Self-Respect. A Neglected Concept

This article was downloaded by: [79.112.42.
116] On: 13 February 2013, At: 15:07 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Philosophical Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cphp20
Self-respect: A neglected concept

Constance E. Roland & Richard M. Foxx Version of record first published: 19 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Constance E. Roland & Richard M. Foxx (2003): Self-respect: A neglected concept, Philosophical Psychology, 16:2, 247-288 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515080307764
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 2003
Self-respect: a neglected concept

CONSTANCE E. ROLAND & RICHARD M. FOXX
Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013
ABSTRACT Although neglected by psychology, self-respect has been an integral part of philosophical discussion since Aristotle and continues to be a central issue in contemporary moral philosophy. Within this tradition, self-respect is considered to be based on ones capacity for rationality and leads to behaviors that promote autonomy, such as independence, self-control and tenacity. Self-respect elicits behaviors that one should be treated with respect and requires the development and pursuit of personal standards and life plans that are guided by respect for self and others. In contrast, the psychological concept of self-esteem is grounded in the theories of self-concept. As such, self-esteem is a self-evaluation of competency ratios and opinions of signicant others that results in either a positive or negative evaluation of ones worthiness and inclusionary status. The major distinction between the two is that while competency ratios and others opinions are central to self-esteem, autonomy is central to self-respect. We submit that not only is self-respect important in understanding self-esteem, but that it also uniquely contributes to individual functioning. Research is needed to establish the central properties of self-respect and their effects on individual functioning, developmental factors, and therapeutic approaches.
1. Introduction The development of ethical and moral standards in children is essential to the welfare of any society (Damon, 1993). This effort includes the teaching of the rules and norms of society and extends to the quest to nd meaning or signicance in ones life (Kane, 1994). Although this quest begins with moral education and engagement in ethical living, there is mounting evidence that these processes have become more difcult and more precarious as society has become more complex (Kane, 1994). Crucial to the accomplishment of these lofty goals is the selection of a concept of self that promotes the development of personal growth and standards of behavior. While psychology has generally regarded the concept of self-esteem as meeting this need, our analysis suggests that this emphasis is too narrow because another concept of selfself-respecthas been ignored. Consider that the eld of psychology has focused on self-esteem and paid little attention to self-respect. Because psychologists have unwittingly emphasized the importance of self-esteem, a public self-esteem fallacy has developed (Baumeister
Constance Roland, Pennsylvania State University-Harrisburg, W157 Olmsted Building, Middletown, PA 17057 USA, email: croland@phc4.org
ISSN 0951-5089/print/ISSN 1465-394X/online/03/02024742 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/09515080320103355
248
C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
et al., 1994; Dawes, 1994; Leary & Downs, 1995; Mruk, 1995). Indeed, many parents believe that if their children do not feel good about themselves (i.e., have high self-esteem), then they will be at risk for any number of emotional and psychological problems. Many therapists also have accepted the notion that if we could only enhance their self-esteem, then everything would be so much better (Mruk, 1995, p. 57). Pipher (1997, p. 158) suggested that in focusing on self-esteem instead of good character, therapists often fall into the trap of feeding narcissism. When clients are concerned mostly with massaging the self, they neglect the work that is necessary to build a solid foundation for meaningful personal change. The American educational system has also been affected by this fallacy as evidenced by the subordinating of its standards to the fostering of self-esteem independent of performance (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, p. 432). Despite the fact that respect for self and others is necessary for stability and harmony within a society, there is little literature on self-respect or how it inuences the mental health of individuals and communities. This paper will attempt to (1) differentiate self-respect and self-esteem, (2) demonstrate the importance of selfrespect, and (3) explain the implications of the absence or presence of self-respect for individuals. It begins by tracing the role of self-respect in the development of Western civilization, continues by examining the development of the concept of self-esteem within the psychological community, and ends by evaluating the different contributions that self-respect and self-esteem make to individual functioning. 2. Philosophical approaches to self-respect The concept of self-respect has had signicant impact on the culture of Western civilization through literature and philosophy (Dillon, 1995). Authors of the great tragedies and epic poems of the classical era to twentieth century playwrights have woven tales of heroes who by a sudden stroke of fate dishonor themselves and lose their self-respect. This loss of self-respect dooms the heroes to fates worse than death unless they are able to redeem themselves by some heroic means. Philosophers have also discussed the moral signicance of self-respect. Terms such as magnanimity, proper pride, and a sense of dignity were an integral part of discussions by Aristotle, Aurelius, Augustine, Aquinas, Montaigne, Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, Hegel, Mill, and Nietzsche (Dillon, 1995). However, it was Kant who rst placed the concept of self-respect into its central role in moral philosophy. Attempts to understand complex and elusive concepts, such as self-respect, are often aided by identifying the conceptual family to which a concept belongs (Dillon, 1995). Self-respect is considered to be a conceptual off-spring of respect, which allows its logical placement into the same conceptual family as dignity, regard, esteem, and honor because all are concerned with worth. Dignity derives directly from the Latin word for worth, regard is considered to be the recognition of the worth of an object, esteem is the appraisal of worth, and honor is described as the reward for great worth. Pride is an important related concept and helps to delineate
SELF-RESPECT
249
the differences between the closely intertwined concepts of self-respect and selfesteem. Indeed, Dillon (1995, p. 7) considered self-respect to be synonymous with pride because both are concerned with a sense of ones own dignity or a sense of personal dignity and worth. On the other hand, self-esteem, or a favorable opinion of oneself, appears more evaluative and may be identied with pride when it is overweening or inordinate. An advantage of identifying the concepts closely related to self-respect is that discussions related to it can be identied even if the term is not used. This is important in tracing the historical development of self-respect. The works of Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, and Kant appear to have had a particularly signicant impact on contemporary understandings of self-respect and self-esteem (Dillon, 1995). Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics (1962) is the rst recorded systematic discussion of ethics in Western civilization (Denise et al., 1996). He believed that an essential dimension of the fully virtuous person was the proper appreciation of ones worth. Magnanimity, pride, and condent self-respect were to be found in such an individual. Aristotle contrasted this virtuous individual with the vain individual, who believed that he was more worthy than he was, and the unduly humble individual, who thought that he was less worthy than he was. Aristotle believed that what motivated virtuous conduct was an appropriate concern for self-knowledge, accurate judgment, and correct values rather than simply a good opinion of oneself (Dillon, 1995). The virtuous man, because he knew his own worth and maintained his worthiness, did not depend on the opinions of everyone and wished only to perpetuate his honor by being honored by those who also were virtuous. With Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant introduced a new and still topical perspective to the concept of self-respect, namely, that all persons deserve respect, regardless of their character. His (1785/1967, p. 91) formulation, Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end, is considered by many philosophers to be the preeminent statement of the principle of respect for persons (Dillon, 1995, p. 14). This simple yet powerful idea, that everyone must be respected and that all persons should behave in ways that maintain that respect, is a major contribution to the understanding of self-respect. Kant proposed that because of their ability to rationalize, think, and choose, individuals have a moral duty to respect others and themselves, which requires them to act in certain ways and not in others. The foundation of Kants concept of self-respect was ones dignity as a person, which was also the foundation of all morality. Having self-respect carries the responsibility to only act in ways that reect ones status as a moral being. The duty of self-respect becomes the supreme moral duty, for it is a precondition of respecting others. In effect, there would be no moral duties if there were no duties to respect oneself. Pre-Kantian descriptions of the concept of self-respect (e.g., Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume) diverge into two lines of thought, the idea of respect as it pertains to the recognition of something important and the evaluation of the quality of something (Dillon, 1995). Kants writings joined these two lines of thought by dening two
250
distinct grounds for the presence of self-respectthe person and the quality of the persons conduct. The writings of contemporary moral philosophers are grounded in these historical accounts of self-respect and can be categorized into four distinct groups (Dillon, 1995). One views self-respect as the proper appreciation of being a person (e.g., Boxhill, 1995; Hill, 1991; Thomas, 1995). A second treats self-respect as grounded in character and conduct (e.g., Downie & Teer, 1970; Rawls, 1995). A third argues that there are two kinds of self-respect (importance of personhood and quality of personhood) (e.g., Darwell, 1995; Massey, 1995). The fourth group (e.g., Meyers, 1995) does not differentiate between the importance and quality of personhood. Table 1 displays the differences and similarities between the views of both the historical and contemporary philosophers.
3. Self-respect as appreciation of being a person The central argument for respect as proper appreciation of the importance of being a person is grounded in Kant. Thomas (1995) and Hill (1991) argued that individuals have two important duties that result from their status as rational beings. The rst is to respect the moral law that provides individuals with their rights, and the second is to respect the self by afrming ones moral rights in ones thought processes and behaviors. The fullling of these duties via thoughts and behavior is dependent upon certain beliefs and attitudes regarding oneself as a person, ones relationship with morality, and ones place in the moral community. Earlier, Sachs (1981) had suggested that such beliefs and attitudes translated into dispositions for certain actions and thoughts. Boxhill (1995) extended the importance of ones beliefs and attitudes by emphasizing that self-respecting persons must have condent conviction in their belief of their worth and rights. The self-respecting person responds to unjust treatment in calmly controlled ways that reveal inherent invulnerability of status as a person and belief in that status (Dillon, 1995, p. 23). Self-respect demands that persons protest the violation of their rights and that they do so within the boundaries of dignity. Another important aspect of the appreciation of the importance of being a person is the public availability of ones dignity (Meyer, 1989). Meyer also believed in the inherent worth of persons, although he suggested that while worth is not necessarily perceivable to others dignity is. Dignity is the way in which individuals visibly demonstrate their humanity and their worthiness of respect. It is how self-respect is displayed to others. To Kant, all humans had dignity by virtue of their capacity for rationality. Meyer pointed out that, while self-worth is inherent, it is possible that some individuals may be unable to express it and/or see it in others because of prejudiced views and insights. The inability to see anothers dignity is an affront to both the self-respect of the viewed and the viewer. To give meaning to their lives, it is important for people being oppressed to be able to display their dignity to their oppressors. Doing so will display the existence of dignity and cause the oppressors to view the oppressed with respect (Meyer, 1989). An example of the importance of visibly displaying dignity is found in Levis
TABLE 1. Historical and contemporary views of self-respect
(a) Historical Components of Self-respect
Theorist Self-knowledge; Accurate judgment Virtuous behavior Pride
Capacity for rationality Life plans guided by
Autonomous behavior
Subjective feelings toward self
Importance of others opinions If also virtuous Determined worth
Aristotle (trans. 1962) Hobbes (1651/1965) Hume (1739/1965) Kant (1785/1967) Self-survey Principal of respect for persons Pride Continual competition with others for honor What is good for humanity Moral law
Dignity
Reverence: humility and pride
Declare pride as appropriate Worthy of admiring respect of others
SELF-RESPECT
251
252
(b) Contemporary Group I (appreciation of being a person) Components of Self-respect
Theorist Respect moral law
Autonomous behavior
Importance of others opinions
Thomas (1995) & Hill (1991) Sachs (1981) Conviction in worth Public availability of dignity
Dignity
Dignity
Afrm rights in thought & behavior Dispositions for thoughts and actions
Emotion: indignation or resentment
Boxhill (1995) Meyer (1989)
Dignity Dignity
(c) Contemporary Group II (character and conduct) Components of Self-respect
Theorist Conative selfrespect objective standards Protect self from intolerable treatment
Autonomous behavior
Subjective feelings toward self Estimative self-respect favorable opinion of self Self-denition vs. execution of selfdened values
Downie & Teer (1970)
Taylor (1995)
Objective standard of autonomy; Subjective standard set for self Standards based on what has value in own life
SELF-RESPECT
253
254
(d) Contemporary Group III (importance of personhood and quality of personhood) Components of Self-respect
Theorist Expect respect; Unwilling to tolerate disrespect Moral component: beliefs and conduct meet objective criteria Objective standards of worthy conduct
Autonomous behavior
Darwell (1995)
Recognition selfrespect
Massey (1995)
Dignity
Appraisal self-respect grounded in excellence of character Psychological component: favorable self-regarding beliefs, attitudes and feelings
(e) Contemporary Group IV (unied account of self-respect) Components of Self-respect
Theorist Exercise moral autonomy Triadic relationship: attitude, behavior and object
Autonomous behavior
Meyers (1995)
Self-concept Theorist James (1890/1952)
Evaluation successes vs. pretensions Looking-glass self Generalized other
Cooley (1902/1956) Mead (1934/1967)
SELF-RESPECT
255
256
(1986) memoir of a Nazi death camp, wherein the Nazis purpose was not death of the prisoners, but rather the annihilation of dignity. Prisoners were subject to what DesPres (1976) termed excremental assault, i.e., a systematic subjection to lth. They were forced to spend their days in excrement, to sleep and work in it, to remain covered in it, even at times to eat or drink it. The goal was to destroy the prisoners sense of humanity. To survive, it was necessary to hold onto ones dignity by trying to remain visibly human. According to Levi, efforts to be clean were often the only opportunity prisoners had to express their self-respect and maintain their dignity. Unfortunately, the Nazi death camps are only one of several historical and current examples of the vulnerability of self-respect to the attitudes and treatment of others. Fortunately, counter examples exist (Dillon, 1995). Benevolence, kindness, generosity, and compassion are all virtues that nourish and maintain the self-respect of the giver and the receiver.
4. Self-respect as grounded in character and conduct The second group of contemporary philosophers, who treat self-respect as grounded in character and conduct, followed Aristotle and Hume by suggesting that selfrespect entails more than just being a person. In order to possess and maintain self-respect, one must also be self-aware. Within this context, Downie & Teer (1970) dened two kinds of self-respect: conative and estimative. Conative selfrespect follows in the Aristotelian tradition by suggesting that self-respect is a motivational character trait. A concern for dignity causes one to refrain from behavior that is unworthy and motivates behavior that meets both objective and subjective standards of what is moral and worthy. Hill (1991) developed this idea further by stating that autonomy is exercised by developing and committing to a set of personal standards for conduct and character that are central to ones self-conception. The second form of self-respect discussed by Downie & Teer (1970) is merit-based and called estimative self-respect. This form of self-respect ts Humes view and is described as a favorable opinion of oneself. This opinion, which is grounded in ones conduct and character, is spawned by the belief that one has met the standards that one should meet. Taylor (1995) dened self-respect as having a favorable opinion of oneself that motivates self-protection from treatment or behavior that is intolerable. Although Taylor agreed with Boxhill (1995) that self-respect demands behavior that protests attacks on ones worthiness, they differed on the source. For Boxhill, the sole source of self-respect was personhood, whereas for Taylor it was the congruence between ones self-denition and ones execution of self-dened values. Taylor suggested that the expectations or standards for the self-respecting persons behavior are grounded in what has value for the life one wants to lead. Self-respect is especially grounded in the values from which ones normative identity derived. Respecting the self means living in accordance with ones own standards and expectations. Because it is necessary to live with ones values in order to have integrity, self-respect serves to preserve ones integrity and identity. Shame also operates to preserve integrity and identity. It is a protective emotion that is experienced if one violates ones standards
SELF-RESPECT
257
and expectations (Taylor, 1995). Although shame may be considered as damaging to self-respect, experiencing it ensures that self-respect still exists. Individuals cannot experience shame unless they still value the code that underlies their self-respect. Taylor felt that individuals who experience shame are still aware of and value their standards and hence can regain self-respect. 5. Two kinds of self-respect: recognition and appraisal A third group of contemporary philosophers argue that the issue is not what self-respect is, but rather that there are different kinds. Darwell (1995) proposed two different kinds of self-respect, recognition and appraisal. Recognition self-respect is the regard that all persons are entitled to have. It is derived from the writings of Kant and supported by our earlier discussions of Boxhill (1995), Hill (1991), and Downie & Teers (1970) notion of conative self-respect. Recognition self-respect motivates the individual to engage in worthy conduct, to eschew unworthy conduct, expect respect from others, and to not tolerate disrespect. Appraisal self-respect refers to the positive appraisal of oneself as a person (Darwell, 1995). It is meritbased and grounded in the excellence of ones character. It was considered by Aristotle and Hume and discussed earlier in Downie & Teers (1970) discussion of estimative self-respect. Massey (1995) proposed that self-respect had two important components: a psychological or subjective one and an objective or moral one. The psychological or subjective component is both necessary and sufcient for an individual to have favorable self-regarding beliefs, attitudes, and feelings. The self-respecting persons favorable attitude is grounded in morally appropriate ways because it is important to both value ones moral status as having basic rights and to possess a character that is truly good. 6. A unied account of self-respect Meyers (1995) represents the fourth and nal perspective and proposed a unied account of self-respect. She suggested that there is a triadic relationship among attitude, behavior and object. Self-respect exists when the relationship between the triads components is unqualied and uncompromised such that there is a respectful attitude expressed through respectful behavior toward an object that is worthy of respect. If any element of the triad is inappropriate, self-respect is compromised in either an indecent or innocent manner. Indecent compromise occurs if individuals knowingly respect themselves for conduct they know is immoral. Innocent compromise occurs when individuals know that everyone has dignity and respect, but, because of social conditioning, believe themselves to have less. Only uncompromised respect has the intrinsic goodness of self-respect. Meyers suggested that the resultant correspondence between attitude and self-worth leads to uncompromised self-respect, which because of its greater stability, has increased value when individuals strive to meet their self-dened values and life plans. In summary, several themes run consistently through both historical and
258
contemporary philosophical literature. Self-respect exists on a variety of levels and each carries its own implications. Self-respect based on ones capacity for rationality leads to behaviors that promote autonomy, such as independence, self-survey, self-control, and tenacity. Self-respect also demands behaviors that display a condent conviction that one should be treated with respect. Finally, self-respect requires the development and pursuit of personal standards and life plans that are guided by the moral law of respect for self and others. Motivation to engage in self-respecting behaviors occurs through the desire to sustain the emotions of reverence towards oneself, pride in ones actions, and condence in ones life plan. Although the opinions of others can help to sustain the subjective feelings that result from actions that are congruent with self-respect, these opinions are only relevant when these individuals are also engaged in respectful behaviors and attitudes.
7. Psychological theories of self-esteem Dillons (1995) review of the contemporary discussions of self-respect revealed that while philosophers speak of self-respect, psychologists discuss self-esteem. A computer search of PsychINFO (1984 to February 2001) using the term self-respect resulted in 150 abstracts, whereas the term self-esteem resulted in 13,811. These gures suggested either that the two terms were not being differentiated, or that self-respect was given little attention; the latter possibility seems more likely. One reason why is that modern theories of self-esteem are grounded in historical psychological theories of self-concept rather than historical discussions of self-respect. Thus, the self-concept theorizing of James (1890/1952), Cooley (1902/1956), and Mead (1934/1967) laid the foundation for the development of self-esteem theory from a psychological perspective. James is generally recognized as the rst psychologist to develop a theory of self-concept (Marsh et al., 1992). Self-esteem and the social self were two important components of his theory. He dened self-esteem as a ratio of ones successes to ones pretensions or the value that an individual places on successes in a particular activity or attribute. Another important theoretical component was the social self. This component highlighted the importance of the evaluations of others to the development of an individuals self-concept. The social self became an important part of the self-concept theories espoused by Mead (1934/1967) and Cooley (1902/1956). Cooley (1902/1956) believed that ones self-concept derived from the attitudes of signicant others. He postulated that individuals are motivated to assess the attitudes of signicant others towards them. Cooley referred to this phenomenon as the looking-glass self. This formulation is very similar to Meads (1934/1967) concept of the generalized other. Mead postulated that self-concept was dependent, to a large extent, on the pooled or collective judgments of signicant others towards the individual. Self-concept continued to be the focus of considerable research and theorizing
SELF-RESPECT
259
(Backman et al., 1982). Wylie (1979) examined over 4,500 references for her review of the self-concept literature. She found that the vast majority of self-concept discussions were limited to just one of its components, global self-esteem. Rosenberg & Kaplan (1982, p. 2) recognized the increasing awareness in the literature of the complexity of self-concept and its constituents, e.g., self-esteem. To them, selfconcept should be viewed as the totality of the individuals thoughts and feelings with reference to himself or herself as an object. In this formulation, self-esteem functions as a dimension and as a primary motive. Dimensions are considered to be abstract qualities that characterize either self-concept as a whole or its specic components and how one thinks and feels about oneself. Self-esteem is the dimension of self-concept that addresses whether one accepts, respects, and considers oneself worthwhile. Motives were described as impulses to act in the interest of self-concept (Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982). Self-esteem was considered to be the most prominent and possibly the most powerful self-concept motive. Kaplan (1982) also discussed four categories of empirical observations regarding the prevalence of the self-esteem motive. One was that individuals tend to describe themselves in positive terms. Another was the tendency for individuals with low self-esteem to employ behaviors that were self-enhancing and self-defensive. The third was that those with low self-esteem manifest subjective distress. The nal observation was that individuals with positive self-attitudes maintain them, while those with negative self-attitudes change them in a more positive direction. In our attempt to differentiate self-respect and self-esteem, it is important to note the place that morality held in Rosenberg & Kaplans (1982) notion of self-concept. Gordon (1982) assists in this regard because he developed 30 broad categories with which to classify responses to the question, Who am I? A category separate from self-esteem was termed A Sense of Moral Worth and dened as a sensed degree of adherence to a valued code of moral standards that transcended the self. In effect, individuals evaluate their own attributes and actions in terms of the moral standards of their culture and through this process they have a continuing sense of greater or less moral worth (Gordon, 1982, p. 17). Even though the concept of self-esteem evolved as a component of self-concept theory, it has become pervasive in the social sciences. Both the 4,500 articles reviewed by Wylie (1979) and the 13,811 references found in the psychological literature since 1984 conrm the continued widespread interest in self-esteem. Although the terms self-concept and self-esteem have been used interchangeably, Hart & Edelstein (1992) suggested that a distinction should be made. Self-concept should be used in reference to the cognitive process in which a description of oneself is developed and maintained, whereas self-esteem should be used to denote an affective process that evaluates ones self-description (Brinthaupt & Erwin, 1992). This process of self-evaluationself-esteemhas been viewed as a key to understanding normal, abnormal, and optimal behavior (Bednar et al., 1989; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Wells & Marwell, 1976). Furthermore, connections have been made between self-esteem and social problems such as substance abuse, teen pregnancies, school drop-out rates, and delinquency (Mecca et al., 1989). The practical implica-
260
tions of self-esteem to individual mental health included assumptions that it was related to positive mental health (Bean, 1992; Steffenhagen, 1990). Relationships were suggested to exist between higher levels of self-esteem and high ego functioning, personal adjustment, internal control, favorable therapy outcomes, positive adjustment to old age, and autonomy (Bednar et al., 1989). Conversely, a lack of self-esteem has been suggested to be related to negative outcomes, including some mental disorders. As early as 1959 it was noted that those who seek psychological help are often suffering from feelings of unworthiness, inadequacy, and anxiety (Coopersmith, 1967). A number of studies suggested that low self-esteem was a correlate or risk factor for both depression and suicide (e.g., Brage & Meredith, 1994; DeMan & Leduc, 1995; Harter et al., 1992; Marciano & Kazdin, 1994). These studies suggested the importance of self-esteem, but were unclear regarding its specic role in exacerbating conditions that may lead to depression and/or suicide. The research of Coopersmith (1967), Rosenberg (1979), Harter (1986, 1990a, 1990b, 1993) and Harter & Jackson (1993) has been inuential in dening the concept of self-esteem, although its role remained unclear. These researchers agreed with earlier theorists (e.g., Cooley, James, Mead) that self-esteem was either a positive or negative evaluation of ones worthiness. They disagreed, though, concerning the processes individuals used to arrive at expressed levels of self-esteem. Harter (1990b) suggested that this evaluative process can be explained by a unidimensional (e.g., Coopersmith, 1967; Rosenberg, 1979) or multidimensional model (e.g., Harter, 1990b). An examination of the differences and similarities between the most popular measures of self-esteem reveals these two differing processes and helps to answer our earlier question of whether or not the self-esteem literature is addressing the concept of self-respect (see Table 2).
8. Unidimensional models The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (1967) and the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale (1969) were the prevailing models for self-esteem assessment in the in late 1960s (Harter, 1990b). Both are unidimensional measures because self-esteem is considered to be a unitary concept. A single score is calculated by summing the responses across a range of content areas. This score should reect an individuals sense of self-esteem across various life areas. The Piers-Harris scale (1969) asks respondents to comment on what they do and do not like about themselves within six different areas: behavior, intellectual and school status, physical appearance, anxiety, popularity, and happiness/satisfaction. The Coopersmith scale (1967) taps self-attitudes across four areas: peers, parents, school, and personal interests. Rosenbergs Self-Esteem Scale (1979) also is based on the unidimensional model. It remains one of the most widely used measurements of self-esteem (Hagborg, 1993). Rather than arriving at a score that is an aggregate of items from separate domains, this scale taps self-esteem directly via respondent evaluations of 10 statements such as I have a number of good qualities (Rosenberg, 1979).
TABLE 2. Measures for self-esteem Content of subscales Calculation of scores Basis of self-esteem
Measure
Unidimensional models Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (1967) Peers, parents, school, personal interests Sum of all responses Sum of all responses
Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale (1969) Sum of all responses
Rosenberg s Self-Esteem Scale (1979)
Behavior, intellect/school status, physical appearance, anxiety, popularity, happiness and satisfaction Does not address separate domains. 10 questions tap self-esteem directly: i.e. I am satised with my life, I think I am a failure.
Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and peception of others opinions Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and perception of others opinions Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and perception of others opinions
Multidimensional models Harters Self-Perception Prole for Children (1985) Five competence domains: scholastic, athletic, social acceptance, physical appearance, behavioral conduct. Global self-worth
Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and perception of others opinions
SELF-RESPECT
Marshs Self-Description Questionnaire (1984)
Seven separate domains: scholastic, math, reading, physical, peer, parent. General self-worth
Scores for each domain and for global scale are summed separately. Attempt to evaluate how domains are weighted and combined to produce global self-worth Scores for each domain are summed separately. Global score is sum of domain scores.
Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and perception of others opinions
261
262
9. Multidimensional models The multidimensional models have developed in response to the concern that unidimensional models masked important evaluative distinctions that individuals made regarding their prociency in different domains of their lives (Harter, 1990b). Harters Self-Perception Prole for Children (1985) and Marshs Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh et al., 1984) are two multidimensional scales with considerable empirical support (Harter, 1990b). Both evaluate competence or self-evaluation across specic domains such as scholastics, athletics, social acceptance, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct as well as on a scale that evaluates an overall or global sense of self-worth. Although there had been much self-esteem research by the late eighties, many questions remained regarding its determinants, consequences, and contribution to individual functioning (Harter, 1990a). To explore them, Harter (1990a) incorporated both the unidimensional and the multidimensional models so that all aspects of the theoretical development of the self-esteem construct were represented. The initial phase relied on the contributions of James (1890/1952) and Cooley (1902/ 1956), and the unidimensional model of self-esteem in the Coopersmith (1967), Piers-Harris (1969), and Rosenberg (1979) scales. This phase investigated whether the ratio of competencies and pretensions or the opinions of signicant others had a greater impact on global self-esteem. The study was conducted across the life span with elementary- and middle-school age children, adolescents, college students, and adults. Harter (1990a) found that for all age groups, except college students, competency ratios and the regard of signicant others contributed about equally to global self-esteem. For the college age group, the competency ratio had more impact than the regard of signicant others. Across all age groups perception of ones physical appearance was a better predictor of self-esteem than any other competency domain. Social acceptance was the second best predictor of global self-esteem. Parents and peers were equivalent signicant others for elementary, middle school, and adolescent groups, whereas peers were the most signicant for college students. The ndings for adults differed slightly in that intimate relationships were a slightly better predictor than the regard of others. The signicant others for the adult group were represented by religious groups, civic activities, and coworkers. The above review of what the most frequently used self-esteem measures actually measured and reported revealed that self-esteem measurements evaluate how one feels about ones capacities, performance, and perception of others opinions. Self-esteem is considered to be an emotional response to self-evaluation and is often discussed in terms of liking or feeling good about oneself. Although, the desire to feel good is often motivationally valuable, individuals who focus on maintaining or enhancing this positive affect of self-esteem may not be objectively evaluating their responses. Sometimes the quest to feel good results in dysfunctional or dangerous behaviors (Baumeister, 1991; Mecca et al., 1989). Leary & Downs (1995, p. 139) suggested that if individuals do not engage in an adequate conscious and rational assessment of the consequences of engaging in such behaviors,
SELF-RESPECT
263
they may attempt to maintain self-esteem at a personal cost. Their sociometer hypothesis explained this phenomenon. Leary & Downs (1995) reported that even though there has been a great deal of attention to the behaviors that result from the accepted motives of self-esteem, the basic questions of source and function have not been adequately addressed. They suggested that if the function of self-esteem could be adequately explained, then answers could be found to important questions, such as why individuals need to maintain or in some instances enhance their self-esteem, why negative affect is associated with lowered self-esteem, and why individuals tend to behave in ways that protect and enhance self-esteem, even when these behaviors are detrimental. Their proposed answer is found in the sociometer hypothesis (Leary 1999; Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary et al., 1995), which posited that the self-esteem system evolved as a means of maintaining interpersonal relationships. It should be noted that during the past decade other researchers have also been investigating the function of self-esteem in psychology. For example the theory of terror management (Greenberg et al., 1997) proposes that self-esteem is a buffer against the anxiety that is caused by the awareness of ones mortality. Leary (1999) described the self-esteem system as a subjective indicator or gauge that is designed to monitor the quality of personal relationships. The sociometer hypothesis subscribed to the multidimensional model of self-esteem, where trait self-esteem referred to an average level of self-esteem and state self-esteem referred to the uctuations in self-esteem that occurred during the course of daily living (Leary et al., 1995). Upward changes in state self-esteem signal an improvement in the degree to which one is being socially included or accepted by other people, whereas downward changes in state self-esteem signal a deterioration in the degree to which one is being included or accepted (Leary, 1999, p. 208). The importance of social groups to the survival and reproduction of the human species is a universally accepted theory (e.g., Ainsworth, 1989; Barash, 1977; Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Bowlby, 1969). Given this inherent need for social acceptance, the sociometer hypothesis suggested that the self-esteem system developed as a means to monitor others response to us. At a pre-attentive level, the system continuously monitors others responses for cues that indicate disinterest, disapproval, avoidance, or rejection. When any of these or similar cues are noted, the system responds with negative self-relevant affect (a loss in self-esteem) that motivates us to behave in ways that should increase our acceptance (Leary, 1990; Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary, 1999). The four central predictions that derive from this perspective of the self-esteem system are as follows: (1) events that threaten self-esteem increase the likelihood of social exclusion, (2) exclusion and rejection result in lower state self-esteem, (3) an association exists between low trait self-esteem and a generalized expectancy of rejection, and (4) approval seeking behaviors are motivated by rejection (Leary & Downs, 1995) [1]. Using the sociometer hypothesis as a basis for understanding the self-esteem system, Leary (1999, p. 216) suggested the following revisions to the three major assumptions that pervaded the self-esteem literature:
264 (1)
(2)
(3)
Human beings are motivated to preserve, protect, and occasionally, enhance the degree to which they are accepted, included, and valued by other people. The self-esteem system is involved in the process of monitoring and regulating peoples social acceptance. The psychological benets of low and high self-esteem derive from the fact that both self-esteem and psychological benets are associated with perceived social acceptance. Raising low self-esteem improves psychological well-being and produces desirable changes in peoples behavior because interventions that raise self-esteem promote a sense of social inclusion. It is this sense of being acceptednot self-esteem per sethat produces desirable effects.
Examining Learys revised assumptions and explanation of the self-esteem system led Kirkpatrick & Ellis (2001) to expand the sociometer hypothesis. They suggested that the problems of social inclusion vary according to domain. Inclusion criteria may be driven by the differences in relationships between individuals and their mates, families, and various peer groups. Each of these adaptive problems requires its own sociometer, such that an individuals behavior is guided by multiple sociometers that not only distinguish between the inclusion criteria of specic domains, but also recognize the adaptive value of the individuals acceptance by a particular person or group. Leary (1999) pointed out that the sociometer hypothesis offered a new perspective to the social and psychological importance of self-esteem. Socially, self-esteem maintains interpersonal relationships by alerting us to potential rejection and motivating us to engage in behaviors that will increase inclusionary status. Psychologically, self-esteem is important because social acceptance promotes psychological wellbeing. Leary & Downs (1995), as well as others (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1994; Dawes, 1994; Mruk, 1995; Pipher, 1997), have raised concerns regarding the popularization of self-esteem theory and the persistent public belief that the development of high self-esteem is the solution for individual and societal dysfunction. In his review of self-esteem theory, Mruk (1995) found that a public self-esteem fallacy has developed such that many parents believe that without high self-esteem their children will be at risk of emotional and psychological problems. In a review and research on self-regulation, Baumeister et al. (1994, p. 5) suggested that rather than suffering from low self-esteem, America is suffering from a spreading epidemic of selfregulation failure. Dawes (1994) report on psychotherapy suggested that many mental health professionals, whose treatment protocols are based on intuitive understanding rather than on empirical evidence, have perpetuated the belief that self-esteem is a causal variable of behavior. Such beliefs were bolstered by the publication of the California Task Force on the Importance of Self-esteem, which, in 1986, embarked on a major effort to prove scientically that low self-esteem was a causal factor in the behaviors that become social problems. We all know this to be true, and it is not really necessary to create a special California task force on the subject to convince us. The real problem we
SELF-RESPECT
265
must address is how we can determine that it is scientically true (Smelser, 1989, p. 8). The task force reviewed several thousand studies and journal articles, yet they were unable to nd more than a weak correlation between behavior and self-esteem, e.g., associations between self-esteem and its expected consequences are mixed, insignicant, or absent (Smelser, 1989, p. 15). Nevertheless, the task force continued to argue for programs designed to increase self-esteem. Accompanying the belief that low-self esteem causes emotional distress and dysfunctional behavior was the belief that high self-esteem is related to optimal mental health. Its general importance to a full spectrum of effective human behaviors remains virtually uncontested (Bednar et al., 1989, p. 1). Branden (1994) claimed that the likelihood of treating others with respect, kindness, and generosity increased as self-esteem increased. Mecca et al. (1989) identied self-esteem as a causal factor in personal and social responsibility. However, the belief in high self-esteem as a panacea for emotional and psychological dysfunction has begun to lose its luster in peer-reviewed literature. This change resulted from the lack of scientic evidence supporting contentions that low self-esteem leads to negative outcomes and that high self-esteem leads to positive outcomes, as well as the accumulating empirical evidence that high self-esteem does not necessarily lead to positive or desirable behaviors. Self-serving attributions, a strategy often employed to increase self-esteem, can create social difculties when others realize that this tactic is being employed (Forysth et al., 1981). When their egos were threatened, high self-esteem individuals allowed self-enhancing illusions to affect decision processes and committed themselves to goals they were unable to meet (Baumeister et al., 1993). High self-esteem has been related to non-productive persistence (McFarlin et al., 1984). There is also an association between excessively high self-esteem and such dysfunctional and undesirable behaviors as childhood bullying (Olweus, 1994), rape (Scully, 1991), and violence in youth and adult gangs (Jankowski, 1991). A multidisciplinary review of studies related to aggression, violence, and crime conducted by Baumeister et al. (1996, p. 5) found that violence appears to be most commonly a result of threatened egotismthat is highly favorable views of self that are disputed by some person or some circumstance, and added that atrocities have been perpetuated against humanity by those who, because of their sense of superiority, believed they had the right to manipulate, dominate, and harm others. Although separate bodies of literature devoted to the understanding of self-esteem and aggression have been developed over the years, it is only recently that psychologists have undertaken efforts to understand the relationship between these two phenomena (e.g., Bushman, & Baumeister, 1998; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; McGregor et al., 1998). As this review demonstrates, efforts to understand self-esteem continue. One of the most promising avenues for determining the importance of self-esteem is provided by Leary & Downs (1995) sociometer hypothesis because it examines the source and function of self-esteem. Thus the continuation of research related to the sociometer hypothesis should be important in clarifying the role of self-esteem in individual and societal functioning.
266
Discussion Our review of self-respect and self-esteem suggested several differences. First, the literature regarding self-respect is grounded in philosophical discussions and is often discussed in relation to morality, while self-esteem literature developed from and then dominated the psychological discussions of self-concept. Second, central to the denition of self-respect was the existence of a dened moral code that clearly stated the importance of behaving in ways that treat the self and others as worthwhile entities, rather than simply as a means to an end. In contrast, the personal evaluation of ones successes and the opinions of others that were central to the denition of self-esteem were not subject to a particular moral code. Instead, the moral code that accompanied how individuals valued their choices was entirely within their discretion. This suggests the third difference; namely, that the objective components of self-respect are predened, whereas those of self-esteem are not. These distinctions lead to two conclusions: (1) the relationship between self-respect and self-esteem is worthy of study, and (2) the importance of self-respect to psychological functioning requires separate evaluation and discussion.
10. Self-respect and self-esteem: more than a difference in terminology? Why did the psychological literature become focused on self-esteem rather than self-respect, given the ubiquitousness of the term self-respect in the philosophical literature and the evolution of psychological concepts from philosophical roots? Are self-esteem and self-respect considered to be different concepts? Or, if they are considered to be synonymous, then how did the public and psychological communities conception of self-esteem become focused on the importance of feeling good and ignore the development of self-respect? To answer these questions we must revisit the basic tenets of self-respect discussed earlierthe role of rationality in human dignity, the importance of autonomous behaviors, the importance of personal standards and life plans that not only advance ones own aspirations, but are also based on law of respect for persons. We shall look closely at both meaning and language. According to Kant, it was human rationality that provided for equal dignity among humans and was the basis for the law of respect for persons. It is the human capacity for rational thought that allows us to realize our inherent worth, and provides us with the ability to display that worth by making choices that consider the consequences of our actions for ourselves and others. Appreciating the capacity for rationality is demonstrated through treatment of the self and others as worthwhile entities by virtue of ones existence and subjectively experienced through feelings of dignity. Rationality is also present in models of self-esteem. Individuals are encouraged to evaluate their options and choose wisely their course of action. Yet, it is the personal evaluation of capacities and successes and the perceptions of others opinions that leads to the emotional experience of either feeling good or bad. Conversely, the basis of self-respect is the acceptance of ones worth as a fact or a given.
SELF-RESPECT
267
Personal autonomy follows this acceptance and provides the power to respect ones self and have the personal standards and personal life plans that give meaning to life while respecting others. As with rationality, these tenets are found in models of self-esteem, but in contrast to self-respect, appear to reside in the individuals intent. Individuals experience a loss of self-esteem when their self-evaluation reveals that they have not achieved success or acceptance by a particular social group. If increasing self-esteem is the sole motivation for behavior, one may respond to this self-evaluation by acting in ways that achieve success or increase acceptance without regard to the law of respect for persons. Yet if one is committed to the principles of self-respect, the knowledge that one has inherent worth and is living his or her life in a manner that honors that worth in oneself and others would provide for the positive feelings related to self-respect and the motivation to continue self-respecting behaviors. The above comparison demonstrates the differences in interpretation of the tenets of self-respect. Rationality and autonomy did remain part of self-esteem discussions, while the law of respect for persons did not. A closer look at the language of both historical and contemporary philosophers may explain why. The two words rationality and morality appear consistently throughout philosophical writings. Regarding rationality, discussions of both self-respect and self-esteem acknowledge the importance of the ability to think and choose a course of action. Regarding morality, as discussed earlier, Pipher (1997) suggested that, in the 1970s, many psychologists determined that the prescription of moral behavior was outside their roles. Perhaps not surprisingly, this time frame coincides with the beginning of a marked increase in the number of publications in PsychINFO with self-esteem in their title (Jacobson, 2000). Recall also that while philosophical discussions of self-respect were oriented to the reciprocation of individual behavior and cultural development, the psychological concept of self-esteem evolved from self-concept, which was focused on individuals perceptions. Perhaps psychologists abandoned self-respect and chose self-esteem because philosophers were discussing self-respect in terms that some psychologists regarded as negative. Also, self-esteem was studied as a component of self-concept. Simply put, psychology would become increasingly oriented to the needs of the individual expressed by personal evaluations based on the evaluations of others opinions, and less focused on the role that this individuality played in the development of society. The declaration that feeling good would lead to optimal mental health and protect one from emotional or mental dysfunction, provided the populace with a simple focusensure that everyone feels good all of the time. As discussed previously, there were concerns in the psychological community (e.g. Baumeister et al., 1994; Leary, 1999; Mruk, 1995) regarding the notion of self-esteem as a panacea for individual and societal ills. One outcome was the development of the sociometer hypothesis (e.g., Leary, 1999) which explained ones experiences of positive and negative affect (high and low self-esteem) and their relationship to ones perceived inclusion or exclusion from social groups. Recall that Leary & Downs (1995) emphasized the importance of considering the consequences of behavior that would increase feelings of acceptance. We suggest that self-respect
268
motivates individuals to consider consequences and engage in another important aspect of human nature and a major developmental taskbalancing the need to connect with others and the need to maintain independence and autonomy (Lorenz, 1987; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990). Is it possible that aversion to the word morality contributed to the proliferation of psychological literature that popularized the importance of an autonomy geared towards feeling good and overshadowed the importance of another essential human characteristic, empathy? Empathy and prosocial behavior are inherent aspects of human nature and cannot be ignored. It may be that making a distinction between self-esteem and self-respect will enhance the study of human nature by allowing theorists and researchers to focus on the effects of perceived inclusion or exclusion, as well as the processes of balancing our innate tendencies for prosocial behavior and autonomy. Understanding these two processes and their interactions should lead to a better understanding of the relationship between self-esteem and self-respect. We propose that a relationship exists between self-respect and self-esteem such that self-respecting individuals may experience either high or low levels of selfesteem and individuals with high levels of self-esteem may or may not possess self-respect. This would explain the spectral differences (i.e., violent vs. nurturing) found in the behaviors of individuals reporting high levels of self-esteem. This relationship may also account for the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the contention that those who report low levels of self-esteem will suffer from emotional or psychological dysfunction. Recall that the sociometer hypothesis contended that the function of the self-esteem system is to continuously monitor inclusionary status and notify the individual when that status is threatened. Given that social groups were crucial for protection and reproduction (Barash, 1977), this function of self-esteem is easily understood. What is less easily understood is the wide range of pro and antisocial behaviors displayed by individuals who demonstrated high self-esteem on accepted psychological measures. Although violent individuals have demonstrated high levels of self-esteem, everyone with high self-esteem levels is not violent. Even though non-productive persistence occurs in individuals with high self-esteem levels, all individuals with high self-esteem do not engage in non-productive persistence. Conversely, there is no empirical evidence that individuals demonstrating low self-esteem are at a signicantly greater risk of emotional or psychological difculties than individuals with moderate or high self-esteem levels. This lack of consistency between levels of self-esteem and resulting behaviors suggests the presence of an unidentied mediating factor. We propose that self-respect, rather than being a synonym for self-esteem, is the unidentied mediating factor that accounts for the differences in how either low or high self-esteem is emotionally experienced and behaviorally expressed. 11. Self-respect and self-esteem: affect and behavior The literature reviewed suggests several differences in how self-respect and self-esteem impact individual functioning. A comparison of the interactions between
SELF-RESPECT
269
cognition, affect, and behavior demonstrates these differences (see Figure 1). As noted above, the presence of a particular moral code within a system of self-respect dominates its objective components. Consider that self-esteem may be somewhat more subjective in nature, not only because evaluations are based on differing criteria, but also because affect is regarded to be its predominate property. As discussed earlier, there is agreement among theorists that self-esteem is an attitude, specically an attitude about oneself derived from personal evaluations of the self and perceptions of others opinions (e.g., Coopersmith, 1967; Rosenberg, 1979; Harter, 1990b). Attitudes can develop from any of the three components, cognition, affect, or behavior (Edwards, 1990). Drawing on early theorists (e.g., James, 1890/1952; Mead, 1934/1967), as well as more recent ones (e.g., Rogers, 1959; Kagan, 1989; Watson & Clark, 1984), Brown (1993) has persuasively argued that self-esteem was grounded in affective rather than cognitive processes, and that feelings are most important to individuals. Hence, individuals do not just think positive or negative thoughts about themselves, they feel good or bad about themselves. The sociometer hypothesis (Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary et al., 1995; Leary, 1999) claried the central role of affect in self-esteem. It is the negative or positive affect that is described as low or high self-esteem that provides ongoing feedback to individuals regarding their potential inclusion or exclusion from a particular social group. Because this monitoring often occurs at a preconscious level, cognition may not play a role until a threat is perceived. When threats to an individuals inclusionary status are noted, the individuals attention is turned towards the self. The individual is then motivated to behave in ways that will increase the potential for inclusion by that social group. Behaviors may occur without serious thought as to their potential consequences. On the other hand, cognition and the law of respect for persons would be considered the predominate properties of self-respect. The central tenet of self-respect is the understanding and consideration of mans humanity, which then extends to the duty to treat the self and others in a manner that honors that humanity. Specically, it requires treating the self and others as an end, never as a means. To do so, one has to think carefully about what is important to oneself and others. Individuals have to think of themselves and others outside of the experience of the moment and determine if ones actions will be in concordance with ones values, move one closer to the realization of predened objectives and goals, and also demonstrate respect for the self and for others. Simply put, it means considering the consequences of ones actions before performing them. Feelings, such as pride and condence, when one has chosen the correct course of action, or shame or guilt, when one has chosen the incorrect course of action, motivate one to continue the processes related to self-respect. According to the sociometer hypothesis, behaviors motivated by self-esteem may be performed with minimal or no consideration when they are guided by the immediate desire to achieve social inclusion. By denition, behaviors motivated by self-respect consider the law of respect for persons and are not subject to inclusionary needs. This does not mean that individuals acting from the tenets of self-respect may not act without stopping to think. Many respectful behaviors, such as manners or listening carefully to others, are learned, incorporated
270
FIG. 1. Proposed models for interaction of cognition, affect, and behavior of self-respect and self-esteem.
SELF-RESPECT
271
into ones repertoire, and then performed automatically. The crucial difference here is that if individuals possessing self-respect detect cues of rejection, they will not abandon self-respecting behaviors in order to meet inclusionary needs. On the other hand, individuals lacking self-respect may behave in ways that violate the law of respect in order to meet their inclusionary needs and experience positive levels of self-esteem. 12. Self-respect: importance to individual and societal functioning. The philosophical literature reviewed earlier clearly supports the importance of self-respect to individual and societal functioning. Support also exists in the theoretical discussions and empirical evidence of existing psychological literature, even though the term or concept of self-respect, as dened herein, is rarely used. A closer look at how the differences described above between self-respect and self-esteem impact functioning on a daily basis demonstrates existing support within the psychological community for the tenets of self-respect. Consider the following: (1) self-esteem is important to individual functioning, and (2) the level of esteem that individuals hold for themselves is determined by the number of successes they have experienced (e.g., experiencing inclusion as dened by Leary and his colleagues) and their willingness to accept themselves in their present state of development. Now consider these questions: What happens to the individuals mental health on the days, or weeks, or months when successes are limited or non-existent and self-esteem dips into the danger zone? Do they suffer mental setbacks? Not necessarily, since many individuals strive toward goals despite repeated setbacks and dissatisfaction with their current state. An excellent example comes from the life of Abraham Lincoln. According to Branden (1969), a leading exponent of the importance of self-esteem, individuals who experience deep insecurities or self-doubts have nothing to offer the world. Indeed, despite the lack of any empirical evidence, Brandens assumption is typical regarding the benets of high self-esteem. Yet, Dawes (1994) cited Abraham Lincoln as one of the many admirable people who have suffered from deep insecurities and self-doubts. What keeps such a person from falling into the psychopathological trap of lowered self-esteem? Could it be that there is a related concept that ensures that an individuals sense of worth is not dependent on learning to read before everyone else, making a hit in the baseball game, or being awarded a job promotion? Might that concept be selfrespect? We submit that those who respect themselves believe that they are worth the effort it takes to consider their disappointments and failures as closely as their triumphs and successes. They believe that they are worth the effort needed to try again tomorrow and will set new goals, rather than remain satised with their present ability or level of maturity. Viewed in this context, self-respect is the couch on which the cushion of self-esteem resides. Self-respect is more than just the consideration and appreciation of ones own personal attributes, talents or accomplishments. It becomes the core of ones psychological strength by proclaiming worth in the simple fact of ones existence, providing protection from despair in the face of setbacks or failures, and furnishing guidance and purpose for ones future.
272
The objective components of self-respect provide guidelines and structure. Behaviors that are respectful towards the self and others can be dened and observed. When individuals are struggling with problems or issues, specics are much more valuable in helping them determine a course of action than subjective afrmations of ones worth or potential. Pipher (1997) has found in her years as a therapist that many adults try to bolster their self-esteem with self-afrmation tapes and self-help books. These media are designed to convince the listeners or readers that they are good people and should feel good. Although these messages may have their place, they mask the need for concrete changes in ones goals and behaviors (Dawes, 1994). If ones work is meaningless or ones relationships are fragmented, approaches are needed that are specic in terms of behaviors (e.g., Borkovec & Costello, 1993; Halford et al., 1994; Jacobson, 1992) that can bring about change. Based on the tenets of the sociometer theory, Leary (1999, p. 215) has suggested that some people ought to have low self-esteem. Those who behave in destructive and inappropriate ways that lead to exclusion experience low self-esteem because their sociometer has accurately detected a threat to inclusion. Change is what is needed, not messages of self-afrmation. The attempt to rid oneself of unpleasant feelings through self-afrmation points to another potential difference between self-esteem and self-respect. When the feelings of both shame (feeling of disgrace or dishonor) and guilt (feeling of responsibility for a wrongdoing) are appropriate, they serve useful purposes in preserving self-respect. Feelings of shame are a warning signal that one is struggling with ones conviction to valued standards or has lost condence in ones ability to meet these standards (Taylor, 1995). Self-afrmation without prior self-evaluation ignores the underlying causes of the shame and prevents one from identifying the thought processes or events that preceded the feeling. Without this self-survey and evaluation, individuals cannot take the necessary actions to recommit to their espoused values. Likewise guilt, if appropriate, preserves self-respecting behavior. Guilt is a sensation of anxiety that occurs when one engages in an action that violates ones standards (Taylor, 1995). Anxiety serves as an interrupt mechanism by interrupting the behavioral chain that may culminate in undesired behavior and prompting cognitive reassessment (Baumeister & Tice, 1990). Efforts to avoid this anxiety motivate individuals to refrain from behavior that would undermine their self-respect. Self-respect also provides guidelines for parents who may be struggling with their child-rearing efforts. Helping children to make decisions and expecting behaviors from them that are consistent with respect offers both children and adults concrete direction. Many parents are more concerned about their childrens feelings than their behaviors and as a result focus on cultivating self-esteem, and other goals such as creativity, sociability, or parental love, rather than self-control (Baumeister et al., 1994). As noted earlier, Baumeister et al. (1994) voiced their concern regarding the attention given to self-esteem and the lack of attention afforded self-regulation. They explained that in studying the self, psychologists and social scientists have paid a great deal of attention to self-concept, self-esteem, and self-presentation. Yet,
SELF-RESPECT
273
although the issue of self-regulation was considered in the 1960s, most of the self-regulation literature did not appear until the late 1980s. Social interest is offered as one explanation for this delay. Baumeister et al. (1994) suggested that understanding self-concept and the formation of identity were of interest when the baby boomers were in their adolescence and trying to nd themselves. When the baby boom generation began developing careers, attention turned to issues of selfpresentation. Then, during the 1980s, growing and pervasive social problems related to individuals inability to delay gratication and control impulses turned attention to issues of self-control. Self-regulation involves starting, stopping or changing a process. It is initiated by competition among parallel processes (Baumeister et al., 1994), such as the desire to smoke a cigarette and quit smoking. A hierarchy exists among processes such that, when attention is focused on the higher-level process, the lower-level process is overridden (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Baumeister et al. (1994, p. 8) explained that higher-level processes involve larger time spans, more extensive networks of meaningful associations and interpretations, and more distal and abstract goals. If the higher-level processes do not override the lower-level ones, and instead the lowerlevel processes determine the behavior, self-regulation failure occurs. The basic ingredients for self-regulation include standards, monitoring, and the ability to alter ones behavior in order to bring it into line with ones standards. As noted previously, self-regulation or self-control is an integral component of a self-respect system. Teaching young children self-control, rather than encouraging immediate momentary satisfaction, can provide them with effective skills for social interaction and coping with disappointments or difcult circumstances. In a 10-year-longitudinal study, Mischel et al. (1988) found that 15-year-olds who at the age of 4 and 5 were most able to resist immediate temptation and choose delayed gratication demonstrated superior abilities in school performance, social competence, and the ability to deal effectively with frustration and stress. A follow-up study (Shoda et al., 1990) found that the children with the highest capacity for self-control at age 4 and 5 scored the highest on the SAT entrance exams when applying for college. Thus, the behaviors of self-control, self-survey, and tenacity promote independence and lead to the development of the autonomy needed for self-respect to exist. These actions represent a beginning for those who nd functioning difcult and help those who are able to maintain their functioning to continue their growth as human beings. Autonomy provides the means to control ones behavior. It also provides a foundation for the self such that dependence on others is limited. Harters (1990a) study, as well as Learys (1999) theory of inclusion, illustrated the signicant impact that the opinions of signicant others have on self-esteem. Because of our social nature, the opinions of others will always play a role in an individuals self-image. However, over-dependence on others opinions may be destructive. Individuals may be led to beliefs that are not true, such as I deserve to be beaten. They may be led to engage in unacceptable behaviors such as the crimes of street gangs. They may become dependent on people who may not always be available because of other obligations, termination of the relationship, or even death.
274
Dening ones self, managing ones day and creating ones life plan around the objective behaviors inherent in self-respect provide the knowledge and actions necessary to recognize the truth, associate with constructive rather than destructive individuals and social groups, and cope effectively with the loss of personal relationships. These behaviors also provide the skills to cope with unmet expectations in regards to personal successes. The other important factor contributing to self-esteem found in the studies discussed earlier was how one feels about oneself regarding capacities and performance. Because self-respect relies on only one capacity, rationality, it provides a solid foundation from which one can develop abilities and pursue interests. Most of us do not possess the natural talent of famous athletes, writers or inventors. Many of us do not possess the talent to earn a living in the professions on which we may place personal value. All of us, though, possess the ability to respect ourselves and others in our daily endeavors, regardless of bad days or inabilities to reach the pinnacle of success. If the underpinnings of ones motivations to pursue an activity were based only on past success, it would follow that individuals would lower their expectations to ensure success. Coopersmith (1967), however, found that those considered to possess high self-esteem increased their goals and expectations. We contend that Coppersmith was actually tapping into the mediating effects of self-respect. A more recent study conducted by McFarlin et al. (1984, p. 153) found that individuals scoring high on measures of self-esteem may engage in nonproductive persistence, concluding that high self-esteem can mean delusionally conceited as easily as low self-esteem can mean pathologically insecure. Again, we suggest that self-respect mediates the effects of high self-esteem for those who do not demonstrate nonproductive persistence or delusional conceit. The tenets of self-respect provide requirements for how to approach the process of living from the perspective of everyday functioning to the perspective of lifetime goals. The condence to evaluate successes and failures realistically, and to make sound decisions about pursuing an endeavor exists within the self-respecting individual. The ability to think and to reason ensures that there is always a foundation from which to work to (1) recover the feelings of pride that come from living within the standards of self-respect, (2) continue the pursuit of unrealized goals, and (3) attempt the pursuit of new challenges. One of the reasons parents are having difculty passing on values to their children may be that they have become overly concerned with the development of specic talents. Children and parents are hurrying and scurrying to coaches, tutors, and private teachers rather than spending time sharing values. In effect, children are being outsourced. Clearly, while the development of talents contributes to childrens favorable opinions of themselvesprovide future goals and directionit does not ensure that they will develop self-respecting standards or understand the value of ethical living. However, if a child possesses the behaviors and attitudes of self-respect, the lack or loss of a special talent will not be a devastating event. Also, the tenets of self-respect suggest that when children possess self-respect they will be inclined to use their talents in meaningful ways for themselves and for society.
SELF-RESPECT
275
Self-respect provides a sense of purpose greater than ourselves. Pipher (1997, p. 123) explained that many therapists trained in the 1970s are made uneasy by issues of morality, noting that, Speaking in terms of duty was called musterbation, and the worst word in the English Language was should. She continued that clients had been taught to expect their therapists to agree with them and be concerned only with how they feel. Yet, she noted several well-known therapists who endorsed moral responsibility. Feeling better as a result of helping others is one theme of Banduras (1977) ideas of self-efcacy and Becks (1987) theories of depression. Doherty (1995) encouraged therapists to engage in moral discourse with their clients, not as a means of imposing ones personal beliefs, but rather because good therapy should increase moral sensitivity and build character. Self-respecting behavior engages one in a communal effort that is larger than the self and provides a sense of purpose beyond the boundaries of ones life. Most importantly, in terms of psychotherapy and societal functioning, a system of self-respect demands accountability and responsibility from both individuals seeking services and from professionals providing services. A therapists rst responsibility is to provide services that have sound empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness. Dawes (1994, p. vii) report, discussed earlier, demonstrated the need for mental health professionals to base therapeutic approaches on wellvalidated techniques and principles, rather than intuitive understanding obtained from experience. After reviewing more than 300 empirical investigations and summaries of investigations, Dawes concluded that those who practice from an intuitive basis are no more effective than minimally trained professionals who lack the credentials for licensure. Of major concern is the profound effect that mental health professionals, working without a scientic basis for their expertise, have had on the cultural beliefs regarding what constitutes a good life, what types of behavior are desirable, andmost importanthow people should feel about the world (p. 9). Dawes (1994) suggested that the most prevalent of these beliefs is that childhood experiences are the major determinant of adult behavior, even very subtle experiences and especially those that enhance or diminish self-esteem. This has lead to the belief, despite virtually no empirical evidence, that self-esteem is a causal variable of behavior. Branden (1994; see also Dawes, 1994; Leary, 1999), one of the leading contributors to the popularization of self-esteem, claimed that he could not think of a single psychological problem that is not traceable to low self-esteem. The unfortunate effect of the perpetuation of this type of belief is that individuals are encouraged to do whatever is necessary to feel good about themselves, rather than to tackle the hard work necessary to effect behavioral change and psychological growth (Baumeister et al., 1994; Dawes, 1994, Leary, 1999). The sociometer hypothesis proposed that high self-esteem is related to perceived inclusion. Furthermore, there were no criteria regarding the characteristics of the social group emitting the exclusionary or inclusionary cues. Therefore, when individuals do not have competing motivations that prevent association with a particular group, they may allow their self-esteem needs to be met by destructive or criminal individuals and social groups. It is important to note that feelings of
276
inclusion or exclusion result, not only from actual events, but also from private or imagined events (Leary et al., 1995). In terms of actual events, Dishion et al. (1994) reported that the strongest correlate of antisocial behavior in adolescents is association with deviant peers. Despite ndings that antisocial children were disliked by peers (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dishion, 1990; Dodge, 1983) and were decient in critical social, academic, and problem-solving skills (Dishion et al., 1984; Freedman et al., 1978; Patterson, 1982), antisocial adolescents reported large peer networks (Dishion et al., 1995). These studies demonstrated that antisocial adolescents were able to meet their needs for inclusion and may well have experienced high self-esteem despite engaging in behaviors that displayed disrespect for others. In discussing the implications of the sociometer hypothesis for clinical and counseling psychology, Leary (1999, p. 26) suggested that low self-esteem may be an indication of the underlying nature of a problema sense of relational devaluation or rejection. It is, however, not the cause of dysfunctional behavior or emotional distress. Therefore, instead of approaching therapy as an attempt to raise self-esteem, therapists should focus on helping the client to understand the circumstances surrounding their feelings of relational devaluation. If rejection is a result of such client behaviors as lack of social skills, aggression, or faulty cognitions, it is appropriate to develop a cognitivebehavioral plan with measurable objectives that address these decits. Leary noted that strategies employed to raise self-esteem that include teaching behaviors to increase social acceptance (i.e., social skills, self-control) are valuable. On the other hand, strategies that rely on messages designed to convince individuals that they should feel good about themselves may discourage them from taking actions to resolve real problems. When unfair rejection underlies feelings of low self-esteem, it is important for clients to understand that self-esteem is not a reection of individual worth, but simply a measure of how others have treated them. Leary contended that if individuals understand unwarranted rejection as a result of others weaknesses and shortcomings, they can learn not to react to the rejection with self-deprecation and to form relationships in which they are valued. In summary, the current public conception of self-esteem, its emphasis on feeling good and the potential benets that this has on the individual and on society, created behavior that can be destructive to the self and society. In contrast, self-respect ignores feeling good and emphasizes a mode of behavior that does not allow for destructive behavior. This distinction alone justies studying the role self-respect plays in individual and societal functioning. 13. Self-respect: current use in therapy? While relatively few articles list self-respect as a key word, the use of the concept can be found in many therapeutic approaches because it serves to focus attention on new thinking and behavior patterns as mechanisms for healthy functioning rather than simply as avenues to feeling good. Cognitive behavioral treatment protocols proposed by Stark et al. (1994) for childhood depression and Halford et al. (1994) for couples therapy are two of the numerous examples of therapeutic approaches that include, but do not mention,
SELF-RESPECT
277
some elements of the self-respect model. Stark et al. (1994) helped children evaluate themselves in reasonable and positive ways, self-monitor positive events, set goals for pleasurable activities, and improve their social skills by teaching them the relations between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Halford et al. (1994) followed a selfregulation approach by suggesting that since individuals have the most control over their own behavior, couples therapy would be improved if the primary focus were on self-change, rather than on how ones partner should change. Their use of self-regulation in couples therapy began with a self-observation checklist for selecting those personal behavior-change goals that would enhance the relationship. Other therapeutic approaches did employ the term self-respect and demonstrated its use in regards to developing ones sense of self-worth and recognizing the worth of others. J.A. Arnold, an Adlerian family therapist, employed several of the principles of self-respect when working with families of chemically dependent individuals. He suggested that parents demonstrated a lack of self-respect by reacting to their childs drug-use behavior and a lack of respect for the child by behaving in a manner that implied that the drug user was incapable of being responsible. To Arnold (1987, p. 469), a key ingredient in breaking the cycle of codependency was the display in word and deed of esteem and courtesy for the inherent worth of another human being. One therapy goal was to foster communication that demonstrated belief in the drug users resources to cope with failures and work towards successes, which was intended to lead to self-respecting behaviors by all family members. Cooper (1995) also employed several of the tenets of self-respect when working with the codependent behavior of families of individuals with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The goal of therapy was to help families recognize, acknowledge, and take responsibility for their codependent attitudes and behaviors. Coopers suggestions for intervention included realistic assessment of ones own behavior, determination of what is not in ones control, and the setting of standards and objectives for behavior patterns that would demonstrate self-respect and respect for the family member with OCD. The clubhouse model for psychiatric rehabilitation for adults suffering severe and persistent mental illness (Waters, 1992) drew on elements of self-respect. Jackson (1992, p. 65) suggested that the tasks associated with work in the clubhouse model were concrete, visible, palpable, and pragmatic evidence of the worth of its members and staff. Voluntary participation in shared work provided an opportunity for individuals to make and evaluate choices and to exercise control over their own behavior and environment and hence achieve self-respect. Another interesting emphasis on self-respect is found in Bratter et al.s (1995) psychoanalytical approach with troubled youth in a residential program. The youth had abused rather than used their intellectual and creative talents and were acting out via their self-destructive behavior. The most common diagnosis was oppositional character disorder exacerbated by either bipolar, hyperactivity, and/or attention decit symptomology. The program was based on the premise that self-respect requires individuals not to be indulgent and egotistical but to maintain personal integrity and to meet responsibilities and personal needs without depriving others of their rights to do the same (1995, p. 62). Bratter et al. have identied respect for
278
the self, balancing rational decision-making and response to emotional needs, and respect for the rights and property of others as central components of self-respect. Self-esteem was discussed in terms of adolescents detriments of self-esteem and their need to purge and heal. This discussion did not make clear, however, how the authors view the relationship between self-respect and self-esteem. It also was not clear if the foundation of self-respect was traceable to Kants statement to always treat the self and others as an end rather than a means. Bratter et al. (1995) did, however, state that because self-respect was objective, quantiable, and could be dened in behavioral terms, it was a tangible, achievable therapeutic goal. One of the problems in the self-respect literature is the practice of interchanging it and self-esteem. One example is the educational program developed by Dlugokinski & AllenBuilding Muscles for Mental Health. Recognizing that the development of healthy adjustment included the needs of individuation and social responsibility, Dlugokinski & Allen (1997, p. 117) described the need to teach children ways to know and respect themselves as well as ways to respect others. Their program included learning skills to develop the self, respect the self and others, build strength through habits, and balance work and play. The component of respecting the self and others addressed the importance of developing attitudes and behaviors that demonstrated valuation of oneself and of others. However, the discussion used the terms of self-respect and self-esteem interchangeably and claimed that Self-esteem acts like a social vaccine (1997, p. 121). To us, the wrong term was used for the vaccine. We submit that differentiating self-esteem and self-respect will reduce the misconception that feeling good about oneself is the answer to all social ills and will help parents, educators, and psychologists alike to help children develop skills that will lead to the development of both self-respect and socially appropriate self-esteem. A second problem occurs when one of the foundations of self-respect, the principle of respect for others, is ignored. For example, an understanding of ones cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns is the foundation of Cognitive Appraisal Therapy (Wessler & Wessler, 1997), a therapy that pays close attention to shame and self-pity as they relate to issues such as anxiety, depression, and rage. Selfunderstanding and personal rules for living set the stage for constructive therapeutic sessions. Individuals should respect themselves when they do what is right as they understand right or wrong at a given time (1997, p. 184). The therapy emphasizes that self-respect is a result of self-appraisal, not of others opinions, that self-respecting individuals insist that others treat them with respect and that clients dene for themselves what is morally right and wrong. However, respect for others is not addressed. A more dramatic example of this problem occurs in Brandens (1994) protocol for self-esteem therapy. In this approach self-respect is considered an interrelated component of self-esteem and several of the basic tenants of self-respecti.e., conviction of ones own value, honest self-evaluation, self-responsibility, pride, and personal integrityare present. However, the relationship between cognition, affect, and behavior differs in Brandens approach from our view of self-respect because he suggested that the level of self-esteem inuences how we act, and how we act
SELF-RESPECT
279
inuences the level of our self-esteem (1994, p. 4). Recall that within a system of self-respect, behavior is initially motivated by knowledge of the principle of respect for persons and is perpetuated by affects of pride, humility, condence, and shame or guilt. These emotions result from the congruence or lack of congruence between behavior and value systems that have respect for persons as their foundation. Conversely, Brandens denition of self-respect implies only a conviction of ones own value. We submit that conviction of ones own value cannot occur without knowing the source of that value. It follows then that the study of both self-respect and self-esteem is crucial to our understanding of how each can contribute to individual and societal functioning. 14. Self-respect: what function might it serve? To this point, the focus of this article has been to provide a literature review of both self-respect and self-esteem, to discuss the denitional differences found in the literature, and how these differences relate to individual functioning. Because of the lack of a scientic or psychological theory regarding self-respect, we have relied on the accepted function of philosophersto rene and theorize the dominant perspectives of their cultures (Haste & Baddeley, 1991, p. 224)for our denition and explanation of how Western culture regards self-respect. In order to proceed with our contention that self-respect deserves attention and study from a psychological perspective, it is necessary to now consider its function. Do we as human beings need self-respect? What does it do? Is it an inherent aspect of human nature? If so, how did it evolve? This investigation of self-respect from a psychological perspective is in its infancy. We contend that the function of self-respect is to protect and nurture the human capacities necessary to know and navigate ones world. We suggest that Kants declaration of the moral duty of self-respect was directly related to his belief in the existence of an innate basis for human knowledgecertain a priori intuitions and categories (e.g., space, time, quantity and relations) that made it possible to gather knowledge. There is support for our contention. Consider that James (1897) believed that so pervasive a property of mind as our consciousness had to have an adaptive function. He theorized that we were shaped by an autogenous generation of ideas and that those ideas that were retained and sharpened were the ones that provided the best way of dealing with the world in which one lived. Continuing in this vein, Lorenz (1977) postulated that neural structures did not exist by chance, rather they were the consequence of past selection pressures. They developed to make it possible for individuals to learn what they needed to learn and to do so in the most effective manner. Plotkin (1998) explained that the same innate, intrinsic and limiting devices that allowed for this learning have also provided for the shared knowledge that is the basis for the small groups that have been a consistent feature of human evolution. Although no scientic studies of self-respect have been found and hence there is no evidence to support the contention that self-respect is a universal and inherent trait of humanity, there is evidence for closely related concepts of prosocial behavior
280
and moral development. In discussing the universality of prosocial behavior, Fiske (1991) described this behavior as a general concern for some good beyond the self, motivated by a deep sense of connection or moral obligation to others (p. 177). After a careful review of existing social psychology research and their own empirical investigations of prosocial behavior, Batson & Oleson (1991) concluded that humans are capable of feeling concern for and acting on behalf of others as well as for themselves. Ethnographic evidence has also concluded that prosocial behavior is universal (Fiske, 1991). Although the implementation of the four basic modes of human interactionsharing, maintaining equality and balance between peers, deference to authority and pastoral responsibility to subordinates, and exchange according to a predened ratio principlediffer signicantly in context and manner of implementation on an individual and cultural level, prosocial behavior has been determined to be inherent in human nature (Fiske, 1991). The biological basis for this inherent trait was identied as spontaneous communication (Buck & Ginsburg, 1991). Buck & Ginsburg presented evidence for the genetic systems that underlie spontaneous communication and for the conclusion that this communication is sufcient to activate feelings of attachment, altruistic impulses and prosocial behavior. Evolutionary pressures have selected individuals who provide external cues of their distress and those who can accurately read these cues. If the available environment actively shapes what is available, and if we want what is shaped to contribute in a positive manner to individual and cultural survival and development, our social institutions need to arrange the appropriate contingencies. Skinner (1974, p. 205) believed that natural selection, operant conditioning, and the evolution of social environments all invoked the notion of survival as a value, remarking that, What is good for the species is what makes for its survival. What is good for the individual is what promotes its well-being. What is good for the culture is what permits it to solve its problems. He noted that institutions need to design contingencies that allow for individual development, yet do not allow for individuals to accumulate and misuse power at the expense of others, and/or be so involved in their own fulllment that they ignore the future of the culture. Although the contingencies put in place by different cultures may vary and the fulllment of the needs of the individual and the culture may differ, we propose that self-respect is an objective and universal morality that has survival value for the organism, the culture and the species. It is important to note that even though the concept of self-respect developed herein is based on Western philosophy and the value that Western civilization places on rationality, the importance of self-respect remains universal. The same physical structures that allow for the thought processes of Western cultures to proceed in a rational manner exist in all cultures. The forming of social orders is also of equal importance to all cultures. The sociometer hypothesis contends that the function of the self-esteem system is to continuously monitor inclusionary status and alert the individual when that status is threatened. Hence the individual is motivated to behave in ways that increase self-esteem. Given that social groups were crucial for protection and reproduction (Barash, 1977), the function of self-esteem is easily understood. However, this monitoring and behaving occurs regardless of the social contingencies
SELF-RESPECT
281
put in place by the social group in question. In contrast, it is our contention that the proposed function of self-respect is to monitor not only our own behavior, but also the contingencies of the social group, and then motivate us to behave in ways that increase inclusion in social groups whose contingencies are designed to protect and enhance the development of the individual, the culture, and the species. Thus, we submit that while self-esteem functions to meet rst-order evolutionary needs for human survival, self-respect functions to meet second-order evolutionary needs by ensuring that behavioral responses to threats of exclusion are benecial rather than detrimental to the individual and to the structure of society. The human capacity for thought and rationality has not only provided us with the means to survive and survive well, but also has created a need to bring signicance and meaning to our lives. Thus, we contend that the function of a system of self-respect is to meet the higher order needs of the individual. In this way self-respect ts nicely within Maslows (1962) model of self-actualization and Kohlbergs (1987) universal ethical principle. Future directions With so many people seeking mental health services (the National Comorbidity Survey reported that 48% of the 8,090 persons sampled had a lifetime history of at least one disorder; see Kessler et al., 1994), therapists play an increasingly important role in the education and guidance of society. We propose that future therapeutic approaches be based on a self-respect rather than a self-esteem model because therapists and clients must be accountable for their actions and clients must learn empathy. Clients could be taught how to identify factors that contribute to their emotional distress and dysfunctional behavior, engage in self-survey, display selfcontrol and tenacity, dene their value systems, develop objectives and set goals in order to make accurate attributions and achieve effective and signicant changes in their behavior, environment or both. Because self-respect has an objective basis, treatment plans could be based on observed and reported behaviors and attitudes, specic behaviors and cognitions could be taught and reinforced, and progress could be tracked. Research is needed on self-respect. Evidence for the functions and effects of self-respect (see Figure 1) should be demonstrated through empirical study of (1) autonomous behaviorsindependence, self-control, self-survey and tenacity; (2) behaviors that demonstrate respect of selfdignity, humility, pride, and condence; (3) behaviors that demonstrate respect for others; and (4) behaviors that demonstrate development of a life plan based on moral law by the determination of a value system that includes treating self and others as an end rather than a means, setting of long-term goals, and developing objectives and means to achieve these goals. The rst goal of future research would be to establish the validity of self-respect by demonstrating that it provides objective guidelines and structure for both children, adolescents, and adults, prevents over-dependence on the opinions or presence of others, provides a sense of purpose greater than the self, provides a
282
stable foundation from which to pursue ones goals regardless of special attributes or abilities, and increases accountability and responsibility. In conclusion, objectivity appears to be what differentiates self-respect from self-esteem. Recall that self-esteem relies heavily on an individuals self-evaluation of capacities and performance, perceptions of others opinions, and inclusionary status. As a result, the behaviors that are motivated by the search for self-esteem seem to be subjectively dened as what will make me feel good about me. Conversely, self-respect relies heavily on behaviors that display respect for self and others. Certainly, self-esteem may add to the mental health of individuals by meeting some of their rst-order needs (i.e., inclusion in social groups for survival and reproduction). Self-respect, however, offers the promise of meeting higher-order needs, thereby beneting individuals in their day-to-day quest for meaningful lives and beneting society in its quest towards more civilized behavior being displayed by its members. Notes
[1] Discussion of the research that supported these predictions, and hence the contention that the self-esteem system developed as a sociometer, is beyond the scope of this paper. For a thorough discussion of historical and recent evidence see Leary & Downs (1995) and Leary et al. (1995).
References
AINSWORTH, M.D.S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709716. ARNOLD, J.A. (1987). The chemically dependent family: considerations on respect and bearing one anothers burdens. Individual Psychology, 43, 468478. ARISTOTLE (1962). Nicomachean ethics, trans. M. OSTWALD. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. BACKMAN, C.W., SECORD, P.F. & PIERCE, J.R. (1982). Resistance to change in the self-concept as a function of consensus among signicant others. In M. ROSENBERG & H.B. KAPLAN (Eds), Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. 179186). Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. BANDURA, A. (1977). Self-efcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycholgical Review, 84, 191215. BARASH, D.P. (1977). Sociobiology and behavior. New York: Elsevier. BATSON, C.D. & OLESON, K.C. (1991). Current status of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In M.S. CLARK (Ed.) Prosocial behavior: Review of personality and social psychology, vol. 12 (pp. 6285). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. BAUMEISTER, R.F. (1991). Escaping the self. New York: Basic Books. BAUMEISTER, R.F., HEATHERTON, T.F. & TICE, D.M. (1993). When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 141156. BAUMEISTER, R.F., HEATHERTON, T.F. & TICE, D.M. (1994). Losing control: how and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. BAUMEISTER, R.F., SMART, L. & BODEN, J.M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 533. BAUMISTER, R.F. & TICE, D.M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165195. BEAN, R. (1992). The four conditions of self-esteem. Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates. BECK, A.T. (1987). Cognitive models of depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 537. BEDNAR, R., WELLS, G. & PETERSON, S. (1989). Self-esteem: paradoxes and innovations in clinical theory and practice. Washington D.C.: APA.
SELF-RESPECT
283
BORKOVEC, T.D. & COSTELLO, E. (1993). Efcacy of applied relaxation and cognitivebehavioral therapy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 611619. BOWLBY, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, vol. 1. New York: Basic Books. BOXHILL, B.R. (1995). Self-respect and protest. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character and self-respect (pp. 93103). New York: Routledge. BRAGE, D. & MEREDITH, W. (1994). A causal model of adolescent depression. Journal of Psychology, 128, 455468. BRANDEN, N. (1969). The psychology of self-esteem. Los Angeles, CA: Nash. BRANDEN, N. (1994). The six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam Books. BRATTER, B.I., BRATTER, C.J. & BRATTER, T.E. (1995). Beyond reality: the need to (re)gain self-respect. Psychotherapy, 32, 5969. BRINTHAUPT, T.M. & ERWIN, L.J. (1992). Reporting about the self: issues and implications. In T.M. BRINTHAUPT & R.P. LIPKA (Eds) The self: denitional and methodological issues (pp. 137171). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. BROWN, J.D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: feeling is believing. In J. SULS (Ed.) Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 2758). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. BUCK, R. & GINSBURG, B. (1991). Spontaneous communication and altruism: the communicative gene hypothesis. In M.S. CLARK (Ed.) Prosocial behavior: review of personality and social psychology (pp. 149175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. BUSHMAN, B.J. & BAUMEISTER, R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219229. CARVER, C.S. & SCHEIRER, M.F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: a control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. COIE, J.D. & KUPERSMIDT, J.B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys groups. Child Development, 54, 14001416. COOLEY, C.H. (1902/1956). The two major works of Charles H. Cooley: social organization and human nature and the social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. COOPER, M. (1995). Applying the codependency model to a group for families of obsessivecompulsive people. Health & Social Work, 20, 272278. COOPERSMITH, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. DAMON, W. (1993). Foreward. In A. GARROD (Ed.) Approaches to moral development: new research and emerging themes. New York: Teachers College Press. DARWELL, S.L. (1995). Two kinds of respect. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character and self-respect (pp. 181197). New York: Routledge. DAWES, R.M. (1994). House of cards: psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press. DEMAN, A.F. & LEDUC, C.P. (1995). Suicidal ideation in high school students: depression and other correlates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 173181. DENISE, T.C., PETERFREUND, S.P. & WHITE, N.P. (1996). Great traditions in ethics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. DESPRES, T. (1976). The survivor: an anatomy of life in the death camps. New York: Oxford University Press. DILLON, R.S. (1995). Introduction. In his Dignity, character and self-respect (pp. 149). New York: Routledge. DISHION, T.J. (1990). The peer context of troublesome child and adolescent behavior. In P.E. LEONE (Ed.) Understanding troubled and troubling youth (pp. 128153). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DISHION, T.J., ANDREWS, D.W. & CROSBY, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139151. DISHION, T.J., LOEBER, R., STOUTHAMER-LOEBER, M. & PATTERSON, G.R. (1984). Skill decits and male adolescent delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 3754.
284
DISHION, T.J., PATTERSON, G.R. & GRIESLER, P.C. (1994). Peer adaptations in the development of antisocial behavior: a conuence model. In L.R. HUESMANN (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: current perspectives (pp. 6195). New York: Plenum Press. DLUGOKINSKI, E.L. & ALLEN, S.F. (1997). Empowering children to cope with difculty and build mental muscles for mental health. Washington, DC: Accelerated Development. DODGE, K.A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 13861399. DOHERTY, W. (1995). Soul searching. New York: Basic Books. DOWNIE, R.S. & TEFLER, E. (1970). Respect for persons. New York: Schocken Books. EDWARDS, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202216. FISKE, A.P. (1991). The cultural relativity of selsh individualism: anthropological evidence that humans are inherently sociable. In M.S. CLARK (Ed.) Prosocial behavior: review of personality and social psychology, vol. 12 (pp. 176214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. FORYSTH, D.R., BERGER, R.E., & MITCHELL, T. (1981). The effects of self-serving vs. other-serving claims of responsibility on attraction and attribution in groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 5964. FREEDMAN, B.J., ROSENTHAL, L., DONAHOE, C.P. Jr., SCHLUNDT, D.G. & MCFALL, R.M. (1978). A social-behavioral analysis of skill decits in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 14481462. GORDON, C. (1982). Self-conceptions: congurations of content. In M. ROSENBERG & H.B. KAPLAN (Eds) Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. 1323). Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. GREENBERG, J., SOLOMON, S. & PYSZCZYNSKI, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: empirical assessments and conceptual renements. In M.P. ZANNA (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 29 (pp. 61139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. HAGBORG, W.J. (1993). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Harters Self-Perception Prole for Adolescents: a concurrent validity study. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 132136. HALFORD, W.K., SANDERS, M.R. & BEHRENS, B.C. (1994). Self-regulation in behavioral couples therapy. Behavior Therapy, 25, 431452. HART, D. & EDELSTEIN, W. (1992). Self-understanding development in cross-cultural perspective. In T.M. BRINHAUPT & R.P. LIPKA (Eds) The self: denitional and methodological issues (pp. 291322). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. HARTER, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perceptions Prole for Children (revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Denver, CO: University of Denver. HARTER, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. SULS & A.G. GREENWALD (Eds.) Psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 3 (pp. 137181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. HARTER, S. (1990a). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: a life-span perspective. In R.J. STERNBERG & J. KOLLIGIAN, Jr. (Eds) Competence considered (pp. 6797). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. HARTER, S. (1990b). Issues in the assessment of self-concept in children and adolescents. In A.M. LA GRECA (Ed.) Through the eyes of the child: obtaining self-reports from children and adolescents (pp. 292 325). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. HARTER, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R.F. BAUMEISTER (Ed.) Self-esteem: the puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 87116). New York: Plenum Press. HARTER, S. & JACKSON, B.K. (1993). Young adolescents perceptions of the link between low self-worth and depressed affect. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 383407. HARTER, S., MAROLD, D.B. & WHITESELL, N.R. (1992). Model of psychosocial risk factors leading to suicidal ideation in young adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 167188. HASTE, H. & BADDELEY, J. (1991). Moral theory and culture: the case of gender. In W.M. KURTINES & J.L. GERWIRTZ (Eds) Handbook of moral behavior and development, vol. 1: theory (pp. 223249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. HERRNSTEIN, R.J. & MURRAY, C. (1994). The bell curve: intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.
SELF-RESPECT
285
HILL, Jr., T.E. (1991). Autonomy and self-respect. New York: Cambridge University Press. HOBBES, T. (1651/1965). Leviathan, or the matter, forme, and power of a common-wealth: ecclesiastical and civil. Oxford: Clarendon Press. HOFFMAN, M.L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121137. HOFFMAN, M.L. (1991). Empathy, social cognition and moral action. In W.M. KURTINES & J.L. GERWIRTZ (Eds) Handbook of moral behavior and development, vol. 1: theory (pp. 275301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. HUME, D. (1739/1965). A treatise of human nature. In L.A. SELBY-BIGGE (Ed.) Humes treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. JACKSON, R. (1992). How work works. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16, 6367. JACOBSON, J.W. (2000). Self-esteem: a nod is as good as a wink to a horse. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 26, 16. JACOBSON, N.S. (1992). Behavioral couple therapy: a new beginning. Behavior Therapy, 23, 493506. JAMES, W. (1890/1952). The principles of psychology. In R.M. HUTCHINS (Ed.), Great books of the Western world, Vol. 53. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica. JAMES, W. (1897). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Longmans Green & Company. JANKOWSKI, M.S. (1991). Islands in the street. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. KAGAN, J. (1989). Temperamental contributions to social behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 668674. KANE, R. (1994). Through the moral maze: searching for absolute values in a pluralistic world. New York: Paragon House. KANT, I. (1785/1967). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. In H.J. PATON (Trans.) The moral law: Kants groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York: Barnes & Noble. KAPLAN, H. B. (1982). Prevalence of the self-esteem motive. In M. ROSENBERG & H.B. KAPLAN (Eds) Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. 139151). Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. KESSLER, R.C., MCGONAGLE, K.A., ZHAO, S., NELSON, C.B., HUGHES, M., ESHLEMAN, S., WITTCHEN, H. & KENDLER, K.S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Archive of General Psychiatry, 51, 819. KIRKPATRICK, L.A. & ELLIS, B.J. (2001). Evolutionary perspectives on self-evaluation and self-esteem. In G. FLETCHER & M. CLARK (Eds) The Blackwell handbook of social psychology, vol. 2: interpersonal processes (pp. 411436). Oxford: Blackwell. KIRKPATRICK, L.A., WAUGH, A.V. & WEBSTER, G.D. (2002). The functional domain specicity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 756767. KOHLBERG, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: a cognitive-developmental view. New York: Longman. KURTINES, W.M., MAYOCK, E., POLLARD, S.R., LANZA, T. & CARLO, G. (1991). Social and moral development from the perspective of psychosocial theory. In W.M. KURTINES & J. L. GERWIRTZ (Eds) Handbook of moral behavior and development, vol. 1: theory (pp. 303333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. LEARY, M.R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221229. LEARY, M.R. (1999). The social and psychological importance of self-esteem. In R.M. KOWALSKI & M.R. LEARY (Eds) The social psychology of emotional and behavioral problems (pp. 197221). Washington, DC: APA. LEARY, M.R. & DOWNS, D.L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: the self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M.H. KERNIS (Ed.) Efcacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123144). New York: Plenum Press. LEARY, M.R., TAMBOR, E.S., TERDAL, S.K. & DOWNS, D.L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: the sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518530.
286
LEVI, P. (1986). If this is a man: remembering Auschwitz. New York: Summit Books. LORENZ, K. (1977). Behind the mirror: a search for a natural history of human knowledge, trans. R. TAYLOR. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. LORENZ, K. (1987). The waning of humaneness. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company. MARCIANO, P.L. & KAZDIN, A.E. (1994). Self-esteem, depression, hopelessness, and suicidal intent among psychiatrically disturbed inpatient children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 151 160. MARKUS, H. & WURF, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: a psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299337. MARSH, H.W., BARNES, J., CAIRNS, L. & TIDMAN, M. (1984). Self-Description Questionnaire: age and sex effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 940956. MARSH, H.W., BYRNE, B.M. & SHAVELSON, R.J. (1992). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept. In T.M. BRINTHAUPT & R.P. LIPKA (Eds) The self: denitional and methodological issues (pp. 4495). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. MASLOW, A.H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: D. van Nostrand. MASSEY, S.J. (1995). Is self-respect a moral or psychological concept? In R. S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character and self-respect (pp. 198217). New York: Routledge. MCFARLIN, D.B., BAUMEISTER, R.F. & BLASCOVICH, J. (1984). On knowing when to quit: task failure, self-esteem, advice, and non-productive persistence. Journal of Personality, 52, 138155. MCGREGOR, H.A., LIEBERMAN, J.D., GREENBERG, J., SOLOMON, S., ARNDT, J. & SIMON, L. (1998). Terror management and aggression: evidence that mortality salience motivates aggression against worldview-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 590605. MEAD, G.H. (1934/1967). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. MECCA, A.M., SMELSER, N.J. & VASCONCELLOS, J. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. MEYER, M.J. (1989). Dignity, rights and self-control. Ethics, 99, 520534. MEYERS, D.T. (1995). Self-respect and autonomy. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character, and self-respect (pp. 218248). New York: Routledge. MISCHEL, W., SHODA, Y. & PEAKE, P.K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687696. MRUK, C.J. (1995). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice. New York: Springer. OLWEUS, D. (1994). Bullying at school: long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective schoolbased intervention program. In L.R. HUESMANN (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: current perspectives (pp. 97130). New York: Plenum Press. PATTERSON, G.R. (1982). A social learning approach, vol. 3: coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. PIAGET, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child, trans. M. GABIAN. New York: Free Press. PIERS, E. & HARRIS, D. (1969). The Piers-Harris Childrens Self-Concept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings & Tests. PIPHER, M. (1997). The shelter of each other. New York: Ballantine Books. PLOTKIN, H. (1998). Evolution in mind: an introduction to evolutionary psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press RAWLS, J. (1995). Self-respect, excellences, and shame. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character, and self-respect (pp. 125131). New York: Routledge. ROGERS, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. KOCH (Ed.) Psychology: a study of a science, vol. 3 (pp. 184256). New York: McGraw-Hill. ROSENBERG, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. ROSENBERG, M. & KAPLAN, H.B. (1982). General introduction. In M. ROSENBERG & H.B. KAPLAN (Eds) Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. xixv). Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson. SACHS, D. (1981). How to distinguish self-respect from self-esteem. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10, 346360. SCULLY, D. (1991). Understanding sexual violence: a study of convicted rapists. Perspectives on gender. London: Harper Collins Academic.
SELF-RESPECT
287
SHODA, Y., MISCHEL, W. & PEAKE, P.K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratication: identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978986. SKINNER, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf SMELSER, N.J. (1989). Self-esteem and social problems: an introduction. In A.M. MECCA, N.J. SMELSER & J. VASCONCELLOS (Eds) The social importance of self-esteem (pp. 123). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. STARK, K.D., ROUSE, L.W. & KURWOSKI, C. (1994). Psychological treatment approaches for depression in children. In W.M. REYNOLDS & H.F. JOHNSTON (Eds) Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 275307). New York: Plenum Press. STEFFENHAGEN, R.A. (1990). Self-esteem therapy. New York: Praeger. TAYLOR, G. (1995). Shame, integrity, and self-respect. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character, and self-respect (pp. 157178). New York: Routledge. TEFLER, E. (1995). Self-respect. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character, and self-respect (pp. 107116). New York: Routledge. THOMAS, L. (1995). Self-respect: theory and practice. In R.S. DILLON (Ed.) Dignity, character, and self-respect (pp. 251270). New York: Routledge. WATERS, B. (1992). The work unit: the heart of the clubhouse. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16, 4148. WATSON, D. & CLARK, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465490. WELLS, E.L. & MARWELL, G. (1976). Self-esteem: its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. WESSLER, R.L. & WESSLER, S.H. (1997). Counseling and society. In S. PALMER & V. VARMA (Eds) The future of counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 167190). London: Sage. WYLIE, R. (1979). The self-concept, vol. 2: theory and research of selected topics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. ZAHN-WAXLER, C. & RADKE-YARROW, M. (1990). The origins of empathetic concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 107130.

Self-Respect. A Neglected Concept

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Self-Respect. A Neglected Concept

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [79.112.42.

Self-respect: A neglected concept

PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 2003

Self-respect: a neglected concept

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

TABLE 1. Historical and contemporary views of self-respect

(a) Historical Components of Self-respect

Theorist Self-knowledge; Accurate judgment Virtuous behavior Pride

Capacity for rationality Life plans guided by

Subjective feelings toward self

Importance of others opinions If also virtuous Determined worth

Reverence: humility and pride

Declare pride as appropriate Worthy of admiring respect of others

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

(b) Contemporary Group I (appreciation of being a person) Components of Self-respect

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Theorist Respect moral law

Capacity for rationality Life plans guided by

Subjective feelings toward self

Importance of others opinions

Emotion: indignation or resentment

Boxhill (1995) Meyer (1989)

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

(c) Contemporary Group II (character and conduct) Components of Self-respect

Capacity for rationality Life plans guided by

Importance of others opinions

Downie & Teer (1970)

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Capacity for rationality Life plans guided by

Subjective feelings toward self

Importance of others opinions

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

(e) Contemporary Group IV (unied account of self-respect) Components of Self-respect

Capacity for rationality Life plans guided by

Subjective feelings toward self

Importance of others opinions

Self-concept Theorist James (1890/1952)

Evaluation successes vs. pretensions Looking-glass self Generalized other

Cooley (1902/1956) Mead (1934/1967)

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale (1969) Sum of all responses

Rosenberg s Self-Esteem Scale (1979)

Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and perception of others opinions

Marshs Self-Description Questionnaire (1984)

Self-evaluation of capacities, performance and perception of others opinions

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013

Downloaded by [79.112.42.116] at 15:07 13 February 2013