.l4. 34.2 ,90
Teacher Self-Concept 329.5 4l.O 2.54'*
"•^Slgnifleant at the .02 level.
A critical ratio of .90 between the self-concept
mean and the peer self-concept mean indicates that there
is no significant difference between these two measures,
using the .05 level of confidence as the criterion. On the
other hand a critical ratio of Z^$k batweon the self-concept
mean and the teacher self-concept mean indicates that there
is a statistically significant difference between these two
measures at the ,02 level of confidence.
In order to determine how closely the distributions of
the self-concept scores resemble the normal distribution, t^e
Chi-square test for normality was applied. Guilford«s (19^6)
method as noted on page 214-1 was eiieployed and the results are
set down in Tables 3, 1|., 5, 6, ?» and 8.
It should be noted that Table 3 provides the prelim
inary data for the calculation of f for the Self-Concept
Quotient distribution as noted in Table k* Similarly, Tables
$ and 7 lead into Tables 6 and 8, respectively.
The self-concept distribution yielded a P at .6o level
of confidence. The peer self-concept distribution yielded
a P of .07 and the teacher self-concept distribution yielded
a P of .21. If we accept the .05 level as the criterion for
significance we must accept the hypothesis that the differ
ences between the observed frequencies and the expected fre
quencies are not sufficient to reject the idea that the
scores were normally distrituted. it can be concluded then
tlMt the self-concept scores are normally distributed.
Tabl« 3, Goodness of Pit for Self-Concept Quotient Distri
bution Obtaining Expected Frequencies
(p. 121, Ouilford)
(1) ik)
Standard y
Scores Midpoint Deviation Score from
X X z Table B
4ia-i4-6o 14.50.5 107.7 3.27 .0019 .1 1
1+21-ii4o 1^30.5 87.7 2.36 .O2I4.7 1.5 2
14.01-1^0 1410.5 67.7 2.07 .OI4.68 2.9 1
381-1^00 390.5 1^7.7 I.I46 a37l^ 8.1^ 3
361-380 370.5 27.7 .88 .2709 16.6 20
314.1-360 350.5 7.7 .21^ .3876 23.7 25
321-314.0 330.5 -12.3 -.38 .3711 22.7 27
301-320 310.5 -32.3 -.99 .21^00 14.7 12
281-300 290.5 -52.3 -1.60 .1109 6.8 6
261-280 270.5 -72.3 -2.21 .0314.7 2.1 2
2I4.I-260 250.5 -92.3 -2.82 .0075 .5 1
X = X - 3i|.9.2
z « x/32.7
y from fable B
f.• ( ¥), 51.2
Table 1|.* Chl-Square Teat for Self-Concept
Quotient Dlatrubution
(p. 2kl, Guilford)
(1) Original Regrouped
Scor.. -aSSHE^ frequencies Cell Cell-SquareDiscrep. Squared Contingenciea
xo re fo fe fo-fe (fo-fe)2 (fo-fe)^
f9 
1.5 k 4 .5 -.5 .25 .055
2.9
8.4 8.4 4.6 21.16 2.520
20 16.6 20 16.6 3.4 11.56 .696
25 23.7 25 23.7 1.3 1.69 .071
27 22.7 27 22.7 4.3 18.49 .815
12 14.7 12 14.7 2.7 7.29 .497
6 6 .8
2.1 9.4 -.4 .16 017
x2 « J14..671
df * no. of categories -1
df » 6
P approx. .60 level of confidence
Table $* Goodness of Pit for Peer Self-Concept Quotient
Distribution Obtaining Sxpected Frequencies
(p. 121, Guilford)
(1) (k) (5)
Standard y
Scores Midpoint Deviation Score from
X X z Table B
l|21-y4.0 14-30.5 88.1 2.56 .0150 .68
14.01-U20 14.10.5 68.1 1.99 .0550 3.22 1
361-14.00 390.5 48.1 1.41 .1477 8.64 10
361-380 370.5 28.1 .62 .2849 16.67 25
3ia-36o 350.5 8.1 .24 .3902 22.83 23
321-3il-0 330.5 -11.9 -.35 .3752 21.95 15
301-320 310.5 -31.9 -.93 .2607 15.25 12
281-300 290.5 -51.9 -1.52 .1255 7.34 9
261-280 270.5 -71.9 -2.40 .0224 1.31 4
2lfl-260 250.5 -91.9 -2.69 .0107 .63
221-21^0 230.5 -111.9 -3.27 .0020 .01 1
X " X - 3it2*l+.
e « X/3I4..2
7 from Table B
fe = y 58.5
Table 6. Chi-Square Test for Peer Self-Concept
Quotient Distribution
(p. 2i4JL, Guilford)
(1} Original Regrouped
Cell Cell-Square
Scores Grouping Frequencies p. Squared, ConWngenciis
fe fo-fe (fo-fe)2 (fo-fe)^
,88
1 3 '22 11 12.74 -1.7 2.89 227
10 8.6 I4.
25 16.67 25 16.67 8.3 68.89 14-.1 39
23 22.83 23 22.83 .2 •0 4 .001
15 21.95 15 21.95 -6.9 14.7.61 2.173
12 15.25 12 15.25 -3.2 10.214. .671
9 7 .3i^ 7.314- 1.7 2.89 393
k 1.31
.63 1.95 3.0 9.00 1^.103
11.707
6
.0'
Table ?. Goodnsta of Fit for Teacher Self-Concept Quotient
Distribution Obtaining Expected Frequencies
(p. 121, Guilford)
(1) ik) i$)
Standard 7
Scores Midpoint Deviation Score from
X X z Table B
421-1140 430.5 101.0 2.46 .0194 .94 1
401-420 410.5 81.0 1.97 .0576 2.62 3
381-400 390.5 61.0 1.48 .1335 6.53 4
361-380 370.5 41.0 1.00 .2420 10.83 14
341-360 350.5 21.0 .51 .3500 17.12 24
321.340 330.5 1.0 .02 .3987 19.50 16
301-320 310.5 -19.0 -*46 .3608 17.64 11
281-300 290.5 -39.0 -.95 .2541 12.43 13
261-280 270.5 -59.0 -1.43 .1337 6.54 9
241-260 250.5 -79.0 -1.92 .0636 3.11 4
221-240 230.5 -99.0 -2.41 .0220 1.08 1
X = X - 329.5
z » x/41.1
7 from Table B
fe «(¥) M » I4.8.9
ft-
Table 8. Chl-Square Test for Teacher Self-Concept
Quotient Distribution (p. 21^.1, Guilford)
(1) Original Regrouped «
^gro^plns Fraquencl... Cell-SquareScores Squared Contingencies
fo-fe (fo-fe)2 (fo-fe)2
fe
1 .94
3 2.82 . 8 10.29
k 6.53.
14 10.83 14 10.83
24 17.12 24 17.12
l6 19.50 l6 19.50
11 17.6ij. 11 I7.6I4.
13 12.43 13 12.43
9 6.54^
4 3.il( 14 10.73
Results of Behavioral Rating Soorea
The Bshavioral Rating Soale produced a considerable
range in scores. One pupil received a rating of plus 27, the
highest possible for an individual. Another pupil obtained
a score of minus 19, which meant that in the opinion of the
teachers this pupil possessed 19 more traits on the undesir
able side of the ledger to those on the desirable side.
Table 9 indicates the mean score of all the rating scores
and also provides an indication of variability within the
distribution.
Table 9. Mean and S.D. of
Behavioral Rating Scores
Mean +$,kz
S.D. 11.22
The kind of distribution of scores obtained from the Be
havioral Rating Scale are to be noted in Tables 10 and 11,
If we accept the .05 level of confidence for statistical
significance we must conclude from the .0I4. value obtained
that the behavioral rating scale scores are so divergent from
what might be expected in the normal population that this
particular distribution was not representative of a normally
distributed trait.
B;
p
Table 10. Goodness of Fit for Behavioral Rating Scores
Obtaining Sxpected Frequencies
(p. 121, Guilford)
(1^) (5)
Standard y
Midpoint Deviation Score from
z Table B
3 -20 -17.5 -22,9 -2.O il. .011-98 2.66
3 -Ui -11.5 -16.9 -1.50 .1295 6.93
3 - 8 -5»5 -10.9 -.97 .2i|93 13.51
3 - 2 .5 -*kk .3621 19.37
3 + 9 6.5 1.1 .10 .3970 21.24
3 +15 12.5 7.1 .63 .3290 17.60
) +21 18.5 13.1 1.17 .2013
) +27 2^.5 10.7719.1 1.70 .0914-0 5.02
X « X - 5.1^2
% « x/ll.22
y from Table B
iirfe" 
Taile 11. Chi-Square Test for Goodness' of Fit for the
Behavioral Rating Scores
(p. 241, Guilford)
Original Regrouped Cell Cell-Square
Grouping Prequenciea Discrep. Squared Contingencies
fo-fe (fo-fe (:o-f" Peo \2
fe
2.66 9.59 29.16 3.04
6.93
13.51 13.51 -1.5 2.25 .17
19.39 19.39 -10.4 108.16 5.52
21.24 21.24 2.8 .37
17.60 17.60 .4 .01
10.77
5.02 15.79 38 M 2.43
or Total » 11.54
df * no. of categories leas one
df « 5
P « .04 level.
The Relationships between the Different Self-Concepts
and the Behavioral Ratings
The Pearson product moment of correlation technique
was employed to determine the existing relationships between
the different self-concepts and the behavioral ratings. Six
relationships in all were found and are listed in Table 12.
Table 12. Correlations between the Self-Concepts
and Behavioral Ratings
Peer Teacher
Self- Self- Self- Behavioral
Concept Concept Concept Ratings
Self-Concept .ij-6 -.06
Peer Self-Concept .53 -.01
Teacher Self-Concept
Behavioral Ratings
Perhaps the most significant outcome of this study is
with respect to these relationships. The self concept- peer
self concept correlation of .5^ demonstrates a positive
relationship between these two elements. Generally speaking
then, pupils who thought highly of themselves, also thought
their peers thought highly of them. Similarly, the corre
lations of .ii.6 and .53 in the other relationships also sug
gest some consistency in self-assessment when taken on a group
basis* It oiust be noted of course that this does not mean
that every Individual is consistent in these areas* The r
value is not sufficiently high to i»k:e any categorical state*
Bients. Rather, there is an indication or suggestion that
raost adolescents are reasonably consistent in their self-
evaluation in different frames of reference.
The other aspect of Table 12 is perhaps equally signif
icant* The r's of «*06, -*01 ai»i ♦•21 give strong evidence
toward refuting the thesis that pupils who think highly of
themselves display favorable behavior traits as observed by
teachers in the school setting* It is to be expected that
the highest correlation of the three was when teachers* rat
ings were compared with how pupils thought teachers viewed
them. Yet this relationship was very low and little or no
confidence can be attached to it*
The Relationships between Pairs of
Self-Concept Discrepancies
Three separate relationships between pairs of discrep
ancies are shown in Table 13*
The purpose of obtaining these relationships was to de
termine whether or not there was consistency in discrepancies
between tibe different selves* For example, are pupils \&io
obtain relatively similar scores in the categories Self-Concept
and Peer Self-Concept, likely to have relatively similar scores
in the third dimension, that of Teacher Self-Concept? In the
Table 13, Correlations between Discrepancy Scores of
Three Self-Concept Discrepancies
S• C  • S»C»— Peer S.C.-
Peer S.C. Teacher S.C. Teacher S.C.
Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy
S.C.-
Peer S,C.
Discrepancy
S # C•  —
Teacher S.C.
Discrepancy
Peer S.C.-
Teacher S*C«
Discrepancy
same manner do those pupils whose scores are most divergent
between two particular categories generally have most diver
gent scores between the other pairs of self-concepts? An
outline of the procedure followed may assist in clarifying
the concept of discrepancy relationships. Pupil 1 obtained
a raw score difference of 22 points between his self-concept
quotient and peer self-concept quotient. (See Appendix 3.)
When taking the dimensions of self-concept and teacher self-
conceptf pupil 1 obtained a 12 point difference.' In comparing
this pupil's peer self-concept and teacher self-concept scores
a 3I4. point difference was noted. Altogether pupil 1 had
rather varying discrepancies.
Pupil 12» on the other hand, had low and rather consis
tent discrepancies, i.e., no more than 5 points difference
between any two pairs of scores. An effort was made to de
termine whether most pupils' scores were closely related (as
with pupil 12) or not.
Table 13 shows relationships of .17, .11 and .39.
These figures indicate that generally speaking it was not
true that certain pupils had minimally discrepant scores in
all three self-concept areas and others had maximally dis
crepant scores in all areas. Another way of stating this
would be, pupils whose scores were closely related in two
self-concept areas not necessarily had scores closely related
in the third area. True, there was a positive relationship
and in the one pair of discrepancies matched, began to ap
proach a relationship to warrant examination. However, on
the whole it could be said that self-concept discrepancies
were not consistent enough in the three self-concept areas
noted in this study to merit the assumption of consistency.
It was interesting to note that the highest relationship
found was where the Teacher Self-Concept was the common ele
ment in the discrepancies. It is possible that the low re
lationships could in part be a reflection of rather low reli
ability measures found with self-concept discrepancies as
noted in several studies.
s
^ ^ _ CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND REOOimiDATIOHS
Summary
The study of self-concept, which although relatively new
with respect to vigorous research, has been opened up to such
an extent that a great many avenues have been touched. This
study confined Itself to the self-concepts of a specific
grade level of adolescents In making a comparison between how
adolescents look at themselves and how teachers look at them.
To the best of the author's knowledge this Is a unique contri
bution to the field.
In attempting to study adolescent self-views and teachers*
opinions of adolescents, one special Instrument was created
and another instrument adapted for this purpose. The Instru
ment and the adaptation although derived from established
devices have not been subjected to the critical analysis that
Is given to published tests.
The five research questions adopted in this study were:
1. Are self-concepts of adolescents normally distributed?
2. Do adolescents who are self-deprecatory tend to think
that othar groupa think of ^am in dapreoatory terms?
3» Do adolescents who are self-enhancing tend to think
thati other groups think well of them?
k' Are self-deprecatory adolescents those lAio generally
display behavior traits considered to be more undesirable
than traits displayed by self-enhancing adolescents?
5* Are self-concept discrepancies betweaa the different
pairs of selves, consistent?
In examining the data related to these questions, certain
findings and implications clearly stand out.
1# Self-concepts of adolescent students are normally
distributed and can be treated in the same sianner as other
psychological measurements*
2* Adolescents, as a group think more highly of them
selves than they feel teachers think of them. Also as a
group adolescents think about as much of themselves as they
feel their peers think of them. It would appear that with
the significant difference between the means of the self-
concept scores and teacher self-concept scores, one could
assume that adolescents have the feeling that teachers vis
ualise their pupils as being of less worth than they really
are. As a corollary, it could be inferred that adolescent
pupils think of their teachers not as much in terms of sup
portive, encouraging and inspiring forces as they do in terms
of those qualities which tend to make a person feel less im
portant or worthwhile. This may be a reflection of
adolescent views of adults generally*
3. Self•deprecatory adolescents display a great range
of behavior in the school situation. Teachers^ by observing
pupils' behavior, can obtain virtually no infoiroatlon about
how individuals feel about themselves. To obtain an under*
standing of pupils' values, attitudes and inner feelings some
other means than ordinary observation of classroom behavior
is required. It would seem that a large per cent of adoles
cents act in school using defense meohanisma. Many put on
a "front" of being happy and well adjusted whereas in actu
ality they possess inner feelings of insecurity and below
average feelings of worth and importance.
These findings point to Idae great need of specialized L,
personnel in the schools whose function it is to determine ̂  >
the degree of inner security possessed by individuals and to
advise the regular teacher of these basic inner feelings and
needs so that more appropriate and positive use can be made
of the teacher's time and capabilities.
If. Self-concepts of adolescents fail to show consis-
tency. The marked differences %riiieh many adolescents mani
fested between the three self-concept areas tested suggests
a confusion in the minds of smny as to how one actually should
view oneself. With substantial divergence between how one
views oneself and how one feels one is viewed must come a
conflict as to the role an individual should assume. The
knowledge of such diverg«Hit feelings is important to the
arsenal of information which school guidance personnel should
possess In order to do effective guidance with adolescents.
It should be noted that certain limitations are present
In this study. The conclusions stated are to be Interpreted
within the context of these limitations.
The sample group employed In this research was of neces
sity a small sample from one school^ and although the results
Indicate that this group in some respects resembles the normal
distribution of pupils In the general population* It cannot
be concluded that this sample Is necessarily representative
In all aspects* nor are the views of the teachers selected
necessarily representative of teachers at large. Due to the
lack of demonstrated reliability of the behavior rating scale
and the previously mentioned factor of questionable relia
bility of discrepancy scores* the results obtained should be
considered with appropriate reservations.
The generalised conclusions which have been made must be
construed as tentative or possible ones which although apply
ing in this investigation perhaps may not apply to the popula
tion at large. This does not mean that the findings are of
little worth. Unless and until the results noted and con
clusions reached are found to be Invalid through attempts at
verification, serious consideration should be given to the
Idea that these conclusions may be true statements of actu
ally existing conditions.
Recommandatlons
In attempting to envisage the practical worth of the
foregoing study, several Ideas were derived idilch to the
writer appeared to have merit. These ideas for following up
on the work done are set forth as recoaiBiendatlons,
1. The nature and results of the foregoing study should
be submitted to the Institute of Personality Assessment and
Research of the University of California idiereby the findings
can supplement various researches *dilch have been conducted
using the Cough adjective dieck list.
2. A validation study should be made to determine
whether or not the self-concept quotient can be considered
as a valid personality assessment tool for adolescent pupils.
3» Investigation should be made (using the self-concept
Instrument) Into a comparison of delinquents and non-delin
quents with a view to the use of this technique as a predictor
of prospective delinquency.
If. A follow-up of the sample group employed in this
study could be done to determine If and to what degree self-
concepts of matriculating (from senior high school) students
differ from those pupils who do not matriculate.
More skilled guidance personnel should be provided
In school systems to assess the personality structures of
pupils. The assessment should be done with proper Instru
ments and professional skill. Provision should be made for
guidance workers to interpret to the regular teachers the
personality dynatolcs of their pupils, thereby promoting more
thorough understanding of the pupils and more effective
teaching techniques.
6. A coi^arison should be made of adult values of ad
jectives and adolescent values of adjectives. This might
provide a maturity index which may prove of worth in Ibrther
understanding adolescents.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allport, G. W. Peraonallty, A Psychological Interpretation.
New YorkI Henry Holt and Company, 1937•
» " The Ego in Contemporary Psychology," Payoholog-
ical Review. L (19k3) if5l-76.
> T rait Names. A PsyohcLexical Study* Princeton,
N»J.: Psychological Review Co., 1936.
Ames, Louise Bates. "The Sense of Self of Nursery School
Children as Manifested by Their Verbal Behavior," Journal
of Genet. Psychology. LXXXI (19^2), 193-232.
Anderson, Camilla M, "The Self-imagej A Theory of the Dynam
ics of Behavior," Mental Hygiene. XXXVI (1952), 227-^4..
Ausubel, D. P, Theory and Problems of Adolescent Development.
New York: Gruen & Stratton, Inc., 195ft.
Axelrod, H. S., Cowen, E. M., and Heilieer, P. "Self-Concept
\ C onflict Indicators aiKi Learning," Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology. LI {195^T» 21+2-14.5.
Axlino, Virginia M. > B oston: Boughto n Mifflin
Co., 19147.
Beery, G. S. "Experiment in Self-Analysis," Journal of Edu-
oational Psychology. XXXVII (19146), II-2I4:
Berdie, R. P. "Scores on Strong and Kuder in Relation to
Self Ratings," Journal Applied Psychology. XXXIV (1950),
142-149.
^ " Changes in Self Ratings as a Method of Evaluating
Counseling," Journal Counsel. Psych.. X (I95I4), 149-53.
Berger, Emanuel M. "The Relationship between Expressed Ac-
\ c eptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance of Others,"
Journal of Abnormal Soc. Psychology. XLVII (1952), 778-82,
Bieri, James, and Trieschman, Albert. "Learning as a Function
of Perceived Similarity to Self," Journal of Personality.
XXV (1956), 212-25.
Bills, R. W. "An Index of Adjustment and Values," Journal
of Consult. Psych.. XV (195l)» 257-6l.
Bills, R. E* "Rorschaoh Characteristics of Persona Scoring
High and Low in Acceptance of Self," Journal of Consult.
Paych., XVII (1953)» 36-38.
• " A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adjustment
and Values with Behavior in Level of Aspiration Tasks,"
Journal of Consult. Psych,, XVII (1953), 206-12,
• " A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of
Adjustment and Values," Journal of Consult. Psvoh.. XVII
(1953), 135-38, ■'
*  "Acceptance of Self as Measured by Interviews and
the Index of Adjustment and Values," Journal of Consult.
Paych., XVIII (I95I1), 22-2]4..
»  "Self Concepts and Rorschach Signs of Depression,"
Journal of Consult, Psvch.. XVIII (1954), 135-37.
*  "Personality Changes during Student-Centered Teach-
ing," Journal of Ed. Research. L (1956), 121-26.
•  "Progress with Research with the Index of Adjust
ment and Values," Unpublished Manuscript, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, 1953. (Mimeographed.)
Blake, R. R., and Ramsey, G. V. Perception: An Approach to
Personality. Mew York: Ronald Press, 1951.
vBlock, J,, and Thomas, H. "Is Satisfaction with Self a
Measure of Adjustment?" Journal of Abnormal and Soc.
Payob.. LI (1955), 254-59T
Brownfain, J. J. "Stability of the Self-Concept as a Dimen
sion of Personality," Journal of Abnormal Soc. Paych..
XLVII (1952), 597-606. —
Bugental, J. P. "The WAY Technique," Journal of Personality.
XVIII (1952), 483-98.
• and Gunning, E. C. "Investigations into Self-Concept:
Stability of Reported Self Identifications," Journal of
Clin. Psych.. XI (1955), 41-44.
Bugental, J. P. "An Investigation of the Relationship of the
Conceptual Matrix to the Self-Concept," (Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis, Ohio State University, 1949).
•  "A Method for Assessing Self and Mot-Self Atti
tudes during the Therapeutic Series," Journal of Consult.
Paych., XVI (1952), 435-39-
Butler, J. M., and Haigh, G. V. "Changes In Relation between
Self-Concepts and Ideal Concepts Consequent upon Client
Centered Counseling," in Psychotherapy and ParaonaHtv
pange, eds. C. R. Rogers and R. P. Dymond. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 195^.
Colvin, A. D. "Further Investigation of the Relationship
between Manifest Anxiety and Intelligence," Journal of
Consult. Psych. XIX (1956), 280-82.
,* Holtzman, W. H. "Discrepancy between Self-
Inferred Self," Journal of Consult. Pavch..
XVII (1953)# 39-44
Caplin, C. liBotiopal Problems of Early Childhood. Maw Vonb-*
Basic Books, Inc., 19^5.
Cattell, R. B. Personality: A Systematic, Theoretical and
Factual Stud^^ New York: McGraw Hill, 1950. """
Chain, I. "The Awareness of Self and the Structure of the
le Psycho: cal Review. XLI (1944)# 305-14.
Child, I. L., et al. "Self-Ratings and T.A.T.: Their Rela
tions to Each Other and to Childhood Background,"
Journal of Personalitv. XXV (1956), 96-114,
Chodorkoff, B. "Adjustment and the Discrepancy between the
X®a9Er 266-68®®^ Journal of Clinical Psych..
1 P erception, Perceptual Defense, and Adjust-
508 £2 Abnormal and Soc. Psych. XLIX (1954),
Combs, A, W. "Phenomenological Concepts in Non Directive
Therapy, Journal of Consult. Psvcfa.. XII (1949), 197-208,
— 3 r-r^ "Clinical Practice and Personality Theory," Journal
of Abnormal Soc. Psych.. XLIV (1949), 29-3^,
Cowen, E. L. "An Investigation into the Relationships between
\ , Two Measures of Self Regarding Attitudes," Journal of
Clinical Psvch.. XII (1956), 156-60.
. " The Negative Self Concept as a Personality Meaa-
Jonrnal of Consult. Psych.. XVIII (1954), 138-42,
Dai, B. "A Sociopathic Approach to Personality Organization."
American Soc. Review. XVII (1952), 44-49.
Dlller, L. "Conocioua and Unconacloua Self-Attitudes after
Success and Failure," Journal of Personality. XXXIII
(1954), 1-11.
Dollard, J*, and Miller, M. £• Personality and Psychotherapy.
New YorkI HcGraw Hill, 1950.
Dymond, R. F. "Relation of Insight and Empathy," Journal of
Consult. Psych.. XII (1946), 228-33.
Fein, E. "The Use of Judges in Psychological Experiments,"
Journal of Clln. Psych.. VII (1951), 98-100.
Fey, W. F. "Acceptance of Others and Its Relation to Accep
tance of Self and Others," Journal of Abnorm. Soc. Pavch..
L (1955), 274-76.
. " Correlates of Certain Subjective Attitudes toward
Self and Others," Journal of Clin. Psvch.. XIII (1957),
i|4-49.
Fienkl-Brunswick, S. "Mechanisms and Self-Description,"
Journal Soc. Psych.. X (1939), 409-20.
. " Personality Theory and Perception," in Perceptiont
An Approach to Personality, eds., R. R. Blake and G. V.
Ramsey. New Yorki Ronald Press, 1951.
Friedman, I. "Phenomenal, Ideal and Projected Conceptions of
Self," Journal of Abnorm. Soc. Psych.. LI (1955), 611-1^.
Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education*
New Yorkj Longmans Green, 1953.
Gough, Harrison G. "Reference Handbook for the Gough Adjective
Check-List," University of California, 1955* (Mimeographed.)
Gross, L. "Construction and Partial Standardization of a
Scale for Measuring Self-Insiaht." Journal of Soc. Psvch..
XXXVIII (1948), 219-36.
^Grossman, D. "The Construction and Validation of Two Insight
Inventories," Journal of Consult. Psych., XV (1951),
109-14.
Guilford, J* P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education. New Yorki McGraw Hill, 1956.
Haggarty, M. B., Olsen, W. C., and Wickraan, E. K. Behavior
Hating Schedules and Manual. Yonkersj World Book Co,,
1930.
Hall, C. S*, and Lindaay, G. Theoriea of Personality.
New Yorkj John Wiley and Sons, 1957»
Hanlon, T. E., Hofstoetter, P. R., and O'Connor, J.P.
N " Congruence of Self and Ideal Self," Journal of Consult.
Psych., XVIII (19514-), 215-18.
Eavighurst, R. J. Adolescent Character and Personality.
New Yorki John Wiley and Sons, 1914-9.
» and MacDonald, D. V. "Development of the Ideal
Self in New Zealand and American Children," Journal of
Educ. Reaearch. XLIX (1955), 263-73.
^  » Robinaon, M. Z., and Dorr, M. "The Development
of the Ideal Self in Childhood and Adolescence," Journal
of Educ. Research. LI (I9I4-6), 2l4.1-57»
Heibreder, E. I.. New YorkJ Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc., 1933.
Helper, M. M. "Learning Theory and the Self Concept,"
Journal of Abnorrn. Soc. Psvch.. LI (1955), l844.-9if.
Hickman, Norman W. "The Role of Self Relatad-Concept-
Discrepanciea in Personal Adjustment." Unpublished
Master's thesis. University of Oregon, 1957.
Hilgard, E. R. Introduction to Psycholof New YorkJ
Haroourt Brace, 1953.
. " Human Motives and the Concept of Self," American
Psychologist. IV (191^9), 3714--82.
fiobbs, N. "Guidance and Some Recant Developments in Psycho
logical Theory," Canadian Journal of Psvch. Ill (19i+9),
67.72.
Holt, R. R. "Accuracy of Self-Evaluations, Its Measurement
and Some of Its Personological Correlates," Journal of
Consult. Psych.. XV (1951), 95-101.
Homey, K. The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. New Yorks
Norton, 1937.
Hurlock, E. Developaental Paycholof New York? McGraw-
James, William. >  New York, World Publishing Co.,
191^8.
Jerslldf Arthur T« In Search of Self« New Yorkt Bureau of
Publicatlona, Teachers College, Columbia University, 19^2.
» T he Psychology of Adolescence. New Yorki The
Macmillan Co., 195?"
Johanson, D. G. "Effect of Vocational Counseling on Self
\ K nowledge," Educ. Psychol. Measurement. XIII (1953)»
330-38.
Jourard, Sidney M., and Remy, Richard M. "Individual Variance
Score: An Index of the Degree of Differentiation of the
Self and the Body ImaKe," Journal of Clin. Psvch.. XIII
(1957), 62-64.
Saoun, R. B,, and Wren, C. G. "Client Acceptance of Self-
Information in Counseling," Ed. Psych, iieasurement. X
(1950), 32-42.
Kelley, Truman L. Essential Traits of Mental Life, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1935.
Kenny, D. T. "Influence of Social Desirability on Discrepancy
Measures between Real Self and Ideal Self," Journal of
Consult. Psych.. XX (1956), 315-18.
Klausner, Samuel Z. "Social Class and Self Concept," Journal
Soc. Psychol.. XXXVIII (1953), 201-05.
Koffka, Kurt. "The Gestalt Interpretations of Personality,"
In Psychological Theory, eds,, Melvin H, Marx. New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1951*
LaFon, Fred. "Behavior on the Rorcchach Test and a Measure of
Self Acceptance," Psychological Monographs, in Psycholog
ical Abstracts XXIX, No. 5713 (1955).
Lecky, P. Self Consistency: A Theory of Personality. New
York: Island Press, 1945.
Levy, Leon H. "Meaning and Generality of Perceived Actual-
Ideal Discrepancies," Journal of Consult Psych.. XX
(1956), 396-98.
Lindgren, Henry C. Mental Health in Education. New York:
Henry Holt, 195li^^
Louttit, C. M., Review of Snygg, D., and Combs, A. W. Indi
vidual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference in Psychology.
in Psychol. Bull.. XLVII (1990). 170.
McLeod, R. B. "The Phenomenological Approach to Social Pay-
chology," The Psychological Review. LIV (191^7)» 193-210.
» " New Psychologies of Yesterday and Today." Canadian
Journal of Psychology. Ill (19i^9), 199-212.
. " Perpetual Constancy and the Problem of Motivation,"
Canadian Journal of Psychology. Ill (19I4.9), 57-66.
McGregor, John R. "A Study of the Self-Concept and Ideal-
Concept in Adolescence," The Alberta Journal of Educa
tional Research. I (1955)* 5-15.
Mclntyre, Charles J. "Acceptance of Others and Its Relation
to AcceptaiKse of Self and Others," Journal of Abnormal
and Soc. Psych.. XLVII (1952),
McQuitty, L. L. "A Measure of Personality Integration in Re
lation to the Concept of Self," Journal of Personality.
XVIII (1950), I4.61-82.
Mead, George H. Mind Self and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 193(l-»
Mitchell, C, "How Valid Are Pupils' Self-Evaluations,"
Clearing House. XIX (1945)* i4£6-88.
Miller, Kent S., and Worchel, P. "The Effects of Need-
Achievement and Self-Ideal Discrepancy on Performance
under Stress," Journal of Personality. XXV (1956), 176-90.
Moreno, Jacob L. Mental Catharsis and the Psychodrama♦
Boston: Beacon House, Inc., 19ii4*
O'Dea, J. D., and Zeran, P. R. "Effects of Counseling,"
Personnel and Guid. Journal. XXXI (1953), 2l4.1-liJ4..
Omwake, Katharine T. "The Relationship between Acceptance of
Self and Acceptance of Others' Shown by Three Personality
Inventories," Journal Consult. Psych.. XVIII (195ii.),
UI1.3-I446.
Overstreet, B. "Building the Self-image," National Education
Association Journal. XLI (1952), II4.-15.
Phillips, E. L. "Attitudes toward Self and Others," Journal
Consult. Psych.. XV (1951), 79-81.
Raimy, V. C. "Self-Reference in Counseling Interviews,"
Journal Consult. Psych.. XII (191^6), 153-63.
Rockowitz, M. "Know Thyself i Techniques In Pupil Self-EJval-
uatlon," High Points. XXX (1951), 50-56.
Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therai Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1951.
*  Measuring Personality Adjustment in Children Nine
to Thirteen Years of Age. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1931.
• and Dymond, R. P. Psychotherapy and Personality
Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951^..
. K ell, W. I>*, and McNeil, H. "The Role of Self-
Understanding in the Prediction of Behavior," Journal
Consult. Psych.. XII (19i4£), 1714--86.
. " Psychometric Tests and Client-Centered Counsel-
Ing," Educ. Psych. Measurement. VI (1946), 139-44.
. " The Organization of Personality," American Psv-
cholQglat. II (1947), 358-68.
. " A Co-ordinated Research in Psychotherapy,"
Journal Consult. Psych.. XIII (1949), 149-53. I#
■Sarbin, Theodore, R. "A Preface to a Psychological Analysis
of the Self," The Psychological Review. IiIX ^952), 11-22.
» and Farberow, N. L. "Contributions to Role-Taking
Theory," Journal Abnormal Soc. Psych.. XLVII (1952),
117-125.
Sheerer, Elizabeth T. "The Relation between Acceptance of
Self and Acceptance of Others in Ten Counseling Cases,"
Journal Consult. Psvch.. XIII (1949), 159-75.
Sherlf, M., and Contril, H» The Psychology of Ego Involve
ments. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1947.
Smith, M. B. "The Phenoraenological Approach to Personality
Theory," Journal Abnormal Soc. Psych.. XLV (1950),
5i6-22.
Snygg, Donald, "The Need for a Phenoraenological Systaa of
Psvehology," The Psychological Review. XLVIII (1941),
404-24.
. and Combs, A. V. Individual Behavior. New York:
Harper Brothers, 1949.
Snygg, Donald. "Predicting the Behavior of Individuals,"
Canadian Journal of Psvoh.. Ill (1914.9), 19-29.
Stagner, R. "Homeostasls as a Unifying Concept In Person
ality Theory," The Psychological Review. LVIII (19^1),
5-17• 
Stephenaon, William. The Study of Behavior; Q Technique and
Its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1953*
Stock, Dorothy. "An Investigation into the Interrelations
between the Self-Concept and Feelings Directed toward
Other Persons and Grouoa," Journal Consult. Psvch..
XIII (1949), 176-80. ^
Strang, H. M. "Self Adolescent Views on One Aspect of Their
Development," Journal Educ. Research. XLVI (1955), 23-32.
Suamer, F. C. "Sex Differences In Levels of Aspirations and
In Self Estimation of Performance In a Classroom Sltua-
Journal of Psvch.. XXVII (1949), 483-90.
Super, D. E. "Vocational Adjustment Implementing a Self-
Concept," Occupations. XXX (195l), 68-92.
» " A Theory of Vocational Development," American
Psychologist. VIII (1953), 185-90.
Symonds, Percival W. The Ego and the Self. Hew York:
Appleton-Century-Grof ts, 1951.
Taschuk, William A. "An Analysis of the Self Concept of
Grade Nine Students," Unpublished Master's thesis.
University of Alberta, 1957.
.Taylor, C., and Combs, A. W. "Self-Acceptance and Adjustment,"
Journal Consult. Psvch.. XVI (1952), 89-91.
Thorne, F. C. "Directive Psychotherapy," Journal of Clln.
Psych., VIII (1945), 155-62.
Torrance, E, P. "Some Practical Uses of a iDiowledge of Self-
Concepts In Counseling and Guidance," Educ. Psvch. Meaa-
urement. XIV (1954), 120-27.
Troyer, Maurice E. "Self-Evaluation as a Goal in Guidance,"
Journal Consult. Psvch.. VI (1942), 289-96.
Wattenberg, William W. The Adolescent Years. New York:
Hareourt. Brace, 1955. *
Webb, W, B. "Self-Evaluation Compared with Group Evalua
tions," Journal Consult. Fsyoh.. XVI (1952), 305-0?.
Wiolcman, E. K. Children's Behavior and Teachers* Attitudes*
New York? The Commonwealth Fund, Division of Publioa-
tions, 1926.
Worchel, Philip. "Personality Factors in the Readiness to
Express Aggression," Journal Clin. Psych.. XIV (1958),
355-59,
Yaeger, T. C. An Analysis of Certain Traits of Selected High*
School Seniors Interested in Teaching. New York:
Teachers College, 1935*
Zlmmer, Herbert* "Self-Acceptance and Its Relation to Con-
^ f lict," Journal Consult. Psvch.. XVIII (1954), 447-49.
Zuckerman, Marvin. "Acceptance of Self, Parents and People
in Patients and Normals," Journal of Clin. Psvch.. XII
(1956), 327-32.
'  A '
APPENDIX 1
The Ad.1ectlYe Check List
N«a«
Date
DIRECTIONS I This pamphlet contains a list of adjectives*
Please read them quickly and put a check-mark in front of each
one you would consider to be self-descriptive. Do not worry
about duplications, contradictions, and so forth. Work
quickly and do not spend much time on any one adjective* Try
to bo frank, and check those adjectives which describe you as
you really are, not as you would like to be.
absent-minded attractive coarse
active autocratic cold
adaptable awkward commonplace
adventurous bitter oo^laining
affected blustery complicated
affectionate boastful conceited
aggressive bossy confident
alert calm confused
aloof capable conscientious
ambitious careless conservative
anxious cautious considerate
apathetic changeable contented
appreciative charming conventional
argumentative cheerful cool
arrogant civilised co-operative
artistic clear-thinking courageous
assertive cowardly
Appendix 1 continued
cruel enthusiastic hasty
curiouB evasive headstrong
cynical excitable healthy
daring fair•minded helpful
deceitful fault-finding high-strung
defensive fearful honest
deliberate feminine hos tile
desending fickle humorous
dependable flirtatious hurried
dependent foolish idealistic
despondent forceful imaginative
determined foresighted immature
dignified forgetful ia^atient
discreet forgiving impulaive
disorderly formal independent
dissatisfied frank indifferent
diatractible friendly individualistic
distrustful frivolous industrious
dominant fussy infantile
dreamy generous informal
dull gentle ingenious
easy going gloomy Inhibited
effeminate good-looking initiative
efficient good-natured insightful
egotistical greedy intelligent
emotional handsome Interest narrow
energetic hard-headed interests wide
enterprising hard-hearted intolerant
Appendix 1 continued
inventive organized ___ rattlebrained
irresponsible original ^ realistic
Irritable _ outgoing _̂__ reasonable
jolly ^ outspoken __ rebellious
Icind ^ painstaking __ reckless
lazy patient ___ reflective
leisurely peaceable ____ relaxed
logical peculiar __ reliable
loud _̂____ persevering _______ resentful
loyal ______ persistent ___ reserved
mannerly _̂___ pessimistic ________ resourceful
laaaoullne _̂__ planful _____ responsible
mature _̂__ pleasant _____ restless
meek _̂_ pleasure-seeking ____ retiring
methodical _̂__ poised _____ rigid
mild _ polished robust
mischievous _̂___ practical ______ rude
moderate _̂__ praising ______ sarcastic
modest ___ precise _____ self-centered
moody _̂___ prejudiced ______ self-confident
nagging _̂__ preoccupied ______ self-controlled
natural _____ progressive _____ self-denying
nervous _̂____ prudish _____ self-pitying
noisy ^ quarrelsome __ 8elf-punishing
obliging ____ queer _____ self-seeking
obnoxious _____ quick ______ selfish
opinionated _̂__ quiet ______ sensitive
opportunistic ____ quitting _______ sentimental
optimistic _̂____ rational serious
>endix 1 continued
severe strong unexcitable
Bexj stubborn unfriendly
shallow submissive uninhibited
sharp-witted suggestible unintelligent
shiftless sulky unkind
show-off superstitious unrealistic
shrewd suspicious unscrupulous
sympathetic unselfish
silent tactful unstable
simple tactless vindictive
sincere talkative warm
slipshod teo^eramental wary
slow tense weak
thankless whiny
smug thorough wholesome
snobbish thoughtful wise
sociable thrifty withdrawn
soft-hearted timid witty
sophisticated tolerant worrying
spendthrift touchy zany
spineless tough
spontaneous trusting
spunky unaffected
stable unambitious
steady unassuming
stern unconventional
stingy undependable
stolid unemotional
Reproduced by special permission of the copyright holder.
■  ■ . - ♦
j  ■<"•• * •#*
APPEiiDCC 2
Kan* of 3tu dant
More than
Ayverage
1. Is outgoing and freely expressive
2« Is generous and sharing
3# Participates socially
4. Is trustworthy
5. Is well organised in his work
6. Completes tasksj Carries through
activities
7* Is punctual and in reg. attendance
8* Has self confidence and assurance
9* Is interested in helping others
10. Is friendly and warm in manner
11. Has leadership qualities
12* Is open minded
13* Maintains attention
lli.. Accepts decisions well
Ij^* Is mentally agile and alert
l6« Displays good humor and cheerful
disposition
17* Lacks feelings of resentment
18. Solicits group reaction
19. Is free from worries
20. Is dependable
21. Is considerate
22. Is approving! Speaks well of others
23. Maintains calmness in trying situations
2k' la stable and even timipered
25* Is enthusiastic
26. Conforms
27. Is active in constructive tasks
Behavior Rating
-P 73
O «
(DM S) O
^4 (9 E-< <8 (O
ft o <ija ■d ©* d §* "S ®
•n fi4 o d (4 S S4 a ti
P< K -P « o a o o
d  ® ® m  ra o a
fri CO ft <D >
E-l 6H <<
1  F 123 1 288
2  F 99 12
F 316 35 3Is9
P 2Lio 22 12
wyj 33
F
7  F i
8  P e CSS
9  P 6
VJilV c
11 IP
12 If
F  102 7  21
i csiF  109H Vl.iCI I
1 c11
17 M 107 215 fa
16 M Ilk 379 15 21 ll 49
19 a 120 202 27 13 21 2 1
20 M 121 196 17 7  1 11
21 M ToB 87 2b 33k 71 20 35> 33 h12
22 M 126 211 53 398 13 19 17I07 i|.3 383 213 17 118 21
23 M 107 105 298 91 327 55 387 21 21 21 10
2k M 203 56 362 11^8122 88 32 275 ia 36089 25 356 28 15 11 13 35
25 M 116 109 282 69 J+06 11 251^. 17127 32 396 56 15 16 8115 373 5 3  4 12
APPEMDIX 3 (Continued)
Behavior Rating
-p t>» i>» o ̂
H o  ® i 00 00 05 o
o e  Jid i 03 o CO a CO c c
4» *^01 fXi CO EH OB OB
o * 0 ® 0 P i Pi >9 Pi
>»j§ tQ '0 0 >0 0 p 0CB P Ec CP CO P
o. K (t) o cq o cQ o p Q  O 0 O O
p o o o 0 0 o ! §  O (8 OS CO 0 0  a o M
CO oQ a ca M 0 5 0 9 ®a &< H > C J-H O -H CO vH£•« H Eh < C O Q CO Q (p Q
26 M 266 85 312 249 72
152 47 323 345 217 59 367 13 2189 28 317 47 18 261 13 9
370 134 11 'I II If
29 F 228 625?  333^70 42 319 -15 7293 196 ^ 337
328 107 306 -5 23300 90 1 I? if a
31 P 416" 120 IP" JJl. 2^ -11 190 3ff j:£_ a 28. L310 93
32 P 333 319M322707  9770  335559 161 49 9 T :328 80 7 1 3 5^ 2128 285 -9 5 i -2 27 70 4373 22 331 97 28 346
1 121 347 5 1 9 12 28 13 15317 93 340 258
8 161 346 77 335 7 2 1379 108 350 291 l._l_
354 127 37 343 §3
150 46 339 23 36p 19 11 15 11^34 34 394 164 49 334
220 57 385 -17 -3 -10 55105 28 T II375 110 32 343
39 M 340 93 366
Ho M 3^3 101
15 5 10 10
329 253 79 320 -1 -5 -3 37
167 45 371 100 35 285 --_1..25 P81  186
42 M 27T W ^ 7 0
371 211 57 370
43 M 3 7 5 3 309 91 339 358 69
44 M 20 345303 197 283 -3 -21 -12 19292 105 8 1 '38 276
45 M 15 1 8 9 
^ir 255 67 380
7 1 ^
-4^ iSL 33 406 -1 13 6 1 8250 80 325 26 44
—•'•-r 359^ 144 B 35r
Ig S5 398 106 375
7 1 9 13 25"
332 94 2
237 72 329 252 73 3?| 2^ 85 301 -9 -19 -15 22345 46 16 287 74 52
49 M -7 -17 •12 16584 191 305 252 82 42 5831 267 11 23
50 H 257 69 372 i 193 50 50 26^ 17 2 38 4o-5 15 5 1 4 106 120
APPENDIX 3 (Continued)
0 0
9 9
> {Behavior RatIng> •P •p
+> •H a •H s
+» s ■P 9 +» 0
O fS e r-t 0 tj •rl r-i 0 "d •H
H 9  9 <r4 0 0 e +» 0 0 9 -P
0 4» •P 0 ■P 0 u  u h  9
*» t> O 0 0 •cJ 0 3 0 •d 0 3 9  9
O <9 3 <• 0 9  ̂&« o? B << 9 Of i>»ja 0
B j a CV X! Si (£) O GQ O EQ O (4
•o 0 • 0 0 0 ♦ 0 0 0  0 0  ®
o o 0 CO 0 03 CO 0 GO e  e 0  >
CO a CO 04 04 B B B  en
330 115 286 n 288 80 27 296 11 23M42 119 371 62 370 "17395 227 19
236 69 342 7  13134 41 326 39 14 278 17 9 -9 6
246 74 335 144 42 15 313 7
189 5o 337 1  4
■^Tl "bi" 3W 15 313
245 71 345 lOlL 30 f-
317684  10479  336430 U ibi 19 II I?321 182 61 298 -9 -25
5l 18 283 59 20 295
I ■»- C_W(m. 130 37
87 27 322 IT" 348
150 35 428 95 28 20 290112 29
176 56 314 32 35058 20 290 35 12 291 -X -7
172 51 337 25 22199 59 g 292 -21 -19277 337 ^241 70
81 24 337 -17 ^109 30 if I26f 330
253 70 301 347 167
129 4o 322 191 55 46 406 2I 22295 78 24 32570 25^ -7 1
22T 73 35 337 -11 -7
268 64 319 32 278 23 20313 73 27 270
205 5o 366 15 1097 27 359 97 24 404
215 60 358 170 52 326 94 23 2528 335
121 39 310 312 103 3  131 332 5  -2
APPENDIX 3 (Continued)
Behavior Rating
>k
o "O © o o O O
® © •(-« «I o CO c <» c
+» +9 CM © B «(4 ©
O t J O O4 Oi
E-« < ® © t (0 tJ © o
43 <y ^xi « C C M
P4 K •o CQ O (4 0 O 0 oo • o 
3  ®
& w CO o
cs ® a ©
© > 
a O£■< ^ 00 O oa«
38 389 76 20
72 372 126 39
223 60 371 372 193
345 99 346 il? 11 350 160 ii
' ggg 54 370 200 $9 338 105
226 93 Stj :i^ii3.IFT123 -19 -13
251 71 353 200 $2
406 119 341 7  7298 88
168 If 318 21 22
249 tS 366 -1 -7
""263 7J" 360 1^ 33 -4-^
237 69 343 3  -1145 40
211 69 305 140 37 19 17
304 89 341 236 64 368 163 -I i
310 ̂ 7^ W 173 46 ar j I Ig 1221
174 50 348 227 66 343 142 40 355
324 88 358 -17 -13297 93 319 375 107 350 25 25
677 22$ 300 339 92 368 170 21 13
376 113 m 345 176 -li-ll 21 13TiTiSd 3^ 305" no
212 63 336 3  -2
lit It 356 260 -7 -9it? m 2691 25 22 340
264 79 334 1221 58 13' I301 132 34 388 -9
APPENDIX k
Number of Judges Checking value
Adj. Adjective Each of the Categories of
No* 1 2  3 k $ Adi.
Absent-minded
Active
Adaptable
Adventurous
Affected
Affectionate
Aggressive
Alert
Aloof
Ambitious
Anxious
Apathetic
Appreciative
Argumentative
Arrogant
Artistic
Assertive
Attractive 1 1 1 5 18
Autocratic - 1 3 k k
Awkward 12 12 «» m
Bitter 21 6 m 1 m
Blustery 8 6 7 « 2
Boastful 12 7 • 2 6
Bos sy 16 0 1 5
Calm 1 1 6 15 3
Capable - - 1 13 13
Careless 12 12 * 3
Cautious - 3 9 11 5
Changeable 1 7 8 7 2
Charming 2 2 5 16 k.83
Cheerful 1 m 2 15 10 li-.oi
Civilized 1 1 7 Ik k 3.05
Clear-thinking 2 «• 3 12 11 3.96
Clever 3 m - 3 23 tl4B
Coarse 3 13 3 2 2.19
Cold 8 2 2 • 1.67
Commonplace 2 k 12 2 . 2.70
Complaining 13 11 1 «» 1 1.65
Complicated $ 7 7 2 $ 2.81
Conceited Ik k 1 w 5 2.08
Confident 3 1 15 8 3.91
Confused 5 19 3 1 2.18
Conscientious 2 2 12 k 3.90
Conservative 1 3 5 12 3 3.54
APPSHIHX It (Continued)
Considerate 2 11 15
40 Contented 6 11 6
ij.? Conventional 12 k
li& Cool k 8 0
49 Co-operative 1 16 10
50 Courageous 2 6 17
51 Cowardly - - 1
E52  CCurruieolus
Cynical
5^ Deceitful
56 Daring
57 Defensive
58 Deliberate
59 Demanding
oO Dependable
61 Dependent
62 Despondent
63 Determined
64 Dignified
65 Discreet
66 Disorderly
67 Dissatisfied
68 Distractible
69 Distrustful
70 Dominant
71 Dreamy
72 Dull
73 Sasy-going
74 Effeminate
75 Efficient
70 Egotistical
77 Emotional
78 Energetic
79 Enterprising
80 Enthusiastic
81 Evasive
82 Excitable
83 Pair-minded
84 Fault-finding
85 Fearful
80 Feminine
87 Pickle
88 Flirtatious
89 Foolish
90 Forceful
91 Poresighted ̂
92 Forgetful
93 Forgiving
94 Formal
95 Frank
96 Friendly
97 Frivolous
98 Pussy
APPiaSDIX I4. (Continued)
Generous «e • 1
Gentle m 2
Gloomy 11 13 1
Good-looking 1 1 1
Good-natured m 1 2
Greedy 20 5 -
Handsome 3
Hard-headed 6 2
Hard-hearted 8 10 1
Hasty 5 13 6
Healthy 1 mm 5
Headstrong 9
Helpful - 3
High-strung 2 13 5
Honest 1 «•» 1
Hostile 12 8 2
Humorou s 1 2
Hurried 1 9 10
Idealistic 1 4
Imaginative 1 m 5 3-96
Immature 10 12 4 1.85
Impatient 9 14 2 2.04.
Impulsive 2.77
Independent
Indifferent 2.1+8
Individualistio 2.83
Industrious
Infantile 1.4a
Informal 2.92
Ingenious
Inhibited Ul
Initiative
insi^tful
Intelligent
Interests-narrow 2.00
Interests-wide k.07
Intolerant 2.91
Inventive 4.12
Irresponsible 1.76
Irritable 1.62
Jolly 4.29
Kind
Lazy 15 13 > ut
Leisurely mm 7 12 1 2 3.08
Logical - m 2 16 6 4.16
Loud 7 17 - 1 2
Loyal 2 1 - 14 10
Mannerly - m 1 12 12
Masculine - - 3 7 14
Ma ture m 1 9 12 4.50
Meek 1 13 7 2.29
Methodical 1 2 6 8 3 3.50
APPBHDIX k (Continued)
Mild 2 9
Mischievous 12 3 z*  30
Moderate «» 1 11 2.59
Modest mm 5 6
Moody 10 1 I.7I4.
Nagging 17 10 1 2.^9
Natural mm 2 3.92
Nervous 3 17 6 2.12
Noisy 7 12 2 2.33
Obliging - - 3
Obnoxious k 9 2 Z,h2
Opinionated 2 k
Opportunistic 2 1 1
Optimistic - 6 3
Organized - 1 1
Original 1 1 3
Outgoing - 3 6
Outspoken 2 17
Painstaking 3 1 6
Patient - 1 $
Peaceable - k 5
Peculiar 11 9 3
Persevering 2 3 5
Persistent k 7 5
Pessimistic 8 7 1
Planful 1 2
Pleasant mm 3
Pleasure«seeklng 1 0
Poised m 1 2
Polished
Practical
Praising
Precise
Pre judiood
Preoccupied
Progressive
Prudish
Quarrelsome 2 1
Queer <• 2 •e
Quick 2 13 7
Quiet 11 10 3
Quitting 3 1 t*
Rational 6 12 2
Realistic 3 Ik 7
Rattlebrained 2 1
Reasonable 3 11 11
Rebellious & 6 1
Reckless 2 3 1
Reflective 10 5 2
Relaxed 5 13 9
APPENDIX Ij. (Continued)
Reliable
Resentful h 1 3
Reserved 1 2 
Reaourceful
Responsible
Restless
Retiring
Rigid
Robust
Rude
Sarcastic
Self-centered
Self-confident
Self-con trolled
Self-denying
Self-pitying
Se lf-punis hing
Self-seeking
Selfilb
Sensitive
Sentimental
Serious
Severe
Sexy
Shallow
Sharpwitted
Shiftless
Show-off
Shrewd
Shy
Silent
Simply
Sincere
Slipshod
Slow
Sly
Smug
Snobbish
Sociable
Soft-hearted
Sophisticated
Spendthrift
Spineless
Spontaneous
Spunky
Stable
Steady
Stem
Stingy
Stolid '
APPENDIX k (Continued)
Strong
Stubborn
Submissive
Suggestible
Sulky
Superstitious
Suspicious
Sympathetic
lactful
factless
falkative
Temperamental
Tense
Thankless
Thorough
Thoughtful
Thrifty 4.37
Timid 2.40
Tolerant
Touchy
Tough
Trusting
Unaffected
Unambitious
Unassuming
Unconventional
Undependable
Understanding
Unemotional 2
Uhexcitable
Unfriendly
Uninhibited il
Unintelligent ia
Unkind 20
Unrealistic 5
Unscrupulous 7
Unselfish 2
Unstable 6
Vindictive fs 4
Versatile
Warm
Wary
Weak
Whiny
Wholesome
Wise
Withdrawn
Witty
Worrying
Zany
APPENDIX $
Directions for the Judgea
The following pages contain a list of adjectives.
Parentheses (brackets) are placed after each adjective. In
each, you are to place a rMjmber from one (1) to five (5).
Think In terms of a person saying that word about himself.
If he would be "running himself down" severely (In your
judgment) place a 1 In the parenthesis. If he would think
very highly of himself by saying that word place a 5 In the
parenthesis. The numbers 2., 3 and if. are used to indicate as
follows t
(2) if he somewhat belittles himself
(3) if you are uncertain whether this word said by
a person about himself would Indicate that person
Is thinking well of himself or poorly of himself.
(4) If a person saying this thinks rather well of
himself.
Samples
popular (5) thinks well of himself
queer-looking (1) . • . runs himself down considerably
hard-working (If) . • • thinks rather well of himself.
Remember it is your judgment you are to record in each par
enthesis. You may disagree with the samples. They are merely
to suggest to you what numbers "go with" what a person would
think about himself.
If there any adjectives you do not understand, leave
the parentheses blank and underline the word not understood.
APPENDIX 6
[nstructlons for Using the Adjective Check List
On the following pages you will find a number of adjjec-
tlvea* Please read them quickly and put a check mark In the
space before each adjective which describes you. If a cer
tain adjective Is true about you check It.
Don't worry about the Iteaia you have passed but go
right on vdthout spending too much time on any one adjective.
Check the adjectives which describe you as you really are,
not as you would like to be.
If there are any adjectives you do not understand,
slowly leave them, and go on to those whose meanings you do
know.
"■ 1., ■' 'I-};*
APPISDIX 7
Inatruetlons for Using the Ad.lectlve Cheek Llat
On tlM following pages you will find a nunibep of adjec
tives* Please read tiaem carefully and put a check: mark be
fore each adjective which describes the way your friends see
yow* Remember it is how you feel your friends think of you
that is important * this time.
If you are uncertain about a certain adjective, say to
yourself "Do most of my friends think I am
If you think the answer to your question would be yes then
go ahead and cheek that adjective.
Don* t worry about tiie items you have passed but go right
on without spending too much time on any one adjective*
Check the adjectives which tell how you feel your friends
think of you at present.
If there are any adjectives you do not understand,
simply leave them and go on to those tdiose meanings you do
know.
<-\5
mmoix 6
On the following pages you will find a number of adjec
tives* Please read them carefully and put a check mark be
fore each adjective which describes the way your teachers
aee you* Remember it is how you feel your teachers think of
you that is important. this time*
If you are uncertain about a certain adjective, say to
yourself "Do most of my teachers think X am ?"
If you think the answer to your question would be yes then
go ahead and cheek that adjective.
Don't worry about the items you have passed but go
right on without spending too much time on any one adjective*
Check the adjectives which tell how you feel your teachers
think of you at present.
If there are any adjectives you do not understand,
simply leave them and gp on to tiaose whose meanings you do
know.
APPEHDIX 9
B«havior Rating Scale
Hame of Student
Data
Daacher
Inatruotiona for Using the Rating Scale
1* These ratings are to represent your own private
considered Judgments. Please do not consult anyone in making
them.
2. In rating this person disregard every trait but the
one you are considering. Many ratings are rendered valueless
if the rater allows himself to be influenced by a general
favorable or unfavorable impression he has formed of the per
son.
3. Try as much as possible to obtain your ratings on
the basis of observed behavior.
i|.* It is suggested that item one be rated for all the
students being rated, tiien going on to item two for all the
students, etc. This will help to keep clearly in mind the
trait dimensions to be considered.
Place a check (x) on the line where you think your
rating of this person is* You may place your check (;&} at
appropriate points between the descriptive phrases if you
wish, although in most instances you will find the descrip
tive phrases of adequate coverage. Use pencil so that you
may erase and change your ratings if you find it necessary.
6. Try to make your ratings by comparing him with
children of his own age.
7* If you are uncertain as to how to rate an individual
on a certain trait, omit that item rather than make a dubious
Judgment
6. The masculine pronoun (he) has been used throughout
for convenience. It applies whether the person you are
rating is male or female.
\ V v« ,
<r JO^
'Sm
■■ ■ - ■ ■■
\'--,f |-»;s^if;?^»(s»i,\-.,-^
V
•ft %
. a  ̂  vii -
-. I.- , . .'jifca
;:> 'A -v."'- '- o.
''  •• ' i. . •,*-A ♦ ■
\ fI " ■ /"• ■ • .. • ^
,tr, ' w
Typed by Mrs. Lloyd L. Armes
''T
-?f.