Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PEER- AND SELF-EVALUATIONS ON SOCIAL ROLES 3T
SOCIOMETRICALLY DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS
APPROVED:
in 4
Major Professor
roles
Director of the Department of Psychology
Deafe of the Graduate School
PEER- AND SELF—EVALUATIONS ON SOOIAI ROLES BY
SOOIOMET'RICALLY DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Jiramie Ray Ifaugher, B. A,
Denton, Texas
August, 1970
TABLE CP CONTENTS
Page
LIST 0? TABLES iv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem of the Study Hypotheses Definitions Related Research
II. METHODOLOGY 22
Subjects Instruments Procedures
III. R33ULTS
Hypotheses Concerning Group-Noninatior.s Hypotheses Concerning Sell f-Nominations Hypotheses Concerning Agreement Scores Hypotheses Concerning negative Discrepancy Scores Hypotheses Concerning Positive Discrepancy Scores Hypotheses Concerning Sex
IY. DISCUSSION OP R3SULTS 47
G-rotip-ITominat i ons Self-Nominations Agreement Scores Negative Discrepancy Scores Positive Discrepancy Scor Sex Differences
e", ^ O b
Y. SUNI4ARY, 0 ON C LU 31CN S, AND RECCi ~ 13NI)ATI ONS . . . 56
Summary Conclusions Re c oirirt e nd a t ions
APPNNDIG3S 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . 6?
i n
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
I. GN, SN, AS, NDS, and PDS Means on the Social Roles Instrument for Each Sociometric Group and for All Groups Combined 34
II. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Group-nominations Received by Highs, High-Kiddles, "Low-Middles, and Lows 35
III. Summary of the Scheffa Test of All Possible Comparisons Between Means of Group-Nominations Received by Highs, High-Middles, Low-Kiddles, and lows . 36
IV. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Self-nominations Given by Highs, High-Middles, low-Middles, and Lows . . . . . . . 37
V. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Agreement Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, .Low-Middles, and Lows . . . . . 39
VI. Summary of the Scheffe Test of All Possible Comparisons Between Means of Agreement Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, Low—Middles, ajid Lows . . . . . . . . , , , , 3 9
VII. Summary for the Analysis of Variance of Negative Discrepancy Scores Received by Highs, High-Kiddles, Low-Middles, and Lows 41
VIII. Summary of the Scheffe Test of All Possible Comparisons Between Means of Negative Discrepancy Scores Received By Highs, High-Middles, Low-Middles, and Lows 41
1a* mammary for the Analysis of Variance of Positive Discrepancy Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, low-Middles, and lows /•*
IV
Table Page
X. Summary of the Scheffe Test of All Possible Comparisons "Between Means of Positive Discrepancy Scores Received by Highs, High-Middles, Low-Middles, and lows . . . . . 44
XI. GN, SH, AS, NBS, and PDS Means for Boys and Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies have been made of the relationship
between self-evaluation and evaluation by others since Sears
(16) pioneered in the area a third of a century ago. In
such studies self-evaluation has been compared to the eval-
uation made by peers (13), by an authority figure such as a
supervisor or teacher (6), by someone expert in the area
such as a psychologist (11), and by scores on an instrument
such as an intelligence or personality test (21). These
studies all involved -some measurement of agreement or dis-
crepancy between self-evaluations and evaluations by others.
Such agreements and discrepancies have an important place
in self-concept theory (22, pp. 275-316). WAle research
in this and other areas of self—concept have produced many
positive trends, there also remains a great deal of ambi-
guity in the results and considerable apparent contradiction
among the findings of various studies (22, p. 317).
Perhaps one reason for some of the ambiguities is that-
most of the earlier studies correlated self-evaluations and
evaluations by others in terms of a group as a whole rather
than analyzing results in terms of sub-groups, Tyoical of
the early studies was one by C-reen (8) in which he reported
that self-estimates of leadership tended to be exaggerated
when compared to peer-estimates, but that in some cases they
were underestimated. The procedures did not allow him to
say if there were any differences among sub-groups. More
recent studies have subdivided the group according to some
factor and have then studied the agreement or discrepancies
in evaluations on a variable in relation to the sub-groups
with some important differences having been shown to exist
"between sub-groups (6, 9, 19).
One way in which a group may be sub-divided is on the
basis of sociometric measurements. It has been shown that
people who differ in ranking on sociometric measurements
also differ in other significant ways (1). Some studies of
the normal person have utilized sociometric measurements as
part of the criteria for differentiating between high and low
normals (2). In one study of normal persons it was found
that the typical highly mature youth was much more accurate
in assessing what others thought of him than was the typical
immature youth (10, pp. 170-171). It would seem likely,
therefore, that persons who differ in sociometric ranking
would also tend to differ in agreements and discrepancies
between self- and pear-evaluations on certain variables.
Variables such as mental and physical abilities have
certain social aspects, thus the effectiveness with which
a person functions in these areas is important in the class-
room and to mental health generally (l, pp. 92-113). In
normal interaction with others a person evaluates the
effectiveness of associates in performing various social
roles. Attention was called to the fact that people also
evaluate themselves in the same way when, in administering
an instrument calling for children to name those who were
among the best in the group in performing certain social
roles, it was found that several children asked if they
could name themselves (3). This brought up the question of
what relationships might exist between peer- and self-
evaluations on the social roles and if the relationships
might differ between various sociometric sub-groups.
The Problem of the Study
The problem of the present study was to determine the
relationships between peer- and self-evaluations on a social
roles measurement and the relationships betv/een these eval-
uations and sociometric rankings.
Hypotheses
To carry out the purposes of this study, hypotheses
were formulated utilizing sub-groups differentiated on the
basis of sociometric rankings and scores obtained on a social
roles instrument. The sociometric groups were called Highs,
High—I'iiddles. Low—Middles, and lows» j'ivo scores were
derived from the social roles instrument: group-nomination
(GN), self-nomination (SIT), agreement score ( 4 3 ) , negative
discrepancy score (NDS), and positive discrepancy score (PDS)
Criteria for determining the sociornetric groups and scores
on the social roles instrument are outlined in the sections
on definitions and procedures. The following hypotheses
were formulated.
1. Mean group-nomination scores will vary in the
following ways:
A. Highs will have significantly higher mean GN
scores than High-Middles.
B.- Highs will have significantly higher mean GN
scores than Low-Middles.
C. Highs will have significantly higher mean GN
scores than lows.
D. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean GIT scores than Low-Kiddles.
E. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean GIT scores than Lows.
P. Low-Middles will have significantly higher
mean GH scores than Lows,
2. Mean self-nomination scores will vary in the fol-
lowing ways:
A. There will be no significant difference in the
mean SN scores of the Highs and High-Middles.
B. Highs will have significantly higher mean SN
scores than Low-Middles.
C. Highs will have significantly higher mean SN
scores than lows.
D. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean SET scores than Low-Middles.
E. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean SN scores than Lows.
F. Low-Middles will have significantly higher
mean SN scores than Lows.
3. Mean agreement scores will vary in the following
ways: - -
A. Highs will have significantly higher mean ASs
than High-Middles.
B. Highs will have significantly higher mean ASs
than Low-Middles.
C. Highs will have significantly higher mean ASs
than lows.
D. High-Middles v/ill have significantly higher
mean ASs than Low-Middles.
E. High-Middles v/ill have significantly higher
mean ASs than lows.
P. Low-Middles v/ill have significantly higher
mean ASs than Lows.
4. Mean negative discrepancy scores will vary in the
following ways:
A. Highs will have significantly lower mean NDSs
than High-Middles.
B. Highs will have significantly lower mean HDSs
than Low-Middles.
6
G. Highs will have significantly lower mean KDSs
than Lows.
D. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean NDSs than Low-Middles,
E. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean NDSs than Lows.
P. There will "be no significant difference in the
mean NDSs of the Low-Middles and Lows.
5. Mean positive discrepancy scores will vary in the
following ways:
A. Highs will have significantly higher mean PDSs
than High-Middles.
B. Highs will have significantly higher mean PDSs
than Low-Middles.
C. Highs will have significantly higher mean PDSs
than Lows.
D. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean PDSs than Low-Middles.
E. High-Middles will have significantly higher
mean PDSs than Lows.
P. Low-Middles will have significantly higher
mean PDSs than Lows.
6. Boys and girls will not differ significantly
A. On mean group-nomination scores
B. On mean self-nomination scores
C. On mean agreement scores
D. On mean negative discrepancy scores
E. On mean positive discrepancy scores.
Definitions
Group-nomination (Gil). A GN was recorded for a student
for each social role on which, he v/as nominated by 20 per
cent of his class on the instrument, How Pupils See Bach
Other (Appendix B).
Self-nomination (SN). An SN v/as recorded for a student
for each social role on which he nominated himself on the
instrument, Hoy; Pupils See 5ach Other (Appendix B).
Agreement score (AS). An AS was recorded v/hen a
student both received a GN and gave himself an SN on a given
role.
Negative discrepancy score QvPS) . An NDS v/as recorded
when a student gave himself an SH on a social role but did
not receive a GIT on the role.
Positive discrepancy score (PDS). A PDS v/as recorded
v/hen a student received a GN on a social role but did not
give himself an SN on the role.
Highs, High-Kiddles, Low-Kiddles. and Lows. These
terms designated soeiometric groups which were determined
on the basis of choices received on tne instrument, How Iv'e
See Others (Appendix A). Specific criteria for how the
groups were determined are given in the section on procedures,
8
Related Research
Summarizing studies published through 1958, !'/ylie (22,
pp. 386-316) concluded that self ratings show low but sig-
nificant correlations with ratings received from others and
that this seemed to hold true for a wide variety of traits
and persons. The studies considered traits such as leader-
ship ability, academic ability, grades, intelligence,
happiness, friendliness, success at physical tasks, and
other variables. She further found that solf-overestimation
was much more common than self-underestimation, but that
there were indications of consistent individual differences
in the tendency toward overestimation, underestimation, or
accurate estimation across a variety of traits. The present
study sought to determine if sociometric ranking is a factor
in such agreements and discrepancies.
Wylie (22, pp. 275-316) also analyzed the various
reliability and validity problems involved in securing and
interpreting self-evaluations and evaluations by others.
She concluded that the degree of agreement or disagreement
was partly a function of the particular variable studied
(22, p. 314). j1 or example, some variables tend to promote
more ego-involvement than others and such ego-involvement
tends to Influence the degree of discrepancy between
evaluations. Holt (11) found that the desirability or
undesirability of certain traits influenced self-ratings.
There was a tendency for people to overestimate themselves
on desirable traits and underestimate on undesirable ones.
Approximately the same relationship was also found bjr Webb
(20). The present study dealt with social roles which are
all positive in nature and thus are assumed to be desirable.
Therefore, a general tendency toward overestimation of self
"by the group as a whole was expected. However, the study
went further to deal with the question of whether agreements
and discrepancies would differ from one sociometric group
to another.
Ambiguity of the variable also influences the degree
of discrepancy between evaluations. The aspect of himself
which a person is called upon to assess may range " . . . from
external facts like one's skin color to half-conscious
motives (11, p. 95)." Wylie (23) has suggested that the
low correlations found for evaluations by self and others on
the traits of friendliness, likeability and generosity were
probably due to the ambiguity of the traits. Several studies
seem pertinent at this point.
In presenting a theory of social comparison processes,
Festinger (5, p. 118) stated that where the criterion is
unambiguous and can be clearly ordered, it furnishes an
objective reality for the evaluation of one's ability so
that the evaluation depends more on actual comparison of
one's performance with the performance of others than on
what one believes to be the opinions of others. Several
studies were quoted which indicated that self-evaluations of
10
abilities are very unstable if the person does not have
opportunity to compare his performance with the performance
of others on the task. He concluded that even after a
person has had a good deal of experience at a task, the
evaluation of what is a good performance continues to fluc-
tuate until a criterion other than one's own performance is
provided (5, p. 119). In harmony with this theory is the
finding by Gerard (7) that self-appraisal was influenced by
direct comparison of one's performance to the performance
of others on a task involving judgments about spacial re-
lations.
Festinger (5, p. 121) has also theorised that if the
only comparison available is a very divergent one the
person will not be able to make a subjectively precise
evaluation of his opinion or ability. In agreement with
this is the research of Sherwood (18) who, in an experiment
involving adults engaged in a two-week human relations
training group, found that people changed their self-
evaluation in the direction of the public evaluation made
by others in the group, and they changed in the direction
it was believed that others in the group might evaluate
them. This was true whether the evaluation was raised or
lowered. 7ollow~up research in the same kind of setting
showed differences in self-evaluation patterns between
tnose for wnom there was wide variance in public evaluations
by refexent otners as compared to those for whom there was
11
closer agreement by referent others. This was interpreted
to mean that when public evaluations "by various group
members vary widely, and are thus ambiguous, then the
self-esteem motive has more opportunity to increase the
self-evaluation. The person is reacting to ambiguous
stimuli when there is wide variance in the responses of
others. However, if all the group members tend to agree,
it provides the person with a stable stimulus by which to
evaluate himself (19). The questions on the self- and
peer-evaluation instrument used in this study are stated
in terms of performance on common classroom social roles
rather than traits, thus there is opportunity for rela-
tively objective Judgments.
However, more is involved in evaluation than having an
ambiguous or unambiguous instrument. Gaier (6), at the time
of the final exam, had students estimate the grade they
would receive in the course. This should have been a rel-
atively unambiguous variable since each student had had
feedback in terms of grades throughout the course on which
to base his estimate. Correlations were lower for those
who received the middle grade than for those who received
high and low grades. It seems that the place occupied by
the individual may be an important factor. T/hat Coopersraith
has said relative to self-esteem was expected to be equally
true for self-evaluation in the present study:
12
Persons who are at the bottom or top of the group can place themselves with relative confidence. Their position in the scheme of things is relatively unam-biguous and they can appraise themselves accordingly. The man in the middle range is in the much more un-certain situation of not knowing how well he has met the criteria of judgment. . . . This uncertainty may be expressed in less confident self-appraisals and in the need for external confirmation (4, p. 233).
He also found that the middle group was most inclined
to rely on others for their self-evaluations (4, p. 230).
Possibly they depended on others for confirmation of their
evaluation because their ratio of success and failure was
high enough to encourage expectation of success, yet with,
enough failure to make their situation ambiguous. To be in
the middle " . . . may induce a greater need to structure
one's personal world (4, p. 142)."
Persons with higher and more certain self-esteem appar-
ently accept their personal judgments as guides, or they are
not as concerned about or threatened by the values set forth
by their social environment (4, p. 142). Heath (10, p. Ill)
has made the same point about the highly mature youth. This
is in accord with Bonney's conclusion that the most univer-
sal characteristics of the high normal people are ego
strength and self-actualizing motivations (2, p. 111).
Coopersmith (4, p. 145) also found that the high self-
esteem group set nigher goals for themselves as measured by
an ideal-self score, and, despite the higher score, he
found tii?. t trie highs had significantly smaller differences
between the ideal-self and self-esteem means than did the
13
other groups (4 , p . 147) . He interpreted this to mean that
the high group both set and achieved higher standards. A
possible reason for the higher self aspiration may have been
that the ratio of success and failure experienced led them
to expect success and thus to have higher aspirations (4,
p . 147) . This is in accord v/ith the findings of Bonney
(2 , p . 18) that high normals rated themselves as relatively
low on "abasement," which is defined in terms of feelings of
guilt, need for punishment, and inferiority attitudes. This
would indicate that high normal persons will tend to evaluate
themselves more highly on positive values. Related to this
is the finding by Heath (10, p. 170) that the typical highly
mature youth had a generally favorable self-image and tended
to believe that others thought of him as he thought of him-
self. He also showed considerable self-understanding and
was relatively-accurate in assessing what others thought of
him (10, p. 170) .
In contrast, the highly immature youth viewed himself
differently from the view he believed others had of him and
was unable to assess accurately what others actually thought
of him (10, p. 172) . He tended to be trait dominated and
more likely to respond to all situations primarily on the
basis of subjective conditions within himself. Either his
inner traits were so rigidly organized that he was motivated
to shape each situation to his own needs, or his subjective
organization was so weak that he allowed situations to
14
dominate him (10, p. 173). This is in accord with the con-
clusion "by Bonney (2, p. Ill) that many low normals exhibit
characteristics which are opposite to the ego strength and
self-actualizing motivation frequently seen in the high
normals.
Heath (10, p. 109) has pointed out that a large dis-
crepancy between a person's view of himself and what he
believes others think of him must seriously complicate his
adaptation to others. When people are confined to groups
of incomparables " . . . we may expect them to be imprecise
in evaluation of themselves (16, p. 247)." However, a per-
son with low self-esteem may accept the social definition of
what is important but not necessarily be enthusiastic about
standards that virtually commit him to judgments of failure
(4, p. 142).
Some people who are rated lov/ by others on a variable
tend to rate themselves low (14). A person who is un-
certain about his low self-appraisal will more readily
accept "approving information" while one who is certain of
his low appraisal seeks to gain "self-consistent" infor-
mation (13). Commitment to a lov: self-appraisal may be a
device to protect oneself from the responsibilities con-
tingent with accepting social praise and rejecting social
censure (12).
On the other hand, some people who are rated lov; by
others will tend to rate themselves much higher. This can
15
be viewed as a defensive self-evaluation which, may he one
of two kinds: a person may he aware of low self-regard and
try to hide it from others, or he may he unaware of low
self-regard and try to hide it from himself as well as
others (4, p. 25).
However, the differences between people of high, middle,
and low psychological maturity are not so much in individual
traits as in ". . • trait-syndromes, their interrelationships,
and their constant modifications according to interpersonal
dynamics of situations (2, p. 73)." Bonney (2, p. 14) found
the most discriminating syndrome between high and low nor-
mals to be the capacity to establish close interpersonal
relationships with others. The sociometric measures which
were used in this study tap interpersonal relationships.
On this basis it was expected that the sociometric groups
would tend to exhibit the characteristics of the high, mid-
dle, and low groups described above.
In general, it was expected that the sociometrically
high group would tend to evaluate themselves more highly
than the others and that this evaluation would be in harmony
with that of peers. The self-evaluations of the sociomet-
rically low group were expected to be lower, reflecting
their knowledge that they are lower. However, the low group
was expectcd to have wider discrepancies between self- and
peer-evaluations than the high group, due in part to defen-
siveness which would be reflected in somewhat inflated
16
self-evaluations. The middle sociometric groups, because
of the ambiguity of their situations, were expected to give
higher self-evaluations which would result in larger dis-
crepancies between self- and peer-evaluations than for
either of the other groups.
It should be noted that agreement scores, negative
discrepancy scores, and positive discrepancy scores were
functions of relationships between group-nominations and
self-nominations. This means that results which confirm,
or fail to confirm, the hypotheses concerning group-
nominations and self-nominations would also affect those
hypotheses concerning agreement scores, negative discrepancy
scores, and positive discrepancy scores. The latter were
needed, however, in order to note agreement ana direction
of discrepancies between peer- and self-evaluations.
The hypotheses concerning group-nominations were based
on the theory that a somewhat linear relationship exists
between being highly chosen and being seen as one who
functions effectively in many social roles. The hypotheses
concerning self-nominations were based on two theories:
first, that the high and low groups were fairly well aware
of their status, and, second, that the middle groups were
in a more anioiguous situation and thus the self—esteem
motive would have more opportunity to increase self-
evaluation. The hypotheses concerning group-nominations
and self-nominations were in terms of the number of
17
nominations received or given without regard to relationships
between the two. Expected relationships "between the t\vo
were stated in terms of hypotheses concerning agreement
scores, negative discrepancy scores, and positive discrepancy
scores.
Obviously, if an individual received a group-nomination
on a given role he either had given or had not given himself
a self-nomination on the same role. Thus, every group-
nomination produced either a corresponding agreement score
or positive discrepancy score. Every self-nomination pro-
duced either a corresponding agreement score or negative
discrepancy score.
The hypotheses concerning agreement scores and negative
discrepancy scores were based on the theories (A) that Highs
and High-Middles would both give about the same number of
self-nominations but that High-Middles would receive corre-
spondingly fewer group-nominations and thus have higher
negative discrepancy scores, and (B) that Lows, as compared
to low-Middles, would give fewer self-nominations and would
also receive fewer group-nominations, thus having a dif-
ference in agreement scores but not in negative discrepancy
scores.
The hypotheses concerning agreement scores and positive
discrepancy scores were based on the theories (A) that
self-evaluations of Highs would better correspond with peer-
evaluations than would those of other groups, thus producing
18
higher agreement scores, (B) that Highs would also be seen
as among the "best on many social roles on which they would
not judge themselves so, thus producing higher positive
discrepancy scores, and (C) that the other groups would
have fewer positive discrepancy scores because of conditions
which were expected to produce higher negative discrepancy
scores.
There were no theoretical reasons for expecting dif-
ferences between sexes on the five scores.
Material extracted from some unpublished research by
Bonney (3) also indicated the probability of confirming the
hypotheses formulated for the present study. The social
roles instrument, as originally designed by Bonney, was
administered to a fifth-grade class along with a sociometric
instrument calling for play group and work group choices and
leadership nominations. Students were told they could name
themselves on the social roles if they desired, however,
neither oral nor written instructions were given to encourage
them to do so. About half the class gave one or more self-
nominations (13 out of 25). The class was divided into
thirds according to sociometric rankings. Of the half who
gave self-nominations, four were in the upper third, five in
the middle third, and four in the lover third, ilean scores
for the groups, from upper to lower respectively, were as
follows: G-ITs — 11.25, 4.75, 0; SNs — 4.25, 4.6, 1.0; ASs —
3.0, 1.6, 0; 1'iDSs — 1.25, 3.0, 1.0; PDSs — 8S25, 3.0, 0.
19
GNs, ASs, and PDSs were in descending order. However,
the upper and middle groups gave about the same number of
SNs and the lower group few. The middle group had the
highest NDSs and the high group the highest PDSs.
An important difference between the study by Bonney
and the present study was that the social roles instrument
had been changed to encourage self-nominations.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in. Education, Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 19T0.
2. f The Normal Personality. Berkeley, California, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1969.
3. , unpublished research, Department of Psychology, llorth Texas State University, Denton Texas, 1969..
4. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Erancisco, California, tf. H. Freeman and Compa'ny, 1967.
5. Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Pro-cesses," Human Relations, VII (Hay, 1954), 117-140.
6. Gaier, Eugene L., "Student Self-Estimates of Pinal Course Grades," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 98 (March, 1961), 65-S7~ ~ "
7. Gerard, II. 3., "Some Determinants of Self-Evaluation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (March, 1961), 288-293.
8. Green, G. H., "Insight and Group Adjustment," Journal Abnormal and Social Psychology. 43 (January, 1948),
43-61.
9. Greenburg, Gloria U., and Prank, George H., "Personality Correlates of Attitude Change: The Tendency to Alter" Attitudes Toward Self in Other-Directed and" Inner-Directed People," Journal of General Psycholorv. 76 (January, 1967), 85^90~.~~ ~
10. Heath, Douglas H., Explorations of Katuritv. Few Yor'r, Appleton-Century-~rofti7~r%"5. ~~ '
11. Holt, Robert R., "The Accuracy of Self-Evaluations: Its j-leasurement and Some of Its Per sociological Correlates,"
2l Consulting Psychology. 15 (April, 1951), 95-101.
10 •
21
12. Jones, Stephen C., and Ratner, Carl, "Commitment to Self-Appraisal and Interpersonal Evaluations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 T H g u s V 19^77* 442-447.
13. , and Schneider, David J., "Certainty of Self-Appraisal and Reactions to Evaluations from Others," Socsiometry, 31 (December, 1968), 395-403.
14. Reeder, Leo G., Donahue, George A., and Biblarz, Arturo, "Conceptions of Self and Others," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (September, I960), 153-lf>9.
15. Reynolds, Maynard C., "The Social Psychology of Ex-ceptional Children: Part III. The Interaction of Exceptional Children with Other Persons," Exceptional Children, 26 (January, I960), 243-247.
16. Sears, R. R., "Experimental Studies of Projections: I, Attribution of Traits," Journal of Social Psv-chology, 7 (Hay, 1936), 151-16"3.
17. Sherwood, John J., "Increased Self-Evaluation as a Function of Ambiguous Evaluations by Referrent Others," Sociometry, 30 (December, 1967), 404-409.
18. __________ f "Self Identity and Referrent Others," Sociorae'fry T"2& (March, 1965), 66-81.
19. Start, K. B., "Overestimation of Personal Abilities and Success at First Year University Examinations," Journal of Social PsycholoM, 59 (April, 1963), 337-345.
20. Webb, ¥. B., "Self-Evaluation Compared with Group Evaluations," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (October, 1952TTT05--3C7. ~
21. , "Self-Evaluation, Group Evaluations and ObjecfTve Measures," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19 (June, 1955), 210-212. — — j — u * .
22. Y/ylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of Nebraska Press, 1961.
23 . , "Some Relationships Between Defensiveness and Self-Concept Discrepancies," Journal of Per-sonality, 25 (September, 1957), 600-bl67
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Subjects for the study were 147 fifth- and sixth-grade
students from schools in two North Central Texas towns of
less than 2,000 population. There were two fifth- and four
sixth-grade classes with enrollments of 15, 15, 20, 31, 32,
and 34.
Instruments
Two instruments involving peer selection measurements
were used. One, How We See Others (Appendix A), is a socio-
metric measurement containing a play group question and a
work group question. The other, How Pupils See 3ach Other
(Appendix B), is a social roles instrument. Both are modi-
fications of instruments developed by Bonney (3).
Modifications of the sociometric instrument were limited
to changing the title from How We See Other Children to How
We See Others and the elimination of one question on leader-
ship which correlated highly with the play group question.
The first sociometric question reads, "Tnich other
pupils in this class would you choose to be with you for a
"Play group—one in which you play games and have fun? List-
as many as you wish, but you probably will not want to name
22
23
more than 4 or 5." ITote that it calls for choices for a
"play group," not "to play with." "Play with" requires
knowledge of the game to "be played to get a discriminative
response. "Play group" is designed to "be a more general
measure of the degree to which, each child is perceived as
a desirable person to be with in a situation which is
strictly personal-social in nature, requiring primarily
personality assets and capacities to meet emotional, and
social needs ( 3 ) .
The second socioiaetric question reads, "Which other
pupils in this class would you choose to work v/.ith you on
a committee or work project—one which requires thai jou
obtain information and prepare a report to be givon to your
teacher, and possibly before your class? You may list as
many as you wish, but you probably will not want to name
more than 4 or 5." This is designed to get a measure of
the persons who are perceived as being the most and least
desirable as associates or partners in getting a 30b done
requiring effort, knowledge, and responsibility (3). The
last part of both questions is designed to encourage the
student to name as many classmates as he wishes, yet be
discriminative in his choices.
Bonnev (2, pp. 6-8) has summarised materials bearing
on the validity and reliability of peer selection measure-
ments with emphasis on sociometric choices as representative
of all measurements involving peer assessments. T-Te has
2 4
given attention to face validity, correlation with other
self-rating scales, particularly with, those correlations
pertaining to persons high or low on sociometric criteria,
and to empirical results in terms of sociometrically formed
groups tending to function better than groups not so
structured. He concludes that . . assessments of ma-
terials bearing on validity and reliabilitjr of sociometric
data lead to the conclusion that such data do present sig-
nificant information on important personality variables
(2, p. 8)."
The major modification in the social roles instrument
was the addition of directions that the student nominate
himself, along with classmates, on those roles for which he
considers himself to be among the best in the class. The
theory for adding the self-nomination instructions was that
an individual's self-perception can provide an added insight
into the individual. Lambert and Bower (7, p. 34), in de-
veloping a screening procedure, found that teacher- and peer-
perceptions correlated most positively, while self-perceptions
had lower correlations with both teacher- and peer-perceptions,
suggesting that self-perceptions ad.Led a significant measure
to the instrument. Other modifications included changing the
wording of two questions for clarification purposes and drop-
ping two questions to result in an instrument measuring 16
social roles.
25
Conclusions about the reliability and validity of peer
selection measurements referred to previously also apply to
the social roles instrument (2, pp. 6-8). In addition,
Bonney's original instrument was administered to four ele-
mentary school classes in January and again in May. Each
class was composed of 25 students. Correlations were run
between the rank orders based on total scores. The corre-
lations were .72, .83, .93, and .97, indicating that
students perceptions of classmates on the social roles were
quite stable over a period of four months (3).
Certain aspects relative to the items on the social
roles instrument also need to be considered. 7irst, there
are no derogatory or socially unfavorable roles for two
reasons: some schools are reluctant to elicit negative-
type responses from pupils and, more importantly, the
instrument was originally developed for the primary purpose
of determining which students are perceived by their class-
mates as functioning well in many roles and which in few
and which in none (3).
A second important aspect is that the items are not in
terms of traits possessed but in terms of overt ways of
functioning in the classroom. All questions are put in
terms of actual, concrete actions. ?or exc-mple, instead of
using an abstraction such as "generosity," item 14 asks the
student to list classmates who are "most likely to share
school materials when needed by other children." The theorv
26
is that it is easier to make accurate judgments about what
people do than about more subjective character traits they
possess. On this basis, the social roles should be rela-
tively unambiguous. The social roles are also the kind of
variables which can be worked with and improved most appro-
priately in a school setting (3).
A third aspect is that the items call for the student's
perceptions of who is "among the best at" or "most likely to
do" something. Students are not asked to rank people in
terms of first, second, third, et cetera, nor are they asked
to name the very best one. This applies to both self- and
peer-evaluations.
Some other important factors relate specifically to
the interpretation of self-evaluations. For one thing, it
was recognised that an individual may refrain from naming
himself on a social role either because he honestly feels
he is not one of the best on the role or because of modesty.
The instructions were designed with the specific intention
of eliciting all self-nominations a person really feels he
should give himself, yet without, at the same time, encour-
aging a person to give more self-nominations than he feels
are true.
Also, the instructions call for a "private-self" type
of evaluation (how one sees himself) rather than a "social-
self" type evaluation (how one thinks others see him).
Research has indicated that different results are obtained
27
when a person is asked to state how he sees himself than
when asked to state how he thinks others see him (7, p. 276).
However, it is unlikely that there can he a sharp separation
on the person's part between his private-self and social-
self concept (7, p. 280) since any concept must he largely
environmentally derived through the process of interaction
with others (2, p.99; 4, p. 141). Discrepancies between
peer-evaluations and a private-self type evaluation do not
necessarily mean that one is wrong and the other is right,
only that the group does not see the person as he sees him-
self. In some cases it would be expected that, given more
group interaction so that the person would have more oppor-
tunity to function in a specific role, his peers would also
come to see him as among the best in the group on that role.
Moreover, it would be expected that certain classroom activ-
ities could help an individual to also come to recognize
himself as functioning effectively in a social role on which
his peers consider him as one of the best in the group.
Self-nominations which differ from peer-evaluations
also indicate something important about a person. While
indiscriminate self-nominations may be viewed as a defensive
reaction, those which apparently reflect some discrimination
by the individual may be interpreted in terms of subjective
aspirations or wants and thus be related to the concept of
"choice-daring" (1, p. 263). A self-nomination would seem
to indicate that the individual wants to be seen as
28
functioning in a certain way. That he would record this on
the instrument may .indicate that his aspiration level in
regard to his possibilities is high enough that he has the
"choice-daring" to "believe that he could be among the best
on the given role.
In the present study the relationships between peer-
and self-evaluations were analyzed and interpreted in terms
of agreement scores, negative discrepancy scores, and
positive discrepancy scores. The criteria by which these
scores were determined are given in the following section.
Procedures
Both the sociometric and the social roles instruments
were administered to a class at the same sitting, with the
sociometric instrument being administered first. Students
were allo\fed as much time as needed on each instrument. It
required about 30 minutes for each class to complete both
instruments. Pour absentees completed the forms under
supervision of the teachers within a week of the original
administration.
Students were listed in rank order according to the
number of choices received on each of the sociometric
questions. They were then listed in rank order according
to the total number of choices received on both questions
combined. Students were divided into approximate fourths
on the basis of choices received. The term "approximate
29
fourths" is used because exact fourths could not he obtained
for two reasons: first, the number of students in some of
the classes was not exactly divisible by four, and, second,
in some classes there were tie scores which produced over-
lapping at the dividing points. The division into fourths
was based on the theory that resulting groups would be
sufficiently differentiated on the high and low sociometric
criteria to make comparisons in the study meaningful. The
upper fourth was called "Highs," and the other fourths
were called "High-Kiddles," "Low-Middles," and "Lows,"
Criterion for grouping was on the basis of combined
total number of choices received on both sociometric
questions with the stipulation that a student was not con-
sidered a High unless he was definitely in the upper fourth
on one question and above average on the other. The recip-
rocal was true in determining the Lows. The theory behind
the stipulation was that a High should be a person whom his
peers perceived as a desirable person to be with in a situ-
ation which is strictly of a personal-social nature (play
group) and also one who is desirable to work with on a job
requiring effort, knowledge, and responsibility (work group).
All students in the sample who ranked in the upper or lower
fourth on the combined total number of choices also qualified
on the stipulation. High-Kiddles and Low-Middles were deter-
mined by rank order standings on the combined total number
30
of choices received without regard to relative standings on
either specific question.
Highs from each class were combined to form one group
with IT = 36. The sane was done for High-Middles (IT = 36),
Low-Kiddles (IT = 37), and Lows (IT = 38).
A self-nomination (SIT) v/as recorded for a student for
each social role on which he named himself as one of the
best in the class.
Three other scores were determined on the basis of re-
lationships between group-nominations and self-nominations.
An agreement score (AS) .-/as recorded when a student both
received a GIT and gave himself an SIT on a given role. A
negative discrepancy score (NDS) v/as recorded when a student
gave himself an SM on a social role but did not receive a GIT
on the role. A positive discrepancy score (PDS) v/as re-
corded when a student received a GIT on a social role but
did not give himself an SIT on the role.
Sverv self-nomination produced either a corresponding
agreement score or a negative discrepancy score. Every
group—nomination produced either a corresponding agreement
score or a positive discrepancy score.
GiTs, SNs, ASs, ITDSs, and PBSs were determined for boys
and girlo sep«.rc;.uoljy. Ih.is -information v/as used to determine
if there were any differences in terms of sex.
The null forms of hypotheses one through five v/ere
teoted by simple an.1 Lysis of variance andt where appropriate
31
by the Scheffe test of all possible comparisons between
groups (6, pp. 230-242). The hypotheses concerning sex
were tested by the t-test for independent samples (6,
pp. 165-169).
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in Education, Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 19S0.
2. , The Normal Personality, Berkeley, California, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1969.
3. ____ * unpublished research, Department of Psychology, iTorth Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1969.
4. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Francisco, California.,""™','/. H. Freeman and* Company, 1967.
5. Lambert, Nadine M., and Bower, Eli M., A Process for In-School Screening of Children with SmotionaT Handicaps : Technical "R'eport for Behoof MrnTnTstrators and TeacHers" Los Angeles, California, "Educational Testing Service, 1961.
6. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Scie"hces, Mew York, Holt, Rinehart S M V/inston, InFTTT^g.
7. Wylie, Ruth C., The Self Concept, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of NilbrSikS Press, '1961.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
As previously stated, a sociometric instrument, How ¥e
See Others (Appendix A), and a social roles instrument, How
Pupils See Each Other (Appendix E), were administered to
147 fifth- and sixth-grade students from schools in two
North Central Texas towns of less than 2,000 population.
There were two fifth- and four sixth-grade classes with
F = 15, 15, 20, 31, 32, and 34.
Both instruments were administered at the same sitting,
with the sociometric instrument "being administered first.
Students were allowed as much time as needed on each instru-
ment, It required about 30 minutes for each class to
complete both instruments. Pour absentees completed the
forms under supervision of the teachers within a week of
the original administration.
Each class was divided into Highs, High-Kiddles, low~
Middles, and lows on the basis of sociometric criteria given
in Chapter II, Highs from each class were combined to form
one group with N - 36. The same was dor;e for High-Kiddles
(N » 36), Low-Kiddles (F s 37), and Lows (lv = 38).
Peer-nominations were tallied on each social, role for
each student o A student '..'as given a group-nomination (GF)
33
34
if he was nominated "by 20 per cent of his class on a given
role. The rationale for this was given in Chapter II. Each
role on which a student named himself as among the best in
the class was recorded as a self-nomination (SIT). Roles on
which students had SNs and GITs were compared. If a student
had both an SIT and GIT on a given role it was recorded as an
agreement score (AS) . If he ha.d an SN but did not receive a
GIT on the role it was recorded as a negative discrepancy
score (ITDS). If he received a GIT but hs,d not given, himself
an SIT on the role it was recorded as a positive discrepancy
score (PDS). Total GITs, SNs, ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs were cal-
culated for each sociometric group and mean scores determined,
The means are given in Table I. Hypotheses were tested in
TABLE I
GN, SIT, AS, EDS, AED PDS MEANS OF THE SOCIAL HOLES INSTRUMENT FOR EACH SOCIOMETRIC GROUP
AND FOR ALL GROUPS COMBINED
Sociometric Groups ' " 0 U—I Means
" s r -
Means ~~ AS Means
¥LS Me ans
PW~ Means
Highs, IT = 36 6 . 8 9 7 .14 3 . 5 5 5 . 5 5 3 . 3 3
High-Middles, N = 36 2 .17 6 . 3 1 1 . 1 3 5 . 1 7 1 . 0 3
Low-Middles, IT - 37 1 . 3 8 5 .84 .89 4 . 9 5 .49
Lowe, IT ~ 38 .82 6 . 5 8 .47 6 , 1 1 .34
All Groups Combined, IT -~= 147 2 . 7 8 6 .46 1.50 4 . 9 7 1 . 2 8
35
the null form "by simple analysis of variance and, where the
F was significant at the .05 level, by the Scheffe test of
all possible comparisons between means (1, pp. 230-242).
Hypotheses Concerning Group-?;ominations
Hypothesis 1 was that mean Gils would vary between
sociometric groups in the following ways: (A) Highs would
have significantly higher mean GNs than High-Middles;
(B) Highs would have significantly higher mean GITs than Low-
Middles ; (C) Highs would have significantly higher mean GNs
than Lows j (D) High-Middles 'would have significantly higher
mean GITs than Low-Kiddles; (3) High-Middles would have sig-
nificantly higher mean Gils than Lows; (j?) Low-Kiddles would
have significantly higher mean GITs than Lows.
Analysis of variance yielded an P = 32.58, P < .01
(Table II); thus the null hypothesis of no significant
TABLE II
SUMMARY FOR THE ANALYSIS CE VARIANCE 0? GROUP-IfOMmTICNS RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOWS
Source of Variation
Sums of" _ Squares df
Mean Sauares F P__
Between Groups 840.62 3 280.21 32.58 .01
Within Groups 1,229.97 143 8.60 • t> • • *
Total 2,070.59 146 • • • • • * * *
36
difference "between, groups was rejected. The Scheffe test
of all possible comparisons between groups was then used
and the results were recorded in Table III.
TABLE III
SUMMARY OP THE SCHEPEE TEST 0? ALL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS BETV/EEN MEANS 0? GROUP-NOMINATIONS RECEIVED 3Y HIGHS,
HIGH-MIDDLES, LOV/-KIDDIES , AND LOY/S
Groups Compared — df = 3, 143 F P
Highs and High-Middles 5.55 .01
Highs and Low-Middles 11.23 .01
Highs and Lows 13.72 .01
High-Middles and Low-Middles .23 Not Significant
High-Middies and Lows . 68 Not Significant
Low-Middles and lows .23 Not Significant
The null hypothesis was rejected for hypotheses 1(A),
1(B), and 1(C). The GN mean of the Highs was significantly
higher than the GN means of the High-Middles, low-Middles,
and Lows. This was in accord with what had been predicted.
The null hypothesis was retained for hypotheses 1(D),
1(E), and 1(F). There was no significant difference in the
GN means between High-Middles, low-Middles, and Lows. This
was not in accord with what had been predicted.
31
Hypotheses Concerning Self-Nominations
Hypothesis 2 v/as that mean SNs would vary between
sociometric groups in the following ways: (A) There would
be no significant difference in the mean SNs of the Highs
and High-Middles; (B) Highs v/ould have significantly
higher mean SNs than Low-Middles; (C) Highs would have
significantly higher mean SNs than Lows; (D) High-Middles
would have significantly higher mean SNs than Low-Middles;
(E) High-Middles v/ould have significantly higher mean SNs
than Lov/s; (?) Low-Middles would have significantly higher
mean SNs than Lows.
Analysis of variance yielded an F = .65, which did not
reach, the .05 significance level (Table IV); thus the null
hypothesis of no significant difference between groups v/as
retained.
TABLE IV
SUMMARY FOR THE ANALYSIS 0? VARIANCE OP SELF-NOMINATIONS GIVEN BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOV/S
.. ,,r , ~ 2'Z" Source of Variation
Sums of Squares df
Mean Squares F _jp
Between Groups 22.30 3 7.43
1 in
!
Not Significant
Within Groups 1,637.24 143 11.45 • • • *
Total 1,659.54 146 • «
38
It had been predicted that Lows would have the lowest
SN mean, and that each of the other sociometric groups would
have correspondingly higher and significantly different
means, with the exception that Highs and High-Kiddles were
expected to have the highest SN means "but not be signifi-
cantly different from each other. However, no group had
significantly higher mean SITs than another. Thus, results
confirmed hypothesis 2(A) but failed to confirm hypotheses
2(B), 2(C), 2(D), 2(E), and 2(F).
Hypotheses Concerning Agreement Scores
Hypothesis 3 was that mean ASs would vary between
sociometric groups i.n the following ways: (A) Highs would
have significantly higher mean ASs than High-Middles;
(B) Highs would have significantly higher mean ASs than
low-Middles; (C) Highs would have significantly higher
mean ASs than Lows; (D) High-Middles would have signifi-
cantly higher mean ASs than Low-Middles; (3) High-Middles
would have significantly higher mean ASs than Lows;
(?) Low-Middles v/ould have significantly higher mean ASs
than Lows.
Analysis of variance yielded an 7 = 15.98, P < .01
(Table V); thus the null hypothesis of no significant dif-
ference between groups was rejected. The Scheffe test of
39
TABLE V
SUMMARY FOR THE AHALY3I3 0? VARIANCE 0? AGREEMENT SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDIES, L0\/-MIDDLES, AND LOWS
Source of Variation
'Suras of Squares df
Mean Squares P P
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
210.51
628.24
3
143
70.17
4.39
15.98 « • #
.01 • •
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total 838.75 146 • • • # • # • •
alii possible comparisons between groups was then used and
results were recorded in Table YI.
TABLE VI
SUMMARY 0? THE SCHEPPE 'TEST 0? AIL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS OP AGREEMENT SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS,
HIGH-MIDDIES, LOW-MIDDIES, AND LOWS
- j i . n
Groups Compared — df = 3, 143 P P
Highs and High-Middles 2.86 .05
Highs and low-Mideles 5.13 .01
Highs and lows 6.92 .01
High-Middles and low-Middles .04 Hot Significant
High-Middles and Lows .32 Hot Significant
Low-Kiddles and Lows .25 Not Significant
40
The null hypothesis was rejected for hypotheses 3(A),
3(B), and 3(C). The AS mean of the Highs v/as significantly
higher than the AS means of the High-Middles, low-Kiddles,
and Lows. This v/as in accord with what had been predicted.
The null hypothesis v/as retained for hypotheses 3(D),
3(E), and 3(1?). There was no significant difference in AS
means between High-Kiddles, Low-Middles, and Lows. This v/as
not in accord with what had been predicted.
Hypotheses Concerning negative Discrepancy Scores
Hypothesis 4 was that mean HDSs would vary between
sociometric groups in the following ways: (A) Highs would
have significantly lower mean HDSs than High-Kiddles;
(3) Highs would have significantly lower mean JTDSs than
Low-Middles; (C) Highs would have significantly lower
mean HDSs than Lows; (D) High-Middles would have signifi-
cantly higher mean HDSs than Low-Middles; (S) High-Kiddles
would have significantly higher mean HDSs than lows;
(P) There would be no significant difference in the mean
NDSs of the Low-Kiddles and Lows.
Analysis of variance yielded an F = 4.28, P < .01
(Table VII); thus the null hypothesis of no significant
difference between groups v/as rejected. The Scheffe test
41
TABLE VII
SUMMARY FOR THE ANALYSIS 0? VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-KIDDLES, AMD LOWS
Source of Variation
Sums of Squares df
Mean Squares E P
Between Groups 123.61 3 43.20 4.28 .01
Within Groups 1,443.22 143 10.09 • • * •
Total 1,572.83 146 • • • • • • •
of all possible comparisons between groups was then used
and the results recorded in Table VIII.
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OE THE SCHEEEE TEST OP ALL P0S3I3IE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS 0? NEGATIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED
BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOWS
Grour.>s Compared — df = 3, 143 P P
Highs and High-Middles . 56 Not Significant
Highs and Low-Kiddles .62 Not Significant
Highs and Lows 2.08 Not Significant
High-Kiddles and lew-Middles .02 Not Significant
High-Middles and Lows • ro
CO
Not Significant
Low-Middles and Lows .83 Not Significant
42
The Scheffe test did not yield any F reaching the .05
level of significance. Roscoe has said of this type sit-
uation:
Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon to follow a significant finding "by the analysis of variance with the Scheffe procedure and find that no two means differ significantly. This may be attributed to the fact that the analysis of variance provides a more powerful test of the hypothesis of equal means. 'Then this occurs, if the various samples are of equal (or nearly equal) size, and the analysis of variance yields a significant finding, it is reasonable to conclude that the largest mean is significantly larger than the smallest mean, even though the Scheffe test was unable to detect this difference (1, p. 241).
Following Roscoe's suggestion, the null form of hypo-
thesis 4(C) was rejected and the results were interpreted as
a significant difference between the UD3 means of the Highs
and Lows. An examination of ITD8 means in Table I revealed
that the difference was in the predicted direction, with
Highs having a lower mean score than Lows.
The null hypothesis was retained for hypotheses 4(A),
4(B), 4(D), 4(3), and 4(F). This was as predicted by hypo-
thesis 4(2). However it was not as predicted by hypotheses
4(A), 4(B), 4(B), and 4(E).
Hypotheses Concerning Positive Discrepancy Scores
Hypothesis 5 was that mean PDSs would vary between
sociocietric groups in the following ways: (A) Highs would
have significantly higher mean PDSs than High-Kiddles;
43
(B) Highs would have significantly higher mean PDSs than
Low Middles; (C) Highs would have significantly higher
mean PDSs than Lows; (D) High-Middles would have signifi-
cantly higher mean PDSs than low-Middles; (E) High-Kiddles
would have significantly higher mean PDSs than lows;
(P) low-Middles would have significantly higher mean PDSs
than lows.
Analysis of variance yielded an P = 35.78, P < .01
(Table IX); thus the null hypothesis of no significant dif-
ference between groups was rejected. The Scheffe test of
TABLE IX
SUMMARY POR TriE ANALYSIS CP VARIANCE OP POSITIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDIES , LOVMMIDDLE3 , /.YD LOWS
-wwar .K»i
Source of Variation
Sums of Squares df
Mean Squares P p
Between Groups 427.20 3 142.40
CO •
! in
JO .01
Within Groups 568.76 143 3.98 • • • t «
Total 995.96 146 • • • • • • • •
all possible comparisons between groups was then used and
the results recorded in Table X.
44
TABLE X
SUMMARY OP THE SCHEEPE TEST 0? ALL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEANS OF POSITIVE DISCREPANCY SCORES RECEIVED
BY HIGHS, HIGH-MIDDLES, LOW-MIDDLES, AND LOWS
Groups Compared — df = 3, 143 F p
Highs and High-Middles 2.85 .05
Highs and Low-Middles 6.45 .01
Highs and Lov/s 7.19 .01
High-Middles and Low-Kiddles .23 Not Significant
High-Middles and Lov/s .38 Not Significant
Low-Middles and Lov/s l 1
O
1 «
Not Significant
The null hypothesis was rejected for hypotheses 5(A),
5(B), and 5(C). The PDS mean of the Highs was significantly
higher than the PDS means of the High-Middles, Low-Middles,
and Lows. This was in accord with what had been predicted.
The null hypothesis v/as retained for hypotheses 5(D),
5(E), and 5(?). There v/as no significant difference in the
PDS means between High-Middles, Low-Middles, and lows. This
was not in accord with what had been predicted.
Hypotheses Concerning Sex
Hypothesis 6 v/as that boys and girls would not differ
significantly (A) on mean GNs, (3) on mean SNs, (C) on
mean ASs, (D) on mean NDSs, and (s) on mean PDSs. Students
45
were divided "by sex, without regard to sociometric grouping,
GN, SN, AS, EDS, and PDS means were determined for boys and
girls and recorded in battle XI.
TABLE XI
GN, SN, AS, NDS, AND PDS MEANS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS
Group GN
Means SN
Means AS Means
HDS Means
PDS Means
Boys, N = 80
Girls, N = 67
2.58
3.01
6.19
6.79
1.36
1.66
4.83
5.13
1.21
1.36
The t test for independent samples was used to test the
null hypothesis of no significant difference between means
for boys said girls on each of the five scores. No t reached
the .05 level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis
was retained on all five measures. There was no significant
difference between boys and girls on mean GNs, SITs, ASs,
NDSs, or PDSs.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, Holt, Rinehart" and Winston, Inc., 19&9.
46
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION OP RESULTS
As was pointed out in Chapter II, the "basic scores on
the social roles instrument were group-nominations (GIT) and
self-nominations (SN). Every GN resulted in either an
agreement score (AS) or a positive discrepancy score (PDS).
Every SjST resulted in either an agreement score (AS) or a
negative discrepancy score (NDS). Thus, the hypotheses con-
cerning GNs and SNs were the key hypotheses, "but the
hypotheses concerning ASs, NDSs, and PDSs v/ere needed to deal
with relationships "between GNs and SNs. To confirm, or to
fail to confirm, a hypothesis relative to GNs or SNs would
automatically affect hypotheses about ASs, NDSs, and PDSs,
though not necessarily assuring a confirmation or rejection
of a given hypothesis.
Group-Nominations
Three of the hypotheses concerning GNs were confirmed
and three v/ere not confirmed. As predicted, Highs received
significantly more GNs than High-Middles, low-Middles, and
Lows. An inspection of GN means in Table I reveals a trend
in the predicted direction for High-Middles, Low-Kiddles, and
Lov/s, but statistical analysis indicated the differences
47
48
were not significant. The findings relative to GNs were of
necessity also reflected in ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs.
Perhaps the most relevant finding concerning Gils was
that those who were highly chosen by peers as persons who
are desirable to be with in strictly personal-social
situations (play group) and desirable as associates in
working situations (work group) were also viewed by peers
as functioning effectively in a number of social roles.
Self-lTominations
Probably the most important finding in this study was
that there were no significant differences in the number
of SITs given by the various sociometric groups.
The SIT hypotheses had predicted differences between
all groups except Highs and High-Middles, with, those groups
giving the most SMs and each succeedingly lower sociometric
group giving correspondingly fewer SITs.
The theoretical bases for the hypotheses consisted of
several elements. One was that Highs would see themselves
as effective in many social roles and that this would be
reflected in many SITs, while Low-Kiddles and Lows would see
themselves as effective in fewer roles and this would be
reflected in fewer SITs. However, it was expected that de-
fensiveness would produce high SITs among some in the lower
groups. Another part of the theory was that High-Middles
would be in a more ambiguous position than others, since
49
they would experience just enough, success In the social
roles to not have a clearly defined position. In the am-
biguity of the situation the self-esteem motive would have
more opportunity to increase the self-evaluations (2), thus
resulting in a larger number_of SITs.
Technically, the prediction of no significant difference
in SNs between Highs and High-Middles was confirmed. How-
ever, it Is questionable as to whether the effect was due to
a more ambiguous position of the High-Middles, since the Low-
Middles and lows also gave approximately the same number of
SITs.
One explanation for no difference between groups could
have been that a few lows, for defensive reasons, might have
given an extremely large number of SITs and thus overweighted
the mean. Two steps were taken to check this. First, a
table was prepared of the frequencies at which different
numbers of SITs were given by students in the different
sociometrie groups. This information is recorded in Appendix
G. It revealed that a few persons in each group gave a large
number of SITs. A second step was to devise a method whereby
scores which might .indicate extreme defensiveness could be
detected and removed to see if there v/ould be any change.
On theoretical grounds it seemed that possible defensive
scores by Highs should be removed as well as those by lows.
The method used was a measure of the ratio of SITs to GIT3 in
terms of means by sociometric group. A person's score was
50
considered "defensive" if he scored above trie SIT mean of
his sociometric group and also below the GIT mean for his
group. This procedure yielded eight Highs and twelve lows.
The scores of these students were removed and new SIT means
calculated. The mean SIT was 'reduced by .35 points for the
Highs and by .54 points for the lows which was not a signi-
ficant change,, This was not a wholly satisfactory method,
but it did appear more valid than simply setting an arbitrary
number of SNs as defensive, especially since some of the
Highs who gave the most SNs also received the most GITs.
This does not mean that defensiveness was not a factor
in the high SIfs given by the lows. It only indicates t^at
any defensiveness was reflected by many in the group rather
than just a few.
The basic point of the finding is that all sociometric
groups tended to give about the same number of SITs on the
social roles. Why this was so is an unanswered question,
but it is one which, in part, may be related to some findings
by Coopersmith (1, pp. 138-144).
He had expected to find that the areas of greater com-
petence would be systematically related to personally
important values, but instead he found there were virtually
no differences in value preferences among the groups that
differed on measures of self-esteem.
In such important areas of preadolescent life as academic performance, athletics, friendline tivenose, intel.3 igence, and independence, v.
ness, attrac-, we find that
51
groups differing in their level of esteem hold these and other values equally important. This would imply that persons high, medium, and low in the various ex-pressions of esteem tend to employ much the same criteria for judging their worth (1, p. 139).
This would seem to indicate that people do not necessarily
select self-value standards in terms of what they do well.
He concluded that self-values are environmentally de-
rived and supported so that there is relative little latitude
for focusing upon socially deviant values as a major basis
of self-esteem, therefore a person cannot readily select,
shift, and transform these values to attain favorable self-
judgments. I-Iov/ever, the person can accept the social norm
on which he fares badl3/ and cone to a favorable resolution
oy an aggrandized estimate of his performance. "It is in
this regard—that is, in estimates of meeting standards,
rather than in value selection—that favorably inflated
self-judgments are lilcely to be achieved (1, p. 141)." His
conclusion is that the person who does not think hi-zhly of
himself is just as likely to set lofty goals as is the
person who concludes that he is a worthy individual.
The SHs on social roles are probably related to the
self-esteem measure used by Coopersmith, though this has not
been demonstrated by research. That lows gave about as many
SNs as the other groups certainly fits well with the other
facts Coopersmith employed in arriving at his interpretation.
52
Agreement Scores
An AS was a function of relationships between a GF and
an SN in that a person must have received a GN on a given
role and also must have given himself an SIT on the same role.
It was predicted that Highs v/ould have the highest mean AS
and each succeedingly lower sociometric group would have a
correspondingly lower mean AS. However, it v/as found that
Highs scored significantly higher than each of the other
groups, but that there v/as no significant difference between
High-Kiddles, low-Middles, and Lows. This would be expected,
since the same results were found for Gils, and it was im-
possible to have an AS without a GIT.
The findings give support to the theory that self-
evaluations of Highs better correspond with peer-evaluations
than do the self-evaluations of other groups.
Negative Discrepancy Scores
An NDS v/as also a function of relationships between GITs
and SIfs. It was the opposite of an AS in that a person gave
himself an SIT on a social role but did not receive a GIT on
the role. The only significant difference found v/as that
Hi-jitk..* nad c* 1 ovvemoan .iTiJo than lows. .lt had been t*redic*ced
that Highs would have a lower mean NDS than all others. It
had also been predicted that High-Middles would have the
highest ITDS. The actual results were what would be expected,
53
since there was no significant difference "between groups in
terms of SITs and since the GKs were distributed as they were.
That is, higher than expected SITs for Low-Kiddles and Lows
coupled with lower than expected GITs for High-Middles had a
canceling effect on differences between expected NDSs.
However, the lack of significant differences "between
means may be masking very real differences in KDSs. The
per cent of SITs resulting in ITDSs, or the reciprocal ASs,
can easily be calculated from the mean scores recorded in
Table I, The per cent of SKs resulting in EDSs were as
follows: Highs, 50 per cent; High-Middles, 82 per cent;
Low-Middles, 85 per cent; and Lows, 93 per cent. That is,
the self-evaluations of Low-Mi ddles registered as SITs differed
from peer-evaluations 85 per cent of the time while Highs
differed only 50 per cent of the time.
Positive Discrepancy Scores
Like the AS and ITDS, the PDS was also a function of
relationship between GITs and SITs. A PDS occurred when a
person received a GN on a social role but did not give him-
self an SN on the role. Again, in keeping with the pattern
of GlCs, Highs received significantly more PDSs tvan any other
groups, and there were no significant differences between the
other groups. The difference in what was predicted and what
occurred was basically the same for both GITs and PDSs,
54
The high number of SIIs given by the lover groups would
seem to make it very likely that any GNs v/ould result in
ASs rather than PDSs. However, by use of means recorded in
Table I, the per cent of GMs resulting in PDSs was detei'mined
to be as follows: Highs, 48 per cent; High-Middles, 47 per
cent; Low-Middles, 36 per cent; and Lows, 41 por cent. Thus,
all groups failed in a rather large per cent of cases to
evaluate their strength on social roles in the same terms as
did peers. The Lows, with 93 per cent of their SMs resulting
in NDSs, failed to give SHs on 41 per cent of the roles on
which they received GZTs. They could not recognize, in a
relatively large per cent of cases, the few roles on which
peers judged them strongest.
The relationships brought out in terms of percentages
indicate that statistical analysis of difference in mean
ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs was not an entirely satisfactory measure
of relationship between GXs and SNs.
Sex Differences
As predicted, there were no differences between boys
and girls in terms of Gils, Sl\s, ASs, ITDSs, and PDSs.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Francisco, California, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1967.
2. Sherwood, John J., "Increased Self-Evaluation as a Function of Ambiguous Evaluations "by Referrent Others," Sociometry, 30 (December, 1967), 404-409.
55
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
A sociometric instrument and a social roles Instrument
were administered to 147 fifth- and sixth-grade students.
Students were grouped into Highs, High-Middles, Low-Kiddles,
a.nd Lows on the basis of the choices received on the socio-
metric measurement. The social roles instrument called for
peer- and self-evaluations as to who were among the best in
the class on specific social roles. Scoring categories for
the social roles instrument were group-nomination (GN)» self-
nomination (SN), agreement score (AS), negative discrepancy
score (NDS), and positive discrepancy score (PDS). The cri-
terion for a group-nomination was to be named by 20 per cent
of the class on a specific social role. A self-nomination
meant that a student had named himself on a role. Relation-
ships between group-nominations and self-nominations were
analysed in terns of the other three scores. A group-
nomination and se±1 -nommaticn on a given role was counted
as an agreement score. A group-nomination without a corre-
sponding self-nomination on a given role was counted as a
positive discrepancy score. A self-nomination without a
corresponding group-nomination on a given role v/as countcd
56
57
as a negative discrepancy score. differences "between the
various mean scores for each sociometric group v/ere analyzed
by simple analysis of variance and, where appropriate, by
the Scheffe test.
As hypothesized, Highs received significantly more
group-nominations than other sociometric groups, indicating
that Highs were seen by peers as functioning effectively in
a number of social roles. Contrary to predictions, there
were no significant differences in group-nominations received
by High-Middles, Low-Kiddles, and Lows.
Probably the most important finding was that there was
no significant difference in the number of self-nominations
given by the different sociometric groups. This was con-
trary to what had been hypothesized. This finding was
interpreted in terms of the suggestion by Coopersmith (2,
pp. 138-144) that self-values are environmentally derived and
supported rather than growing out of what a person does well.
While a person may not change the value standard, he can
accept the social norms on which he fares badly and come to
a favorable resolution by an aggrandized estimate of his per-
formance.
Since agreement scores, negative discrepancy scores,
and positive discrepancy scores v/ere defined in terms of re-
lationships between group-nominations and self-nominations,
it also followed that the hypotheses concerning the former
were directly affected by whether or not hypotheses concerning
58
the latter were confirmed or rejected. Highs had signifi-
cantly higher agreement scores and positive discrepancy
scores than other groups, and there were 110 significant
differences between the other groups. Highs had significantly
lower negative discrepancy scores than Lows, but there were
no other significant differences between groups,
GIT, SIT, AS, NDS, and PDS means were determined for each
sex without regard to sociometric grouping. Differences
between sexes on each score were tested by the t-test for
independent samples. Ho t reached the .05 level of signi-
ficance, thus there were no significant differences between
sexes.
Some criticisms were made of procedures used to analyze
relationships between group-nominations and self-nominations.
The suggestion was ma.de that some type of score based on
percentages might be more revealing.
Conclusions
One conclusion which seems warranted by the findings in
this study is that those who are frequently chosen by peers
as persons who are both desirable to be with in strictly
personal-social situations and desirable as associates in
working situations are also viewed by peers as functioning
effectively in a larger number of positive social roles than
are persons who are less frequently chosen. This conclusion
is based on the findings ii.at Highs received significantly
59
higher group-nominations, agreement scores, and positive
discrepancy scores than other sociometric groups, They also
had significantly lower negative discrepancy scores than
Lows. These findings are in accord with those from other
studies in which high and low normal persons have "been com-
pared and contrasted (l, 2, 3).
Another conclusion is that sex makes no significant
difference in peer- and self-evaluations as measured on the
social roles instrument. This is based on the finding that
there v/ere no significant differences between sexes on any
of the five scores,.
Probably the most important conclusion which can be
drav/n from this study is that while peer-evaluations on the
social roles are related to sociometric ranking, self-
evaluations on the roles are not. There were no significant
differences on mean self-nominations between sociometric
groups. While group-nomination means differed between groups
by as much as 6.07, the widest difference between self-
nomination means v/as only 1.3. This may be interpreted as
giving support to Coopersmith's (2, pp. 138-144) suggestion
that self-values are environmentally derived and supported
rather than growing out of what a person does well. While
a person may not cnange the value standard, he can accept
the social norms on which he fares badly and come to a
favorable resolution by an aggrandized estimate of his
performance.
60
Recommendations
1. Research aimed at determining why all sociometrie
groups give approximately the same number of self-nominations
could be valuable. The suggestion was made that this likely
relates to findings by Coopersmith (2).
2. It seems probable that self-nominations would corre-
late with the subjective self-esteem measure developed by
Coopersmith (2). A study could determine if this is true.
3. Some individuals gave many self-nominations and
received few group-nominations, while some gave few self-
nominations and received many group-nominations. An
investigation which would result in a description of the
kinds of students with unusual group-nomination to self-
nomination ratios would be helpful in providing a guide to
interpretation of the social roles instrument in terms of
individual students. One possible factor is the type of
self-esteem as measured by instruments Coopersmith (2) has
developed for determining subjective self-esteem and ob-
jective self-esteem.
4. It was noted that procedures used in this study
for analyzing agreement scores, nege,tive discrepancy scores,
and positive discrepancy scores were not entirely satisfactory,
Research aimed at providing better measures of relationships
between group-nominations and self-nominations could be of
benefit to the teacher who wishes to use the social roles
instrument in planning activities for individual students.
61
5. The school teachers and administrators involved in
the study indicated that responses on the social roles in-
strument were especially suggestive in planning activities
to meet needs of specific children. For example, one
teacher reported that she planned to identify the roles on
which individual lows received the most peer-nominations
and provide opportunities for those individuals to function
with peers in those roles, A study could be made to note
changes in sociometric choices received, or other variables,
by lows following activities instigated as a result of
identifications made through the social roles instrument.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bonney, Merl E., The Normal Personality» Berkeley, California, McCutchan Pu ol i shing Corp oration, 1969.
2. Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem. San Francisco, California, Y/~ H. Freeman and Company, 1967.
3. Heath, Douglas H., Explorations of Maturity, New York, Apple ton-Century-Crofts, 19^5. ~
62
APPENDIX A
Student's name_
Teacher
Date
HOW WE SEE OTHERS
Directions; Please give the names asked for in the two questions "below so your teacher can better understand this class and help everyone in it to profit from being in this group.
You may put the sane names under more than one of the questions if you wish, but you will probably want to name some new ones under each of the two questions.
QUESTION 1: T.</hich other pupils in this class v/ould you choose to be with you for a play group ~~ one in which you play games and have fun? list~as~many as you wish, but you probably will not v/ant to name more than 4 or 5.
QUESTION 2: Which other pupils in this class v/ould you choose to work with you on a committee or work project — one which requires that you obtain information and prepare a report to be given to your teacher, and possibly before your class? You may list as many as you wish, but you probably will not v/ant to name more than 4 or 5.
63
APPENDIX B
Your Name _ Your School_
Your Teacher
HOW PUPILS SEE EACH OTHER
Directions: By listing the names asked for in the spaces Felow you v/ill help your teacher to better understand this class, so she can help each student gain the most from this year's work.
(1) In the space under each question below, list the names of the students in this class you think best fit the questions. You may list the name of a student under more than one question if you wish, but you will probably want to think of some different names to put under the different questions. Please write both the first name and last initial. If you believe that no student fits a particular question, you may leave the space blank.
(2) After you have listed the names of other students, go back over the questions ajid write "me" in the space after each question which you feel fits you. Be sure to write "me" after every question which you feel is true of you.
In this class which students are:
1. Most likely to do or say something unusual or original which other people like.
2. Most likely to dare to be different in some ways from most of the group.
3. Most likely to do or say something which helps the group settle some kind of difficulty on the playground or in the halls.
4* Most likely to do or say something which helps settle a difficulty between two or more children in the class-room.
5. Among the best in making an oral report before the class.
64
65
In this class which students are:
6. Among the best in acting a part in a play or dramati-zation.
7. Among the best in making posters or other kinds of art exhibits.
8. Among the best in playing games during play periods or noon hours.
9. Among the best in writing stories which are interesting to the rest of the class.
10. Most likely to show some concern about the difficulties and problems of other children.
11. Most likely to show concern about the whole class doing well and being a "good class" in whatever is undertaken.
12. Most likely to offer good suggestions during a class discussion on a topic in social studies, language arts, or some other subject.
13. Among the best in being friendly with most other class members.
14. Most likely to share school materials when needed by other children.
15. Most likely to have a good time and enjoy himself wherever he is.
16. Among the best in thinking out the answer to a problem in one of our school subjects (arithmetic, science, etc.) as given in a book or by the teacher.
APPENDIX C
FREQUENCIES AT WHICH DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF SELF-NOMINATIONS OH SOCIAL ROLES WERE GIVEN
BY DIFFERENT SOCIONETRIC GROUPS
Number of Frequency "by Sociometric Grow SNs Given Highs High-Middles Low-Middles Lows
0 1 2 • 1
1 1 # 2 •
2 1 1 4 2
3 1 4 6 4
4 1 4 5 5
5 7 6 1 3
6 3 7 1 5
7 2 2 6 4
8 6 2 2 5
9 7 • 5 3
10 2 1 3 2
11 1 3 1 1
12 2 1 • •
13 # 2 • 1
14 1 1 • 1
ITS H • • 1 *
16 • • • 1
U=3S N=36 ; N=37 N=38
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bonney, Merl E., Mental Health in Education, Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., I960.
, The Normal Personality. Berkeley, Cali-"Tor'nia/ i IcCutcKan Publishing Corporation, 1969.
Coopersmith, Stanley, The Antecedents of Self-esteem, San Francisco, California**, ¥. H. Freeman and Company, 1967.
Heath, Douglas II., Explorations of Maturity, Few York, Apple ton-Century-Croft™, 19"^.
Roscoe, John T., Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19&9.
Wylie, Ruth 0., The Self Concept, Lincoln, Nebraska, University of I'Te bra ska" Press, 1961.
Articles
Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes," Human Pelations, VII (May, 1954), 117-140.
Gaier, Eugene I., "Student Self-Estimates of Final Course Grades," Journal of Genetic Psychology, 98 (March, 1961), 63-67.
Gerard, H. B., "Some Determinants of Self-Evaluation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (March, 196T), 288-293. — - ,
Green, G. H., "Insight and Group Adjustment," Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (January, 194877
49-61.
Greenburg, Gloria U., and Frank, George H., "Personality Correlates of Attitude Change: The Tendency to AT te*> Attitudes Toward Self in Other-Directed and Inner-Directed People," «]ourno.l of" General Psychology. 76 (January, 1967), 8*5=907 " —
67
68
Holt, Robert R., "The Accuracy of Self-Evaluations: Its Measurement and Some of Its Personological Correlates," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15 (April, 1951)« 95-101„
Jones, Stephen C., and Ratner, Carl, "Commitment to Self-Appraisal and Interpersonal Evaluations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 6 (August, 19&7T7 442-447.
and Schneider, David J., "Certainty of Self-Appraisal and Reactions to Evaluations from Others," Socionetry, 31 (December, 1968), 395-403.
Reeder, Leo G., Donahue, George A., and Biblarz, Artu.ro, "Conceptions of Self and Others," American Journal of Sociology, 66 (September, I960), 153-139.
Reynolds, Maynard C., "The Social Psychology of Exceptional Children: Part III. The interaction of Exceptional Children with Other Persons," Exceptional Children, 26 (January, I960), 243-247.
Sears, R. R., "Experimental Studies of Projections: I. At-tribution of Traits," Journal of Social Psychology, 7 (May, 3936), 151-163. ~ ~ ~ . ^
Sherwood, John J., "Increased Self-Evaluation as a function of Ambiguous Evaluations by Referrent Others," Socioaietry, 30 (December, 1967), 404-409.
, "Self Identity and Referrent Others," Soc'ionetry ~"28 (March, 1965;, 66-81.
Start, IC. B., "Overestimation of Personal Abilities and Success at First Year University Examinations." Journal of Social Psychology, 59 (April, 1963), 337-345.
¥ebb, \'It B., "Self-Evaluation Compared with Group Evaluations," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (October. 195?}. 305-307. " —
, "Self-Evaluation, Group Evaluations and Ob-jective Measures," Journal of Consulting Psychol or*y. 19 (June, 1955), 210-2127" ' — — *•*
Wylie, Ruth C., "Some Relationships Between Defensiveness and Self-Concept Discrepancies," Journal of Personality, 25 (September, 1957), 600-6167 -
69
Manuals
Lambert, ITadine M., and Bower, Eli M., A Process for In-School Screening of Children with Emotional Handicaps: Technical Report for School /.cTmini'str at or s "and"" Teachers, Los Angeles, "California, Sducational Testing Service, 1961.
Unpublished Materials
Bonney, Merl B., unpublished research, Department of Psy-chology, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1969.