"PERCEIVED LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE"
AS AN ELEMENT OF SELF-ESTEEM:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Psychology
San Jose State University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
by
Mark Brautigam
August, 1984
APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
__________________________________________
Dr. Milton Andersen, Committee Chairperson
__________________________________________
Dr. Frank Payne
__________________________________________
Dr. Gene Medinnus
__________________________________________
Dr. W. T. Plant, Department Chairperson
APPROVED FOR THE UNIVERSITY
__________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acceptance Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Virtue Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Shyness Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Differences based on sex, class level, age . . . . 19
Self-esteem scale interrelationships . . . . . . . 19
Self-esteem and related variables . . . . . . . . 24
Interview data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Dimensions of Self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Development of Self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Directions for future research . . . . . . . . . . 39
Final note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale . . . . . 47
Appendix B: Self-Efficacy Scale . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix C: Texas Social Behavior Inventory . . . 50
Appendix D: Items for Love and Acceptance Scale . 52
Appendix E: Items for Virtue Scale . . . . . . . 54
Appendix F: Stanford Shyness Survey . . . . . . . 55
Appendix G: Parental Interest Index . . . . . . . 57
Appendix H: UCLA Loneliness Scale . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix J: Cover Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix K: Informed Consent for Interview . . . 61
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Item-total correlations and alpha coefficients
for 10-item acceptance scale . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 Factor pattern of the 10-item scale rotated to
an oblique solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Correlation of global self-esteem scale with
self-esteem components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Correlations between self-esteem components . . . 20
5 Correlation of Self-esteem measures with
virtue pool items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6 Factor analysis of four self-esteem measures
rotated to Kaiser's Varimax criterion . . . . . . 23
7 Correlation of Self-esteem measures with
Parental Interest Index items . . . . . . . . . . 24
8 Correlation between loneliness and various
measures of self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9 Factor pattern of Acceptance and Loneliness
items rotated to an oblique solution . . . . . . . 26
10 Correlation between shyness and various
measures of self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11 Correlations between scale scores and oral
self-ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12 Items contributing to good self-esteem as
discussed in personal interviews with
university students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13 Items contributing to poor self-esteem as
discussed in personal interviews with
university students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14 Number of items contributing to good
self-esteem and poor self-esteem categorized
by area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
15 How 23 university students ranked four areas
as contributing to their good self-esteem or
poor self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
16 Number of students who selected various
virtue pool items as being relevant to their
self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1
INTRODUCTION
The study of self-esteem is justified by the fact that
poor self-esteem has been shown to be predictive of (and
perhaps antecedent to) neurosis (Rosenberg, 1979), physical
illness (Thomas, 1982), and social maladjustment (Jacobs,
Bersheid, & Walster, 1971); good self-esteem has been shown
to insulate against the harmful effects of life stressors on
physical health (Petrie & Rotheram, 1982). Also, and perhaps
more importantly, poor self-esteem can be the source of
considerable emotional pain; this is demonstrated by the
correlation between poor self-esteem and depression
(Rosenberg, 1965, 1979; Wilson & Krane, 1980; Battle, 1980).
To help people overcome the burden of poor self-esteem is a
necessary task; but in order to do so, it is essential that
the nature of poor self-esteem be clearly understood. Self-
esteem has been defined as self-regard or self-worth
(Rosenberg, 1979). However, most measures of self-esteem
seem to measure "general" self-esteem, consisting of several
factors which are not distinguished; others measure only the
self-perception of task competence or social competence. It
is the purpose of this exploratory study to show that the
individual's feeling of acceptance or rejection is an
important element of self-esteem which has been heretofore
neglected, and to introduce a scale for the measurement of
2
this construct.
Considering self-esteem as a global construct consisting
of several component factors is not a new idea. Gecas (1971)
was the first to suggest differentiating between different
types of self-esteem. His study of the effects of parental
support and control on the self-esteem of adolescents
identified two distinct factors which together constituted
global self-esteem: a "power" factor and a "worth" factor.
"Power" refers to the individual's feelings of competence,
effectiveness, and personal influence; "worth," on the other
hand, refers to feelings of personal virtue and moral worth.
In a more recent study, DeGregorio and Carver (1980) found it
expedient to distinguish between "instrumental" self-esteem
(evaluation of the self as a goal achiever) and "social"
self-esteem.
Coopersmith (1967) saw several different areas from
which individuals might potentially derive self-esteem. They
are four criteria people commonly use to define their
success: (1) Power, the ability to influence and control
others; (2) Significance, the acceptance, attention, and
affection of others; (3) Virtue, adherence to ethical and
moral standards; and (4) Competence, successful achievement
and performance. Lasky (1979) rated her subjects
subjectively in these four areas (on the basis of private
interviews). She asserted that those with the highest self-
3
esteem felt both significant (loved and accepted) and
competent (successful in their careers); those with low
self-esteem were lacking in one or both of these areas. In
other words, for some, poor self-esteem consisted of feeling
unloved rather than feeling incompetent. This shows that
the relationship we will find between self-esteem and other
variables depends a great deal on how we define self-esteem.
The problem is that apart from Lasky's (1979) study, in
which the ratings were made subjectively and post-hoc, no
study has seriously addressed the "significance" dimension of
self-esteem (which, for the sake of clarity, will hereafter
be referred to as "perceived love and acceptance"). If, as
Rosenberg (1965) suggests, self-esteem is indeed a product of
the interest shown in a child by his or her parents, rather
than a product of experiences of success, then it seems
logical to consider "perceived love and acceptance," rather
than "competence," to be the most important element of self-
esteem; and to consider the affect associated with poor self-
esteem to be the pain of rejection, rather than the shame of
incompetence.
Other studies indicate that "perceived love and
acceptance" is an important element of self-esteem as
predictive of social behavior. Jacobs, Berscheid, and
Walster (1971) showed that people with poor self-esteem are
unusually receptive to affection but have a hard time
4
recognizing when it is being offered. Thus it might be said
that people with poor self-esteem are hungry for affection,
but are accustomed only to being rejected. Concerning self-
esteem and shyness, Pilkonis and Zimbardo (1979) constructed
a scenario in which (1) conditioned anxiety to social stimuli
motivates (2) avoidance behaviors which (3) prevent the
learning of appropriate social skills and (4) produce
expectations of failure in social situations. These
expectations of failure "may elevate the original anxiety and
encourage avoidance in an escalating negative-loop cycle"
(Pilkonis & Zimbardo, 1979, p. 136). But what conditions the
original anxiety? "Aversive social interactions" -- e.g.,
experiences of rejection. It is apparent that in studying
both the antecedents and the social consequences of self-
esteem, "perceived love and acceptance" is the real issue.
This study investigated the relationships between self-
esteem and its primary antecedent, parental interest
(Rosenberg, 1965), and between self-esteem and one of its
social consequences, shyness (Pilkonis & Zimbardo, 1979).
However, rather than using one measure of self-esteem, five
measures were used. One was a measure of "general" self-
esteem. The other four measures corresponded to
Coopersmith's (1967) four criteria for defining success,
which have been renamed (for the sake of clarity) as follows:
(1) Social Confidence, (2) Perceived Love and Acceptance, (3)
5
Virtue, and (4) Competence. In each case, self-report
measures were used, because it was assumed that no one is
more acquainted with the subject's self-perceptions than the
subject himself (or herself).
The area of acceptance and rejection was expected to
correlated with loneliness. Perlman and Peplau (1981) have
shown that lonely adolescents reported a higher incidence of
being rejected by their parents. Russell, Peplau, and
Cutrona (1980) showed that scores on the Revised UCLA
Loneliness Scale correlated significantly with "feeling
abandoned." Therefore, a scale measuring loneliness was
included in the study. It was hoped that acceptance-
rejection would correlate moderately with loneliness, but low
enough to confirm the discriminant validity of the perceived
love and acceptance scale.
In addition to written self-report measures, there was
also opportunity for oral self-reports; i.e., some of the
students were interviewed. The interviews were important for
three reasons. First, the investigator has adopted an
ethogenic approach to social psychological research (Harre,
1977). This approach requires that subjects must not simply
act, but must account for their actions. In this study, the
"act" consists of selecting a particular response on a
written self-report inventory, while the "account" is the
subject's explanation of his or her reasons for selecting
6
that particular response. Different subjects may have
different reasons for selecting the same response; and only
by requiring them to account for their actions do we really
begin to understand their behavior. The second reason for
the interviews is that in a study such as this, where it is
sought to validate a new construct, the subjects must be
given an opportunity to make a wider range of responses than
allowed by a forced-choice measure. Poor self-esteem will be
truly understood only as people are allowed to explain it in
their own phenomenological terms. The third reason for the
interviews is to serve as a validity check on the written
self-report measures.
7
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were 146 students in six undergraduate
psychology classes at San Jose State University. Fifty
identified themselves as males, 89 as females; seven failed
to indicate their gender. They represented many major fields
of study, including psychology, engineering, business, the
sciences, the arts, and education. These students ranged in
age from 18 to 43 years old.
Thirty-four of these students volunteered to be
interviewed by the investigator. Eleven of these either
changed their minds, failed to arrive at their scheduled
time, or could not be scheduled. The remaining 23 students,
six males and 17 females, ages 18 to 43 years, were
interviewed by the investigator over a period of one week, on
the university campus, at various times between their
classes.
Measures
(1) General self-esteem was measured by the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), a Guttman scale
consisting of ten likert-type items. Test-retest reliability
for this instrument is high (r = .85) (Silber & Tippett,
1965). Construct validity is substantiated by significant
negative correlations with depressive affect and anxiety, and
8
positive correlations with peer-group reputation (Rosenberg,
1979). Factor analysis reveals only two factors in the
scale: "positive self-esteem" and "negative self-esteem"
(Carmines & Zeller, 1974). Although the instrument was
constructed as a Guttman scale, Robinson and Shaver (1973)
have shown that it can more easily and with equal confidence
be scored as a ten-item likert scale. When scored as
Rosenberg (1965) suggests, the scale correlates .59 with
Coopersmith's (1967) Self-Esteem Inventory; when scored as a
likert scale, the correlation is .60 (Robinson & Shaver,
1973). The Self-Esteem Scale appears in Appendix A.
(2) The first component of self-esteem, "competence,"
was measured by the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer, Maddux,
Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982), a
measure of personal mastery expectations. Its 23 items
include two subscales, of which only one, "general self-
efficacy", consisting of 16 items, was used. Cronbach alpha
reliability of this subscale is high (r = .86). Criterion
validity is attested by the strong relationship of scale
scores to history of vocational, educational, and military
success (Sherer et al., 1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale
appears in Appendix B.
(3) The second component of self-esteem, "social
confidence," was measured by a short form of the Texas Social
Behavior Inventory (Helmreich & Stapp, 1974). Reportedly
9
measuring social self-esteem or social competence, it is a
16-item likert-type scale. Parallel-forms reliability of the
scale is .89; scores on the short form correlate .97 with the
32-item version of the scale. Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona
(1980) reported obtaining a coefficient alpha of .85 for this
scale. Scores have been positively correlated with
instrumentality, but not with intelligence. There is a
strong relationship between scale scores and achievement of
academic and other honors. This scale appears in Appendix C.
(4) Since measures of "perceived love and acceptance"
and "virtue" (adherence to moral and ethical standards) do
not appear in the literature, likert-type scales were
constructed especially for use in this study. The pool of
items for the "Perceived Love and Acceptance" scale contained
21 items; the pool for the "Virtue" scale contained 10. (See
Appendices D and E.) Most of the items are original. Item
18 of the Perceived Love and Acceptance Scale is from an
Alienation Scale (Dean, 1961). Items 19, 20, and 21 are from
an Acceptability to Others Scale (Fey, 1955). Scale
construction procedures are discussed below.
(5) The Stanford Shyness Survey (Zimbardo, 1977) asks
the individual to state if he or she is shy or not shy; then,
if shyness is the case, to report the degree of shyness, the
stability of shyness over time, the extent to which shyness
is negative or debilitating, and the kinds and number of
10
situations in which shyness is experienced. Zimbardo gave no
instructions for scoring the survey as a scale; a method of
doing so is described below.
(6) "Parental Interest" will be assessed by the Parental
Interest Index (Rosenberg, 1965), which consists of seven
multiple-choice questions asking the subject to recall being
10-11 years old. Answers reveal the extent to which the
subject remembers and perceives the parents to have shown an
interest in knowing about the subject's friends and grades in
school, and in listening to the subject's conversation.
The Parental Interest Index does not yield a single score;
therefore, responses to the items were examined individually.
The Parental Interest Index appears in Appendix G.
(7) Loneliness was measured using the Revised UCLA
Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Among
university students, this 20-item scale has been shown to
correlate significantly with feeling "abandoned, depressed,
empty, hopeless, isolated, and self-enclosed." It correlated
highly with the Beck Depression Inventory, and with the
Costello-Comrey Anxiety and Depression Scales. Lonely
students reported having fewer friends, doing fewer social
activities, and spending more time alone each day. Non-
dating students were significantly lonelier than were dating
or married students. Coefficient alpha for this scale was
.94.
11
Procedure
First questionnaire administration. 148 students
completed the various scales in class as groups. (The
questionnaires of two students were not included in the
analysis; one was a graduate student in psychology, the other
had completed the form incorrectly.) Instructions appeared
on the cover sheet (Appendix J) and were also recited orally
by the investigator. Two forms of the questionnaire package
were used, one having the order of the scales within the
package reversed, to counterbalance for order effects.
Private interviews. After the test administration,
the participants were made aware of the purpose of the study,
although not of its expected outcome. They were then given
the opportunity to volunteer to be interviewed by the
investigator. It is vital to the ethogenic approach to
social psychological reasearch (Harre, 1977) that the
subejcts not simply be blindly exposed to various conditions,
but also be allowed to freely and intelligently explain their
actions in the experimental situations. The "reasons" given
by subjects to explain their actions are at least as
important as any inferences the investigator may make about
the phenomenological "causes" of their behavior.
Of 34 students who volunteered, 23 were eventually
interviewed privately by the investigator. Before being
12
interviewed, each of the students was ased to sign a consent
form which described the potential risks of participating in
a psychological research study. None of the students
declined to sign the consent form; and although each was
given the option of backing out of the interview if he or she
found it uncomfortable, none did so. The consent form is
reproduced in Appendix K.
The investigator was unaware of the test scores of the
students being interviewed. The students were first asked
to describe the things that made them "feel good about"
themselves and the things that made them "feel not so good
about" themselves; then they were asked to rank these items
in terms of which made them feel "the best about" themselves
and which made them feel "the worst about" themselves.
Second, the investigator explained the four "component"
areas of self-esteem to each of the students. Performance
was described as "how well you do in school, how well you do
on the job, how intelligent you consider yourself to be, how
talented you are." Acceptance was described as "how much
other people like you and accept you as you are." Social
confidence was described as "how you get along in social
situations." Ethics was described as "your personal moral
standards and how you live up to them." The students were
asked to rate their levels of general self-esteem,
performace, acceptance, social confidence, and ethics on a
13
100-point scale where zero represented lower self-esteem than
anyone else, 50 represented "average" self-esteem, and 100
represented better self-esteem than anyone. Then they were
asked to rank the four component areas of self-esteem from
one to four in terms of how important each area was in
determining their overall level of self-esteem, one
indicating the most important area, four indicating the least
important area.
Finally, the students were asked to read through the
original questionnaire and select any items which they felt
were especially relevant to their level of self-esteem; these
items were then discussed, if time allowed. Throughout the
interviews, the students were treated as intelligent human
beings and co-investigators, whose ideas were at least as
important as those of the investigator.
Second questionnaire administration. The final phase
of the study involved administering the perceived love and
acceptance scale to four of the classes a second time, after
an interval of five weeks; 88 students completed the scale.
The scores of 41 students who completed both questionnaires
and who had not been interviewed were used to calculate test-
retest reliability of the "Perceived Love and Acceptance"
scale.
14
RESULTS
Acceptance Scale
Of 146 students whose answers were tabulated, 145
responded to all the items of the "perceived love and
acceptance" item pool. Since a preliminary factor analysis
revealed that the structure of the responses was different
for males than for females, the male and female subsamples
were analyzed separately. By deleting, one at a time, items
which correlated poorly with the overall scale score for the
entire sample or for either subsample, a single scale was
developed which exhibited high internal consistency for both
groups.
Of the original 21 items, 11 were eventually deleted,
leaving ten items to form the final version of the scale.
Ten of the deleted items correlated less than .40 with total
scale score for the whole sample, or for one of the
subsamples. One item, "Sometimes I feel like nobody notices
if I am around or not," correlated very highly (r = .74) with
a similar item, "Sometimes I feel like nobody cares if I am
around or not." The former ("notices") was deleted in favor
of the latter ("cares") which correlated more highly with
total scale score.
The final scale contained ten items, each of which
correlated at least .40 with total scale score, whether
looking at the entire sample, or at either of the two
15
Table 1
Item-total correlations and alpha coefficients
for 10-item acceptance scale
-------------------------------------------------------------
whole males females
group only only
Item (n = 145) (n = 50) (n = 88)
-------------------------------------------------------------
3 "no one interested in listening" .52 .61 .48
4 "most people accept me" .48 .59 .42
5 "I feel appreciated" .58 .54 .61
7 "nobody cares if I am around" .46 .56 .40
9 "my friends think I am fun" .42 .41 .41
12 "people find me interesting" .49 .45 .49
13 "someone understands me" .43 .45 .44
14 "I worry whether others
like to be with me" .50 .50 .52
20 "people seem to like me" .63 .64 .62
21 "I feel left out" .63 .56 .67
--------------------------------------------------------------
alpha .82 .83 .81
--------------------------------------------------------------
subsamples. Cronbach alpha reliability for the final scale
was .82. Table 1 shows the individual item-total
correlations and alpha coefficients for both males and
females.
The responses of the subsamples were also subjected
to separate factor analyses using principal factor analysis
with iterations for communalities. The unrotated analyses
yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than one for
males, and three factors with eigenvalues greater than one
for females. Therefore, two-factor analyses were generated
for the purpose of comparison. Since it was expected that
the factors should be to some extent correlated, the factors
were rotated to oblique simple structure. Table 2 shows the
16
Table 2
Factor pattern of the 10-item scale
rotated to an oblique solution
-------------------------------------------------------------
whole males females
sample only only
(n = 145) (n = 50) (n = 88)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Factor Factor
Item 1 2 1 2 1 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
3 "no one interested" .64 .02 .77 -.07 .64 .01
4 "people accept me" .72 -.12 .45 .27 .71 -.18
5 "I feel appreciated" .78 -.07 .49 .15 .81 -.05
7 "nobody cares" .09 .52 .42 .29 .02 .59
9 "think I am fun" -.05 .69 .06 .50 .07 .75
12 "find me interesting" -.02 .72 .28 .26 .04 .73
13 "someone understands" .50 .06 .52 .00 .56 .04
14 "I worry if others
like to be with me" .42 .17 .71 -.14 .43 .21
20 "people like me" .39 .42 -.05 .99 .50 .32
21 "I feel left out" .45 .31 .47 .20 .46 .38
-------------------------------------------------------------
correlation
between .54 .57 .41
factors
-------------------------------------------------------------
oblique factor pattern matrices and inter-factor correlations
for both males and females; the factor structures for the
male and female subsamples are similar. Seven of the ten
items loaded on the same factors in the matrices for both
males and females. Items 7 and 12 loaded on factor 2 for
females, on both factors for males. Item 20 loaded on factor
2 for males, on both factors for females.
The two factors appear to be very similar. It may be
that Factor 1, with such items as "There is no one who is
really interested in listening to me," "Most people accept me
for who I really am," and "I feel appreciated," deals with
17
how one feels he or she is being treated by other people.
Factor 2, with such items as "My friends think I am a lot of
fun" and "People usually find me an interesting person," may
have more to do with the individual's acceptability or
enjoyability as a person, regardless of how others might
respond.
Forty-one of the students completed the perceived love
and acceptance scale a second time, five weeks after the
administration of the original questionnaire. Item-total
correlations and factor loadings were similar for the first
and second administrations of the scale. Test-retest
reliability of the ten-item scale for this sample was low,
r = .62. This may be a characteristic of the scale; it may
also be attributed to the students' changing self-
perceptions. Several of the students who were interviewed
stated that their responses had been influenced by recent
experiences, e. g., breaking up with a boyfriend, having to
choose a major in a hurry. Some of these same students
indicated that their questionnaire responses were an
accurate appraisal of how they had felt that day, but that
they would have had to change their answers if queried at
other times.
Virtue Scale
Construction of a unified scale measuring "virtue"
utilizing the original pool of ten items proved to be
18
impossible. No combination of any number of items yielded
item-total correlations greater than .45 or internal
consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) greater than .55.
Therefore, the attempt to construct a scale measuring
"virtue" was abandoned. Instead, individual items from the
pool were used in some of the analyses. The concept of a
"virtue" construct did prove to be very important, as will be
shown not only from the statistical analysis but even more
clearly from the interviews.
Shyness Scale
The Stanford Shyness Survey was not published with the
intent that it be used as a scale, and no procedure was given
for scoring it as such. However, responses to the eight
items used in this study proved to be very consistent
internally, lending themselves to its use as a short scale
measuring shyness. Some of the students did not answer all
of these questions, because those classified as not being shy
and never having been shy (on the basis of their responses to
the first three questions of the Survey) were instructed to
skip the rest of the questions as being irrelevant.
Therefore, those who skipped these items were assigned low
scores (indicating non-shyness) for each of the items.
Item-total correlations ranged from .72 to .83 for the 5-item
scale, and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's
19
coefficient alpha) was .91. Figures for the male and female
subsamples were very similar. Principal factor analysis of
the 5-item scale yielded only one factor with eigenvalue
greater than one; that factor accounted for more than 75
percent of the variance in the scale. When a two-factor
solution was attempted, none of the items loaded on the
second factor. This was also true of both the male and
female subsamples.
Differences based on Sex, Class Level, Age
In one-way analyses of variance, none of the scale
scores differed significantly between the sexes or between
students of different class standings. When the sample was
split in half at the median age (20-21 years), one-way
analyses of variance revealed no significant differences
between the younger and older groups in any of the scale
scores.
Self-Esteem Scale Interrelationships
Table 3 shows the correlations between the global
measure of self-esteem and each component area. These
correlation coeficcients were tested using Williams'
T2 test for significant differences between dependent
coeficcients of correlation (Steiger, 1980), a modification
of Hotelling's T1, but without the restrictive assumptions of
T1. The male subsample exhibited no significant differences.
20
Table 3
Correlation of global self-esteem scale
with self-esteem components
-------------------------------------------------------------
Component Whole Group Males only Females only
Scale (n = 146) (n = 50) (n = 89)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Efficacy .69* .71* .68*
Social Behavior .46* .62* .48*
Perceived Acceptance .67* .59* .70*
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .001
However, for the whole sample as well as for females alone,
the correlation between global self-esteem and social behavior
was significantly lower than the correlation between
self-esteem and self-efficacy; whole sample, T2 (143) = 3.34,
p < .001; females only, T2 (86) = 2.235, p < 0.05. For the
whole sample and for females, the correlation between self-esteem
and social behavior was significantly lower than the correlation
between self-esteen and perceived acceptance; whole sample,
T2 (143) = 3.20, p < .01; females only, T2 (86) = 2.81, p < .01.
(T2 has a t-distribution with df = n - 3).
This indicates that, at least for females, self-esteem is
much more related to performance and acceptance than to social
behavior. However, the statistics for the whole sample may be
misleading, since males did not exhibit these differences, and the
preponderance of females in the sample may have skewed the
whole-sample results somewhat.
21
Table 4
Correlations between self-esteem components
-------------------------------------------------------------
Social Behavior Perceived Acceptance
-------------------------------------------------------------
whole males females whole males females
group only only group only only
(n=146) (n=50) (n=89) (n=146) (n=50) (n=89)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-
Efficacy .35* .53* .41* .54* .57* .51*
Social
Behavior - - - .44* .61* .49*
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .001
Table 4 shows the correlations between the self-esteem
component scales. The correlations are moderate, indicating
that the scales measure different, although related,
dimensions.
Since no "virtue" scale was constructed, the
relationships between the various scales and the individual
items from the virtue pool were examined instead. Table 5
shows that although several items from the pool correlated
moderately with global self-esteem, none of them was as
strong a predictor of global self-esteem as were the three
scales of component areas of self-esteem. However,
individual items would not be expected to correlate as
highly as would complete scales.
The relationships between the various self-esteem
Table 5
22
Correlation of Self-esteem measures
with virtue pool items
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virtue Self- Self- Social Perceived
Item Esteem Efficacy Behavior Acceptance
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 .23** .17* .06 .06
2 .42*** .38*** .27*** .27***
3 .19* .10 .27*** .25***
4 .17* .22** .03 .09
5 .08 .02 -.01 -.02
6 .13 .07 .09 .30***
7 .29*** .25*** .26*** .25***
8 .04 .12 .02 .19**
9 .26*** .23** .08 .26***
10 .32*** .34*** .15* .33***
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
measures were also examined by doing a principal factor
analysis of the combined items from the global self-esteem,
self-efficacy, social behavior, and perceived acceptance
scales. Table 6 shows an analysis involving three factors
rotated to orthogonal simple structure using Kaiser's varimax
criterion. (When a four-factor analysis was attempted, few
items loaded on the fourth factor.) All of the self-efficacy
items loaded on one factor; most of the perceived acceptance
items loaded on another factor; most of the social bahavior
items loaded on the third factor. The global self-esteem
items loaded on two factors -- primarily with the perceived
acceptance items (factor 2), but also with the self-efficacy
items (factor 1). None of the global self-esteem items
loaded on the same factor with the social behavior items
(factor 3). This concurred with the finding that the
23
Table 6
Factor analysis of four self-esteem measures
rotated to Kaiser's Varimax criterion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scale Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 .22 .56 .20
2 .40 .27 .11
E 3 .31 .41 .23
S 4 .33 .32 .15
T 5 .39 .38 .22
E 6 .45 .29 .10
E 7 .39 .38 .26
M 8 .39 .48 .17
9 .34 .67 .14
10 .39 .55 .16
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 .35 .34 .15
2 .47 .25 .05
3 .60 .05 -.07
4 .46 .08 .04
E 5 .61 .04 .00
F 6 .60 .14 .24
F 7 .67 .15 .08
I 8 .48 .14 -.03
C 9 .39 .11 -.04
A 10 .58 .30 .01
C 11 .44 .36 .09
Y 12 .59 .28 .01
13 .38 .03 .04
14 .63 .45 .21
15 .69 .19 .20
16 .41 .42 .16
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 .06 .18 .38
S 2 .28 .39 .57
O 3 .20 .47 .41
C 4 -.07 -.01 .66
I 5 .03 .02 .66
A 6 .21 .03 .66
L 7 .24 .02 .38
8 .19 -.01 .50
B 9 .12 .20 .55
E 10 -.25 -.01 .44
H 11 -.04 .05 .54
A 12 .00 .46 .37
V 13 .22 .02 .15
I 14 .00 .18 .45
O 15 .50 .16 .36
R 16 .08 .14 .69
-------------------------------------------------------------
A 3 .13 .58 .13
C 4 .06 .61 -.06
C 5 .14 .66 -.02
E 7 .26 .28 .29
P 9 .13 .29 .30
T 12 .25 .37 .32
A 13 .06 .62 -.05
N 14 .38 .50 .09
C 20 .16 .55 .12
E 21 .10 .58 .07
-------------------------------------------------------------
24
strongest predictors of global self-esteem were self-efficacy
and perceived acceptance. However, the expected results were
not entirely realized. It was expected that perceived
acceptance would be the strongest predictor of global self-
esteem. In fact, self-efficacy and perceived acceptance
proved to be equally strong in predicting global self-esteem.
Self-esteem and related variables
It was expected that the Parental Interest Index,
which has been shown to correlate with self-esteem in
previous studies (Rosenberg,1965), would correlate with both
global self-esteem and perceived acceptance. This turned out
to be the case. Table 7 shows the correlations between the
individual items of the Parental Interest Index and the
various measures of self-esteem. All of the items of the
Index correlated significantly with scores on the Love and
Acceptance scale. Only three of the Index items correlated
significantly with scores on the self-efficacy scale. The
global self-esteem and social behavior scales each correlated
significantly with four of the Index items.
It was also expected that loneliness, which has been
shown to correlate with self-esteem, would correlate most
highly with perceived acceptance. This expectation was fully
realized -- perhaps too fully. Table 8 shows that loneliness
correlated more highly with acceptance than with any of the
other self-esteem measures, but the relationship was strong
25
Table 7
Correlation of Self-esteem measures
with Parental Interest Index items
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self- Self- Social Perceived
Interest item Esteem Efficacy Behavior Acceptance
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 mother knew friends .28*** .20** .05 .30***
2 father knew friends .10 .02 .02 .17*
3 father--high grades .12 .11 .15* .19*
4 father--low grades .25** .14 .25** .22**
5 mother--high grades .12 .07 .22** .17*
6 mother--low grades .20* .15* .28*** .21**
7 conversation .31*** .27*** .14 .30***
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
Table 8
Correlation between loneliness
and various measures of self-esteem
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-esteem whole group males only females only
measure (n=146) (n=50) (n=89)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-esteem .59* .50* .66*
Self-efficacy .44* .35* .53*
Social Behavior .44* .47* .52*
Perceived Acceptance .76* .68* .83*
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .001
enough (r = .76) to raise questions whether the loneliness
and acceptance scales were measuring two distinct dimensions
or only one. The correlation was somewhat greater for
females than for males. This difference in response patterns
between males and females is amplified by the analysis in
Table 9. The ten items of the acceptance scale and the 20
26
Table 9
Factor pattern of Acceptance and Loneliness items
rotated to an oblique solution
-------------------------------------------------------------
whole group males only females only
(n = 146) (n = 50) (n = 89)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Factor Factor
Scale Item 1 2 1 2 1 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
A 3 .21 .42 .20 .41 .17 .52
C 4 .26 .27 .15 .55 .15 .30
C 5 .48 .20 .13 .54 .38 .35
E 7 .59 .03 -.06 .64 .54 .04
P 9 .40 .24 .34 .41 .27 .32
T 12 .47 .09 -.20 .57 .39 .32
A 13 -.02 .69 .28 .35 -.08 .77
N 14 .56 -.05 .07 .50 .62 .04
C 20 .49 .19 -.04 .72 .36 .36
E 21 .73 -.07 .09 .57 .71 .01
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 .40 .07 .09 .42 .28 .18
2 .45 .28 .58 .25 .48 .20
3 .10 .68 .71 .09 .18 .57
4 .02 .05 -.06 -.07 .09 .19
5 .40 .19 .53 .09 .58 .13
L 6 .46 .22 .42 .16 .53 .23
O 7 .13 .65 .53 .12 .15 .73
N 8 .63 -.04 .05 .43 .69 .01
E 9 -.04 .38 .41 -.07 -.17 .49
L 10 .05 .70 .47 .34 .06 .69
I 11 .76 -.17 .01 .52 .82 -.17
N 12 .23 .35 .53 .26 .22 .21
E 13 .22 .46 .53 .07 .34 .43
S 14 .53 .21 .58 .13 .71 .05
S 15 .13 .51 .41 .28 .08 .51
16 .06 .72 .80 -.11 .17 .65
17 .65 -.07 -.03 .52 .69 -.07
18 .63 .18 .52 .26 .76 .06
19 -.12 .91 .83 -.10 .00 .81
20 -.19 .94 .99 -.36 -.07 .87
-------------------------------------------------------------
Correlation
Between .60 .46 .57
Factors
-------------------------------------------------------------
27
items of the loneliness scale were subjected to a principal
factor analysis, rotated to an oblique solution. A two-
factor solution failed to distinguish between the two
measures for females, but for males, all of the acceptance
items loaded on one factor, while 15 of the 20 loneliness
items loaded on the second factor.
It was expected that shyness would correlate most
highly with the acceptance and social behavior scales. This
turned out to be only partly true, as seen in Table 10. For
males, shyness correlated moderately with social behavior,
but only weakly with acceptance. On the other hand, both
Table 10
Correlation between shyness
and various measures of self-esteem
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Esteem whole group males only females only
measure (n = 146) (n = 50) (n = 89)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Esteem .28*** .36** .23*
Self-Efficacy .13 .31* .01
Social Behavior .25*** .48*** .19*
Perceived Acceptance .22** .26* .20*
Loneliness .41*** .43*** .38***
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
28
social behavior and acceptance correlated only weakly with
shyness for females. An interesting observation is that for
males, shyness correlated statistically significantly with
self-efficacy (r = .31, p < .05), while for females the
correlation was zero.
Interview Data
Construct validity. The twenty-three students who
were interviewed were asked to rate themselves on the
dimensions of "overall self-esteem," "performance" (self-
efficacy), "social confidence," "acceptance," and "ethics."
The correlations between these oral self-ratings and scores
on the paper-and-pencil scales appear in Table 11. The
construct validity of the global self-esteem, self-efficacy,
and perceived acceptance scales appears to be indicated by
the high correlations between the ratings and the scale
scores. However, for Performance and Social Confidence, the
oral self-ratings correlated more highly with a different
scale than with the scale of the same construct. It may be
that some those interviewed were confused about exactly what
they were being instructed to rate. Some of the students
seemed to have difficulty distinguishing between social
behavior and acceptance, others between global self-esteem
and performance.
29
Table 11
Correlations between scale scores
and oral self-ratings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral self-ratings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self- Social
Scale Esteem Performance Confidence Acceptance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self-
Esteem .63*** .48* .31 .51**
Self-
Efficacy .50* .53** .04 .33
Social
Behavior .51** .56** .01 .22
Perceived
Acceptance .43** .45* .31 .60***
-------------------------------------------------------------
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
Sources of self-esteem. The students were asked to
describe the various things that made them feel good about
themselves and the things that made them feel bad about
themselves. These 23 students named approximately 167 things
that made them feel good about themselves, and approximately
123 things that made them feel bad about themselves.
Summaries of these responses appear in Tables 12 and 13.
Since the responses could be understood and categorized in
various ways, the numbers in this section are understood to
be approximate.
Table 12 shows that activities that define the
performance area dominate what these students considered to
30
contribute to their good self-esteem, with 72 references to
such activities. The acceptance area received about half as
many references, 38. The virtue area received half as many
again, 19 references. The area of social skills was
mentioned least, with only 14 references. A fifth area,
Table 12
Items contributing to good self-esteem
as discussed in personal interviews with university students
(summary of approximately 167 responses of 23 students)
------------------------------------------------------------
A. Performance Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1. Achieving goals, being productive . . . . 19
2. Grades, academic achievement . . . . . . . 16
3. Talents (art, music, cooking, etc.) . . . 16
4. Participating in athletics . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Going to university . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Overcoming smoking, depression, etc. . . . . 4
7. Other performance-related references . . . . 8
B. Acceptance Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1. Having loving family and friends,
having the approval of others,
being appreciated, being popular . . . . . 24
2. Receiving compliments, praise, attention . . 9
3. Other acceptance-related references . . . . 5
C. Virtue Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Helping people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Making others feel good . . . . . . . . . . 8
D. Social Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Getting along with people . . . . . . . . 10
2. Being able to understand people . . . . . . 2
3. Not being shy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E. Personal Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
F. Other miscellaneous references . . . . . . . . . . . 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
31
personal appearance, was mentioned 12 times. Table 13 shows
that the pattern was somewhat different for items
contributing to poor self-esteem. The acceptance, virtue,
and performance areas all carried about equal weight, being
mentioned 30, 27, and 26 times, respectively. Again,
personal appearance was not mentioned as often, only 18
times, and social skills were referred to only 13 times.
Table 13
Items contributing to poor self-esteem
as discussed in personal interviews with university students
(summary of approximately 123 responses of 23 students)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. Acceptance Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Being looked down upon or put down . . . . 18
2. Being ignored, not being recognized . . . 12
B. Virtue Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Not getting along with people,
being mean, angry, holding grudges . . . . 16
2. Letting people down . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Being selfish, impatient, manipulating . . . 7
C. Performance Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Being lazy, procrastinating, having
no ambition, not achieving goals . . . . . 18
2. Not doing well in school, sports . . . . . . 6
3. Having a chosen career prevented by
inadequate performance . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Personal Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
E. Social Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Social ineptitude, shyness, lack of
assertiveness, need for tact . . . . . . . . 8
2. Bad experiences in dating or relationships . 4
3. Unjustified feelings of inferiority . . . . 1
F. Other miscellaneous references . . . . . . . . . . . 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
32
In addition to naming various things that made them
feel good about themselves and things that made them feel bad
about themselves, the students were also asked to rank the
various items that they had selected, from most important to
least important. Table 14 shows the total number of
references to various areas compared with the number of
Table 14
Number of items contributing
to good self-esteem and poor self-esteem
categorized by area
-------------------------------------------------------------
items contributing to good self-esteem
-------------------------------------------------------------
times times selected
area selected as most important
-------------------------------------------------------------
Performance 76 21
Acceptance 38 14
Virtue 19 9
Social 14 8
Appearance 12 5
Other areas 10 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
items contributing to poor self-esteem
-------------------------------------------------------------
times times selected
area selected as most important
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance 31 16
Virtue 27 14
Performance 26 11
Appearance 18 9
Social 14 3
Other areas 10 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
references selected as the three most important. This
comparison shows that the ranking of the items was virtually
33
identical whether all references were included, or only those
items considered most important by the individual students.
Finally, after a discussion of the four self-esteem
areas under consideration, the students were asked to rank
the importance of each of the four areas in determining their
overall level of self-esteem, either good or bad. These
rankings are shown in Table 15. Almost half the students
ranked performance first. Virtue was generally ranked first
or second, and acceptance was generally ranked second or
third. The social skills area was ranked least important,
with almost half the students giving it fourth place out of
four areas.
Table 15
How 23 university students ranked four areas
as contributing to their good self-esteem
or poor self-esteem
------------------------------------------------------------
ranked as ranked as
most ranked ranked least mean
area important second third important rank
-------------------------------------------------------------
Performance 11 5 4 3 1.96
Virtue 9 7 3 4 2.09
Acceptance 3 7 7 6 2.70
Social 1 3 9 10 3.22
-------------------------------------------------------------
34
DISCUSSION
Dimensions of Self-Esteem
The current study certainly substantiates the importance
of perceived acceptance as an element of self-esteem, an
element which is somewhat distinct from the other dimensions
of performance and social confidence. The Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale correlates most highly with the dimensions of
self-esteem characterized by (1) generalized expectations of
competence and (2) feelings of being loved and accepted. For
males, the Rosenberg scale also correlated highly with a third
dimension, social confidence. This difference between the
sexes may be explained by taking a closer look at the Texas
Social Behavior Inventory, which was used to measure social
confidence. Nine of its 16 items concern initiative,
leadership, or assertiveness -- traditionally masculine values.
The cultivation of these characteristics may be more important
to males than to females, for whom other social characteristics,
e.g., harmony and sensitivity, may be more valued. If this is
true, we would expect the exhibiting of these traditionally
masculine characteristics to have more of an effect upon the
self-esteem of males than upon the self-esteem of females.
The fact that the distinction between perceived
acceptance and loneliness was somewhat blurred should not be
considered a drawback. There are two possible ways to deal
with this information. The first is to continue to affirm
35
that perceived acceptance and loneliness are indeed distinct
constructs and to focus efforts on developing scales for each
which clarify their differences. It may be that the
acceptance scale contains items which really measure
loneliness; it may also be that the UCLA Loneliness Scale
contains several items which really refer to feelings of
rejection. The fact that males respond to the two scales as
if they measure different dimensions is encouraging. On the
other hand, if perceived rejection and loneliness are indeed
different ways of saying the same thing, then we have both
increased our understanding of loneliness and affirmed that
for some people, a primary source of poor self-esteem is
feelings of loneliness.
It is unfortunate that the concept of "virtue" could not
be analyzed as fully as was desired, because of the inability
to produce a scale measuring the dimension. However, its
importance as an element of self-esteem was established by
the responses of the 23 students who were interviewed, who
ranked the personal ethics area second only to the
performace area as important in determining their self-
esteem. The question which remains is, how do we define
virtue or personal ethics? When allowed to freely express
their perceived sources of self-esteem, these students did
not raise issues of law or religion, but most often spoke of
interpersonal relations -- helping people, making others feel
36
good, not being mean, not holding grudges, and so on (see
Tables 12 and 13). However, when asked to select
questionnaire items most relevant to their self-esteem, the
issues of personal and professional honesty came up
Table 16
Number of students who selected various virtue pool items
as being relevant to their self-esteem
(total number of students = 23)
-------------------------------------------------------------
item times selected item times selected
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 7 6 3
2 2 7 1
3 0 8 7
4 5 9 3
5 2* 10 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
* Number 5, "I consider myself more religious than
the average American," was specifically singled
out by several students as being unimportant to
their self-esteem. No other items was singled out
in this way.
frequently. Table 16 shows how many students selected each
of the virtue pool items as being relevant to their self-
esteem. The most frequently selected items were number 1, "I
pride myself on being honest," number 4, "I often become
upset when I see business conducted in a manner which is not
ethical," and number 8, "It is important to me that I try to
be helpful to others." It appears that for these students,
"virtue" consists of twin elements: consideration for others
and interpersonal integrity. A scale or scales measuring
these areas might be useful.
37
The Development of Self-Esteem
Inasmuch as parental interest is considered to be a
primary antecedent or source of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965;
Coopersmith, 1967), the information in Table 7 takes on a
special meaning. This table shows how the various items of
the Parental Interest Index (Rosenberg, 1965) correlate with
the various self-esteem measures. The Index taps three
different areas: (1) the parents' interest in the child's
friends and activities, items 1 and 2; (2) the parents'
interest in the child's academic achievement, items 3 through
6; and (3) the family's interest in the child's conversation,
item 7. Interest in the child's academic achievement was
more highly correlated with social confidence than with
perceived task competence. On the other hand, item 7, the
family's interest in the child's conversation, was not
related to social confidence, but correlated significantly
with every other area of self-esteem. This seems to be
exactly the opposite of what we would expect -- which would
be that expressing interest in the child's academic
performance would influence his or her perception of task
competence, and that listening to the child would influence
his or her social skills. All of the Parental Interest Index
items correlated significantly with perceived acceptance, as
was expected. It may be that different parental behaviors
affect different areas of the child's development and future
38
self-perception, but research in this area must be left to
studies of actual parental behaviors rather than distant
memories of them.
The preceeding discussion of the development of self-
esteem concerns the evolution of the state of the
individual's self-esteem. Another area which may now be
addressed is the evolution of the structure of the
individual's self-esteem. Does the importance of each of the
self-esteem elements change as the individual develops? Does
one start life basing self-esteem on acceptance by others,
but eventually grow independent enough to base self-esteem on
meeting personal ethical standards and performance goals (as
was suggested by one of the interviewed students)? It might
be suggested (and not without reason) that the small child
derives feelings of self-worth from unconditional acceptance
by his or her parents, the school-aged child from academic
performance, the young adult from the social skills used in
dating and mate selection, and the mature adult from
maintaining high standards of personal and professional
integrity. Statements of those interviewed would support
this statement. The correlation between the student's age
and ranking of personal ethics as contributing to his or her
self-esteem was moderate but statistically significant,
r = -.39, p = .032. This indicates that the tendency to rank
personal ethics as most important increased with age. A one-
39
way analysis of variance showed a significant difference
between (1) 18- and 19-year olds and (2) those over 19 years
old in their rankings of personal ethics, F(1,21) = 10.032,
p = .005). While none of the other self-esteem elements showed
such a relationship, this certainly indicates that the area is
worthy of further research.
Directions for future research
It is essential that several deficiencies of the
present study be remedied. First, the distinct response
patterns of males and females to the perceived acceptance
items make it necessary that more males complete the
questionnaire, in order that adequate analyses can be done.
The present study utilized about twice as many females as
males; thus, any results for the total sample may have been
skewed in the direction of female responses.
Second, the pool of perceived acceptance items needs to
be increased in size and narrowed in scope, so that (if
possible) rejection may be distinguished from loneliness.
Third, the pool of virtue items also needs to be increased in
size and narrowed in scope, so that a consistent scale might
be produced.
The most logical next step is to examine the
relationships between these variables in different age
groups. Some of the scales used in this study may be
40
unsuitable for use with children, and other scales would have
to be substituted. However, this investigator's experience
with 23 students ranging in age from 18 to 45 indicates that
even among adults there are many differences which might be
attributed to increasing age and personal development.
Perhaps a study of adults in age-decades would be
appropriate.
Another area of interest might be to try to determine
the antecedents of each of the self-esteem elements, an issue
which has been discussed briefly already. Personal
interviews would again be one excellent way in which to
conduct such research, although a better study would attempt
to determine the relationships between actual parental
behaviors (and other factors believed to contribute to the
development of self-esteem) and the various elements of self-
esteem. Interviews involve perceptions and memories of the
past, possibly distorted; observational methods deal with
actual behaviors, although possibly divorced from their
impact on the individual in question. The best study would
include both types of data.
Final Note
The information presented in this study could have been
gathered without the use of personal interviews. However,
the following distinct advantages of speaking personally with
some of the students should be noted.
41
(1) Most of the information collected in the interviews
could have been collected by paper-and-pencil means, but it
would have been extremely difficult to do. Some of the
answers, particularly the totally free responses to the
question, "What makes you feel good about yourself?," would
not have been as complete and clear if answered in writing.
(2) Speaking to the students personally gave the
investigator an opportunity to fully explain his questions
and the information he was looking for. It turned out that
several of these students had misunderstood many
questionnaire items and had answered inappropriately. There
was less room for such confusion to arise in the interview
sessions.
(3) The students' oral statements served to correct the
investigator's misconceptions about the meaning of responses
to the questionnaire items. In many types of social
research, the investigator must make inferences about the
subjects' thoughts from their written responses. In an
ethogenic approach to social psychological research (Harre,
1977), the subjects are allowed to explain their actions, in
this case consisting of written responses to questionnaire
items. This decreases the need for making certain types of
inferences, although it does not totally eliminate this need.
However, it must be remembered that the subjects' inferences
about the reasons for their actions may also influence their
42
actions, while the investigator's inferences about the causes
of their behavior, unless expressed, have no influence on the
behavior of the subjects. This is of particular importance
in a study of self-perception.
(4) Finally, the interviews had beneficial effects
on both the students and the investigator. Although
several of the students came to their interview sessions
reluctantly, because they felt shy or were busy studying,
every one of them indicated that they had come because they
wanted to make a contribution to research in this area and
because they found it interesting. Each of them left feeling
that they had been really listened to, and had made unique
contributions to the study. As concerns the investigator,
the interviews encouraged him to remember that the study was
not about number-2 pencil marks on bubble sheets, but about
people, and their deepest thoughts and feelings.
This investigator reccomends this avenue of social
psychological research to anyone who is really interested in
getting to the bottom of the how's and why's of the ways we
human beings think and feel.
43
SUMMARY
Self-esteem can be thought of as consisting of several
distinct factors or elements. It has been suggested that one
element of self-esteem might be the individual's perception
of being loved and accepted by others (Coopersmith, 1967).
Such a factor would probably show high correlations with an
individual's social behaviors and attitudes. But no measure
has been constructed which assesses this important element of
self-esteem. The purpose of this study was to create a self-
report scale measuring "Perceived Love and Acceptance," and
to determine its correlation with measures of "Parental
Interest," shyness and loneliness, all of which have been
shown to correlate with general self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965;
Coopersmith, 1967).
One hundred forty-six university students responded
to written self-report inventories of parental interest,
shyness, general self-esteem, and four specific elements of
self-esteem, including "Perceived Love and Acceptance."
Scores on the "Perceived Love and Acceptance" scale were
moderately predictive of scores on the general self-esteem
scale. In private interviews, 23 students described their
self-esteem in terms of three major components: performance,
perceived acceptance, and personal ethics. The need for
further research of these components is suggested.
44
REFERENCES
Battle, J. Relationship between self-esteem and depression
among high school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1980, 51, 157-158.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. On establishing the
empirical dimensionality of theoretical items: an
analytic example. Political Methodology, 1974, 1, 75-
96.
Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1967.
Dean, D. Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American
Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 753-758.
DeGregorio, E., & Carver, C. S. Type A behavior pattern,
sex-role orientation, and psychological adjustment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39,
286-293.
Fey, W. F. Acceptance by others and its relation to
acceptance of self and others: A reevaluation. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 50, 274-276.
Gecas, V. Parental behavior and dimensions of adolescent
self-evaluation. Sociometry, 1971, 34, 466-482.
Harre, R. The ethogenic approach: theory and practice. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Helmreich, R. & Stapp, J. Short forms of the Texas Social
Behavior Inventory (TSBI), an objective measure of self-
esteem. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974, 4,
473-475.
Jacobs, L., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. Self-esteem and
attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1971, 17, 84-91.
Lasky, E. Physical attractiveness and its relationship to
self-esteem: preliminary findings. In M. Cook & G.
Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1979.
45
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., &
Bent, D. H. SPSS: Statistical package for the social
sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Perlman, D. & Peplau, L. A. Toward a social psychology of
loneliness. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal
relationships. 3. Personal relationships in disorder.
London: Academic Press, 1981.
Petrie, K. & Rotheram, M. J. Insulators against stress:
self-esteem and assertiveness. Psychological Reports,
1982, 50, 963-966.
Pilkonis, P. A., & Zimbardo, P. G. The personal and social
dynamics of shyness. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Emotions is
personality and psychotherapy. New York: Plenum Press,
1979.
Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.) Measures of social
psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute
for Social Research, 1973.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Rosenberg, M. Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books,
1979.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. The Revised
UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant
validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1980, 39, 472-480.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn,
S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. The self-efficacy
scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports, 1982, 51, 663-671.
Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. Self-esteem: Clinical
assessment and measurement validation. Psychological
Reports, 1965, 16, 1017-1071.
Steiger, J. H. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87, 245-251.
Thomas, C. B. Stamina: the thread of human life.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 1982, 38, 74-80.
46
Wilson, A. R., & Krane, R. V. Change in self-esteem and its
effects on symptoms in depression. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 1980, 4, 419-421.
Zimbardo, P. G. Shyness. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1977.
47
APPENDIX A
ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement
with each of the following ten statements, by circling the
appropriate responses to the right.
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with
myself. SA A D SD
2. At times I think I am no good at all. SA A D SD
3. I feel that I have a number of good
qualities. SA A D SD
4. I am able to do things as well as
most other people. SA A D SD
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud
of. SA A D SD
6. I certainly feel useless at times. SA A D SD
7. I feel that I am a person of worth,
at least on an equal plane with
others. SA A D SD
8. I wish I could have more respect for
myself. SA A D SD
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel
that I am a failure. SA A D SD
10. I take a positive attitude toward
myself. SA A D SD
48
APPENDIX B
SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement
with each of the following statements by circling the
appropriate response to the right of each item.
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree
1. When I make plans, I am certain I can
make them work. SA A D SD
2. One of my problems is that I cannot
get down to work when I should. SA A D SD
3. If I can't do a job the first time, I
keep trying until I can. SA A D SD
4. When I set important goals for
myself, I rarely achieve them. SA A D SD
5. I give up on things before completing
them. SA A D SD
6. I avoid facing difficulties. SA A D SD
7. If something looks too complicated, I
will not even bother to try it. SA A D SD
8. When I have something unpleasant to
do, I stick to it until I finish it. SA A D SD
9. When I decide to do something, I go
right to work on it. SA A D SD
10. When trying to learn something new, I
soon give up if I am not initially
successful. SA A D SD
11. When unexpected problems occur, I
don't handle them well. SA A D SD
12. A avoid trying to learn new things
when they look too difficult for me. SA A D SD
49
13. Failure just makes me try harder. SA A D SD
14. I feel insecure about my ability to
do things. SA A D SD
15. I give up easily. SA A D SD
16. I do not seem capable of dealing with
most problems that come up in life. SA A D SD
50
APPENDIX C
TEXAS SOCIAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY
(FORM A)
Please indicate how true of you the following statements are
of you, by placing the appropriate number in each of the
blanks.
1 = not at all characteristic of me
2 = not very characteristic of me
3 = slightly characteristic of me
4 = fairly characteristic of me
5 = very much characteristic of me
_____ 1. I am not likely to speak to people until they speak
to me.
_____ 2. I would describe myself as self-confident.
_____ 3. I feel confident of my appearance.
_____ 4. I am a good mixer.
_____ 5. When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking
of the right things to say.
_____ 6. When in a group of people, I ususally do what the
others want rather than make suggestions.
_____ 7. When I am in disagreement with other people, my
opinion usually prevails.
_____ 8. I would describe myself as one who attempts to
master situations.
_____ 9. Other people look up to me.
_____ 10. I enjoy social gatherings just to be with people.
_____ 11. I make a point of looking other people in the eye.
_____ 12. I cannot seem to get others to notice me.
_____ 13. I would rather not have very much responsibility
for other people.
_____ 14. I feel comfortable being approached by someone in a
position of authority.
_____ 15. I would describe myself as indecisive.
_____ 16. I have no doubts about my social competence.
51
APPENDIX D
ITEMS FOR LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE SCALE
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement
with each of the following statements by circling the
appropriate response to the right of each item.
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
N = neither agree nor disagree
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree
1. I am part of a group where I am made
to feel important. SA A N D SD
2. I dread meeting new people because I
know they will not like me. SA A N D SD
3. There is no one who is really
interested in listening to me. SA A N D SD
4. Most people accept me for who I
really am. SA A N D SD
5. I feel appreciated. SA A N D SD
6. Sometimes I feel like nobody notices
if I am around or not. SA A N D SD
7. Sometimes I feel like nobody cares if
I am around or not. SA A N D SD
8. I'm glad I have someone who really
loves me. SA A N D SD
9. My friends think I am a lot of fun. SA A N D SD
10. I wish people would pay more attention
to me. SA A N D SD
11. I still hurt because I have been
rejected by someone important to me. SA A N D SD
12. People usually find me an interesting
person. SA A N D SD
13. I'm glad there is someone who really
unerstands me. SA A N D SD
14. I worry about whether other people
like to be with me. SA A N D SD
52
15. It is hard for me to trust anyone. SA A N D SD
16. There is someone in my life whose
happiness means as much to me as my
own. SA A N D SD
17. There are people I can always count
on. SA A N D SD
18. I don't get invited out by friends
as often as i'd really like. SA A N D SD
19. People are quite critical of me. SA A N D SD
20. People seem to like me. SA A N D SD
21. I feel "left out," as if people
don't want me around. SA A N D SD
53
APPENDIX E
ITEMS FOR VIRTUE SCALE
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement
with each of the following statements by circling the
appropriate response to the right of each item.
SA = strongly agree
A = agree
N = neither agree nor disagree
D = disagree
SD = strongly disagree
1. I pride myself on being honest. SA A N D SD
2. I wish I were more dependable. SA A N D SD
3. I try to be concerned about other
people, but it's hard to avoid being
pretty self-centered. SA A N D SD
4. I often become upset when I see
business conducted in a manner which
is not ethical. SA A N D SD
5. I consider myself more religious than
the average American. SA A N D SD
6. I wish I could be more gentle;
sometimes I am too quick-tempered. SA A N D SD
7. I often feel guilty about holding
grudges. SA A N D SD
8. It is important to me that I try to
be helpful to others. SA A N D SD
9. I am pretty considerate of others. SA A N D SD
10. It is difficult for me to behave in a
manner consistent with my beliefs. SA A N D SD
54
APPENDIX F
STANFORD SHYNESS SURVEY
_____ 1. Do you consider yourself to be a shy person?
1 = yes 2 = no
_____ 2. If yes, have you always been shy (were shy
previously and still are)? 1 = yes 2 = no
_____ 3. If no to question 1, was there ever a prior time in
your life when you were shy? 1 = yes 2 = no
If no, then you are finished with this survey. Thanks.
If yes to any of the above, please continue.
_____ 4. How shy are you when you feel shy?
1 = extremely shy
2 = very shy
3 = quite shy
4 = moderately shy
5 = somewhat shy
6 = only slightly shy
_____ 5. How often do you experience (have you experienced)
these feelings of shyness?
1 = every day
2 = almost every day
3 = often, nearly every other day
4 = one or two times a week
5 = occasionally, less than once a week
6 = rarely, once a month or less
_____ 6. Compared to your peers (of similar age, sex and
background), how shy are you?
1 = much more shy
2 = more shy
3 = about as shy
4 = less shy
5 = much less shy
_____ 7. How desirable is it for you to be shy?
1 = very undesirable
2 = undesirable
3 = neither
4 = desirable
5 = very desirable
56
_____ 8. Is (or was) your shyness ever a personal problem for
you?
1 = yes, often
2 = yes, sometimes
3 = yes, occasionally
4 = rarely
5 = never
57
APPENDIX G
PARENTAL INTEREST INDEX
1. When you were about 10-11 years old, did your mother know
most of your friends?
_____ knew all of my friends
_____ knew most of my friends
_____ knew some of my friends
_____ knew almost none of my friends
_____ knew none of my friends
2. During this period, did your father know your friends?
_____ knew all of my friends
_____ knew most of my friends
_____ knew some of my friends
_____ knew almost none of my friends
_____ knew none of my friends
3. When you were in the 5th/6th grades, did your father
usually pay attention when you brought home a report card
with high grades? _____ yes _____ no
4. What if you brought home low grades? _____ yes _____ no
5. When you were in the 5th/6th grades, did you mother
usually pay attention when you brought home a report card
with high grades? _____ yes _____ no
6. What if you brought home low grades? _____ yes _____ no
7. As far as you can tell, how interested were other family
members in what you had to say?
_____ very interested
_____ fairly interested
_____ not interested
58
APPENDIX H
REVISED UCLA LONELINESS SCALE
Directions: Indicate how often you feel the way described in
the following statements by circling the appropriate response
to the right of each item.
N = never R = rarely S = sometimes A = always
1. I feel in tune with the people around me. N R S A
2. I lack companionship. N R S A
3. There is no one I can turn to. N R S A
4. I do not feel alone. N R S A
5. I feel part of a group of friends. N R S A
6. I have a lot in common with the people
around me. N R S A
7. I am no longer close to anyone. N R S A
8. My interests and ideas are not shared by
those around me. N R S A
9. I am an outgoing person. N R S A
10. There are people I feel close to. N R S A
11. I feel left out. N R S A
12. My social relationships are superficial. N R S A
13. No one really knows me well. N R S A
14. I feel isolated from others. N R S A
15. I can find companionship when I want it. N R S A
16. There are people who really understand me. N R S A
59
17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn. N R S A
18. People are around me but not with me. N R S A
19. There are people I can talk to. N R S A
20. There are people I can turn to. N R S A
60
APPENDIX J
ATTITUDE SURVEY
This is a survey of your attitudes about yourself, other
people, and various situations. It will take about one-half
hour to complete the survey. As you answer the questions,
try to be as honest as possible. There are no right or wrong
answers; neither is any one answer more desirable than
another. Your initial response to each question is usually
the best indication of how you really feel, so don't spend
too much time on any one question. The answers you give may
provide an important contribution to social research. Enjoy
being in the limelight!
Please answer the questions on one page completely before
going on to the next page; once you have completed a page, do
not look back to see how you answered a question, or to
change your answers.
Thank you for investing your time in this project!
Class ______________________________________________________
Day/Time ___________________________________________________
Instructor _________________________________________________
Code Number ________________________________________________
If you would like to be interviewed in connection with this
project, please fill out the rest of this page.
Name __________________________ Telephone Number ___________
When would you be free to be interviewed? __________________
____________________________________________________________
61
APPENDIX K
INFORMED CONSENT FOR INTERVIEW
You are invited to participate in a study of self-esteem. We
hope to learn more about what self-esteem is and how it
develops. You were selected as a participant in the study
because you expressed an interest in participating.
If you decide to participate, Mark Brautigam, under the
supervision of Dr. Milton Andersen, will interview you,
asking questions about selected areas of your personality.
Some of the questions may seem quite personal, and may cause
some embarrassment or discomfort. However, it is not
required of you that you answer any question if you do not
want to; if you decide to participate, you are free to
withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any
time. We believe that the potential risk of embarrassment is
far outweighed by the potential benefits of increased self-
awareness and enhanced self-esteem.
Any information that is obtained in connection with this
study and that can be identified with you will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission.
If you have any questions, we expect you to ask us. If you
have any additional questions later, Mark Brautigam
(578-9132) or Dr. Milton Andersen (277-2615) will be happy to
answer them.
YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE.
YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE
HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE.
__________________________ ______________________________
Date Signature
______________________________
Signature of Investigator