[StudentAt-risk for Failure 301

GOLDFRIED, M., & TRIER, C. Effectiveness of relaxation as an active coping skill. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 1974, 83, 348-355.
MEICHENBAUM, D., & GOODMAN, J. Training im ulsive children to talk to themselves: A means
of developing self control. Journal of AbnormaE)Psychology,1971, 77, 115-126.
MYKLEBUST, H. The Pupil Rating Scale, screening for learning disabilities. New York: Grune &
Stratton. 1971.
PIERS,E. The Piers-Harria Chi2dren's Self-Concept Scale. Nashville, Tenn.: Counselor Recordings
and Tests, 1969.
PLA~ J.,, SPIVACK,G., ALTMAN,D., & PEIZER, S. Adolescent problem-solving thinking. Journal
of ConsuUing and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 48, 787-793.
PLATT, 5., & SPIVACK, G. Manual for the Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure (MEPS): A mea-
sure of intevpersonal w nitive problem-solving still. Philadelphia: Hannemann Community
Mental Health/Mentd getardation Center, 1975.
STEVENS, R., & PIHL,R. 0. The identification of the student at-risk for failure. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1982, in press.

A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SELF-ESTEEM

FROM PRE-ADOLESCENCE THROUGH YOUNG ADULTHOOD:
ANXIETY AND EXTRAVERSION AS AGENTS
I N T H E DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-ESTEEM
GEORGE F. K A W A S H ' ~ ~
Uniwsiig of Gwlph
Three personality scales designed to measure similar dimensions in different
age ranges-the Sixteen Personalit Factor Pestionnaire (16PF), High
School Personality Questionnaire (HgPQ), and hildren's Personality Ques-
tionnaire (CPQ)-were administered along with varieties of Coopersmith's
Self-Esteem Invent0 (SEI) to three Sam les aged (on average) 21 (N =
71), 15 (N = 91), an710 (N = 89) years. $he results indicated considerable
stability in the personality correlates of self-esteem at these ages. Considera-
tion of these personality dimensions a t the second-order level indicated that
it was anxiety and extraversion factors that consistently appeared as sig-
nificant correlates. These observations were considered in light of the source
trait-surface trait distinction made by Cattell (1957). One hypothesis is that
children raised in a warm and accepting environment develop lower levels
of anxiety and higher levels of extraversion. This leads to increased inter-
personal contact and more opportunity for social feedback and enhanced
self-re ard. While the precise order of events is uncertain, the literature re-
v i e w J is consistent with the pro osal that anxiety, extravemion, and self-
esteem can be related to similar tome environments.

Self-esteem, as employed in the present paper, refers to the evaluative com-

ponent of the self-concept and is conceptualized as a rather general feeling of
self-worth vs. feelings of self-deprecation. The importance of this personality
dimension should not be underestimated. With respect to adult functioning it
has been related, either empirically or theoretically, to such vital phenomena
as depression (Beck, 1967), satisfactory levels of interpersonal functioning (Rogers,
1951), and maternal acceptance of children (Medinnus & Curtis, 1963). I n child-
hood, research suggests that children with a positive self-esteem tend to manifest
lower levels of anxiety (Coopersmith, 1959; Horowitz, 1962), lower levels of social
suggestibility (Vance & Richmond, 1975) , and higher levels of school achievement
(Coopersmith, 1959), among other equally important observations.
'Reprint requests should be sent to George F. Kawash, Department of Family Studies, Uni-
versit of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, NlG 2W1, Canada.
&he author wishes to thank Dr. Raymond Wolfe for his comments on an earlier draft of this
report. As well, appreciation is expressed for the he1 received in the collection and coding of data
by Mses. Susan Bereczi, Linda Helling, and Anita dednis.
302 Journal of Clinical Psychology, April, 1982, Vol. 38,N o . 2.

This small sampling of correlates of self-esteem reflects a feeling expressed

in the literature that self-esteem is, in fact, a central dimension of personality
and one well worth our understanding further. There are, however, several con-
ceptual difficulties associated with research into this topic. A major one, in the
opinion of the present writer, is that it has been very difficult to integrate this
concept systematically into a framework of personality functioning. Most studies
in this area examine only a small number of expected correlates of self-esteem.
These correlates might be selected on good theoretical or rational grounds, but
they do have the limitation of lacking a systematic basis nonetheless. Cattell’s
distinction between source traits and surface traits may be applicable to this prob-
lem (Cattell, 1957). Source traits are conceptualized as causes of behavior. Surface
traits, on the other hand, are seen as clusters of overt behaviors that systematically
intercorrelate. The dynamic origins of these intercorrelations are presumed to
be source traits. It is clear that, to Cattell, source traits-which are identified
only after extensive, systematic, and replicated factor analyses-are of considerably
greater importance than surface traits. This distinction is potentially useful for
a t least three reasons. First, it allows the investigator of personality dynamics
to free himself from the encumbrances of a large number of traits. If, in fact, surface
traits arise from interactions among source traits and can be understood in these
terms, and further, if source traits are of manageable number, considerable parsi-
mony has been achieved. The researcher then can concentrate his efforts on eluci-
dating source traits and thus keep his investigations close to the theoretical core
of the subject matter. Second, as a corollary to the above, we can construe surface
traits far more readily and, likely, comprehensively if we are familiar with their
underpinnings. A third advantage is that it allows us to analyze a trait in a develop-
mental context more readily. If source traits are reasonably replicable over the
lifespan, and research suggests that they are (cf. for example, Coan, 1966), then
they provide the investigator with potentially powerful tools for the understanding
of personality development. This permits examination of ostensibly different
age-specific behaviors in terms of the same source traits.
The present paper is a report of a series of three studies into the relationship
between self-esteem and a number of established source traits. Selection of three
of Cattell’s personality inventories allowed for examination of these interrelation-
ships at three age levels by means of approximately parallel batteries. Such data
should be useful for furthering our conceptual understanding of the structure
and dynamics of self-esteem. Furthermore, it allows for the eventual generation
of multiple regression equations such that the rescoring of existing data for an
approximation of level of self-esteem becomes feasible.
STUDY1
METHod
Subjects
Ninety-two students in an undergraduate university class in research methods
were asked to complete Form A of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16
PF) and a copy of Coopersmith’s Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) (Coopersmith,
1967) modified for adult use. All students were females between 20 and 22 years
of age.
Procedure
The instruments were administered during two class periods. During the
first period, the respondents completed the 16PF. During the second period, they
were asked to complete the SEI along with Rotter’s I-E scale and the Marlowe-
Crowne scale of approval motivation, which were included for interest. I n order
to assure anonymity, students generated their own code number and were asked
to record it for second use. Absenteeism, failure to match code numbers, and in-
complete forms reduced the final N to 71.
 Structural Analysis of Self-esteem 303

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
A brief description of each of the factors contained in the 16PF appears in
Table 1. The correlation coefficients presented in Table 2 indicate that there are
three significant correlates of self-esteem in this sample-C, H, and 0. A person
TABLE 1
THEPRIMARY SOURCE TRAITS
COVERED BY THE 16PF TEST“

Factor Low score description High score description

A Reserved, detached, critical, aloof, stiff Outgoing, warmhearted, easygoing,

B Dull
C Afected by feelings, emotionally less
stable, easily upset, changeable
E Humble, mild, easily led, docile,
accommodating
F Sober, taciturn, serious
G Expedient, disregards rules
H Shy, timid, threatt-sensitive
I Tough-minkd, self-reliant, realistic
L Trusting, accepting conditions
M Praeticul, “down-to-earth” concerns
N Forthright, unpretentious, genuine but
socially clumsy
0 Self-assured, placid, secure, complacent,
serene
Q1 Conservative,respecting traditional ideas
Qz Grou dependent, a “joiner” and sound
folYower
Q3 Undisciplined self-conflict, lax, follows own
urges, careless of social rules
Q4 Relaxed, tranquil, torpid, unfrustrated,
composed
participating
Bright
Emotionally stable, mature, faces reality,
calm
Assertite, aggressive, competitive,
stubborn
Happy-go-lucky, gay, enthusiastic
Conscientious, persistent, moralistic, staid
Venturesome,uninhibited, socially bold
Tender-minded,sensitive, clinging,
overprotected
Suspicim, hard t o fool
Imaginative, bohemian, absent-minded
Astute, polished, socially aware
Apprehensive, self-re roaching, insecure,
worrying, troublef
Experimenting, liberal, free-thinking
Self-su$icient, resourceful, prefers own
decisions
Controlled, exacting will-power, socially
precise, compulsive, following self-image
Tense, frustrated, driven, overwrought

BAdapted from Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka, 1970, pp. 16-17.

who scores high on factor C (ego strength) tends to be emotionally mature and
stable and t o maintain a realistic orientation toward life. People who score low
on this factor tend to have low frustration tolerance, be evasive of the demands
of reality, and prone to neurotic symptoms. A person who scores high on factor
H (parasympathetic immunity to t hreat-vs.-threat sensitivity) is sociable, socially
uninhibited, and spontaneous as opposed t o the tendency toward social isolation
and diffidence characteristic of the low pole. Individuals who score low on factor
0 (guilt proneness) are generally placid and secure as opposed to the worrisome,
depressed, and moody characteristics of those who score high on this dimension.
Thus we observe that in this sample of young university women those high
in self-esteem appear to be confident, relaxed, outgoing people who maintain
a sound degree of reality contact, emotional maturity, and resistance to neurotic
symptoms, especially undue fretting. This pattern bears some marked similarities
to Maslow’s descriptions of the self-actualized person-a concept that bears at
least a familial resemblance to positive self-esteem.
3 04 Journal of Clinical Psychology, April, 1986, Vol. 38, N o . 6.
TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS BETWEENAN ADULTVERSION OF COOPERSMITH’S
SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY
(SEI) AND THE PRIMARY FACTORS OF THE
16 PERSONALITY FACTOR
QUESTIONNAIRE (16PF)I N A SAMPLE O F
UNDERQRADUATE FEMALES

Personality factor Correlation coefficientb

A (friendliness) .19
B (intelligence) .06
C (ego strength) .450
E (dominance) .24
F (cheerfulness) .18
G (superego strength) .13
H (immunity to threat) .5444
I (tough-minded vs. tender-minded) .07
L (projection of inner tensions) - .08
M (imaginative) .08
N (shrewdness) - .02
0 (guilt proneness) - .42O
Q1 (open-minded) .03
Q2 (self-sufficiency) - .20
Q3(self-sentiment) .
19
Q, (ergic tension) - .29
*For explanations of significant correlations, see text. Elaborations
on these dimensions can be found in Cattell (1957)and Cattell, Eber,
and Tatsuoka (1970).
bAll coefficients reported are Pearson lg. N w&s 71. Any absolute
value 2.30 was interpreted as significant (p <.01).
OSignificant. Contributes to the second-order factor of anxiety.
qignificant. Contributes to the second-order factor of extraversion.

STUDY2
METHOD
Subjects
This sample consisted of 95 students enrolled in two ninth-grade classes in
a metropolitan Ontario junior high school. There were 43 males and 52 females,
who ranged in age from 13-16 years. Three females and 1 male failed to complete
the questionnaires and were dropped from the final analysis, which left a sample
of 42 males and 49 females. The school was located in a middle- to upper-middle-
class neighborhood.
Procedure
The examiner was a fourth-year university undergraduate who was collecting
these data, along with other measures, as a part of her bachelor’s thesis. The ap-
propriate measure for source traits for this age range is the Jr.-Sr. High School
Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ). The 14 primary source traits assessed by
this instrument overlap considerably with the primary factors of the 16PF and
appear to be age-appropriate counterparts to those similarly named in the adult
(16PF) version. (For a treatment of the similarities and differences among the
Cattell scales and attendant discussion of the significance and interpretation of
age-specific factors, cf. Coan, 1966.) Self-esteem was measured by the original
25-item short form of the Coopersmith SEI (Coopersmith, 1967). The tests were
 Structural Analysis of Self-esteem 305

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The statistical analysis was as in Study 1, and a similar summary is presented
in Table 3.
TABLE 3
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEMINVENTORY
COOPERSMITH'S
(SEI) AND THE PRIMARYFACTORS
OF THE JR.SR.HIGHSCHOOL
PERBONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE
(HSPQ) IN A SAMPLEOF
NINTH-QRADE
STUDENTS

Correlation coefficient&
Personality factora Females Male
A (friendliness) .30 .41d
B (intelligence) .12 .08
C (ego strength) .57" .56"
D (excitability) - .41" - .34
E (dominance) .37d .oo
F (cheerfulness) .17 - .32
G (superego strength) .23 .400
H (immunity to threat) .46c*d .ll
I (tough-minded vs. tender-minded) .02 .14
J (coasthenia) - .28 .03
0 (guilt proneness) - .59 - .5oc
Q, (self-sufficiency) - .47" .09
Qr (self-sentiment) .12 .6@
Qr (ergic tension) - .25 - .49
*For explanations of significant correlations, see text. Elaborations
on these dimensions can be found in Cattell (1957) and Cattell, Eber,
and Tatsuoka (1970).
bAll coefficients reported are Pearson m. N for females was 49 while
that for males was 42. An absolute value 2.36 was interpreted as sig-
nificant (p <.01) for femafes. Any absolute value2.39 was interpreted
as significant (p <.01) for males.
Bignificant. Contributes to the second-order factor of anxiety.
dSignificant. Contributes to the second-order factor of extraversion.
Significant. Contributa to the second-order factor of indepen-
dence.

administered to the two classes on separate but closely spaced days under the
supervision of a teacher. All responses were kept anonymous.
When we insuect the column on the left, we note that 6 of the 4 primary
source traits correlated significantly with the'SEI at the .01 level in the female
sample. Most importantly, this includes all three factors discussed in Study 1
above. In addition, there are significant correlations with D, E, and Q2. Factor
D (excitability) is one that appears in childhood and adolescent samples but not
in adult samples, so there is no opportunity to compare with the first sample re-
ported here. The finding suggests that adolescent females with a high self-esteem
tend to be more calm and less easily provoked by arousing or threatening stimuli
than those low in self-esteem. People high on factor E (dominance) tend to be
assertive, assured, and independent-minded. This pattern may include a hostile
and/or manipulative component. I n contrast, those who score low on E tend to be
submissive, docile, and conforming. This may take a confessing, obsessionally
correct form. Finally, there was a significant correlation with factor Q2 (self-suf-
ficiency). People who score low on this factor tend to be more group dependent
in terms of their decision-making and self-evaluations. Cattell feels that this type
306 Journal of Clinical Psychology, April, 198.2, Vol. 58, No. 2.

of person is not necessarily gregarious, but rather in need of group support. In

contrast, people who score high on this factor are inclined to go their own way
and to be independent decision-makers. It is interesting that this intercorrelation
was in the negative direction, which indicates that it was the high self-esteem
adolescent females who were more group dependent. If, in the long run, this finding
proves to be a consistently replicable one, then we will have an interesting ob-
servation of the behavior of adolescent females of high self-esteem. Very possibly
group acceptance is a significant component of self-esteem a t this age and reduces
substantially by adulthood. (The correlation in the first sample was also negative,
but not significant: -.20.)
In summary, the findings reported above for young university women are
replicated, albeit in an expanded and more complex form, in a sample of adolescent
females. The general pattern of functioning reported in the first sample presents
itself in a modified form-in addition to the general pattern of mature, reality-
oriented, relaxed, outgoing people, we find an extension in the form of low ex-
citability and an interesting component of dominance and group dependence.
Turning to the column on the right, we can consider the results for the male
sample. We find that six correlations reach significance a t the .01 level. Factors
C and 0 correlate with SEI score as in the female sample here and in Study 1,
while factors A, G, Q3, and Q4 appear for the first time. An individual who scores
high on factor A (friendliness) tends to be outgoing, goodnatured, and person-
oriented. He is often a kindly individual who enjoys contact with people. High
scores on factor G (superego) are indicative of a strong conscience and sense of
duty. People high on this factor tend to be a moralistic, a t least in a traditional
sense. This is in contrast to those who score low, who are less bound by cultural
demands and group influence. Factor Q3 (high self-concept control) is a measure
of social precision and social awareness. A high score is often indicative of a person
concerned with a proper social appearance who is assiduous in protecting this
image. This concept has some parallels with that, of good personality integration,
but has a quality of persistence as well. Finally, factor Q4 (ergic tension) is akin
to nervous excitability. Low scores signify good frustrat,ion tolerance.
The pattern that emerges here is of a relaxed but self-disciplined individual
who has a generally well-integrated personality (high C and Qs,low 0 and Q4)
and, likely, an optimistic view of life. Judging from the reports of correlational
and experimental investigations into these source traits (e.g., Cattell, 1957; Cattell,
Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970), one also would anticipate that these high self-esteem
males would be popular people, likely to emerge as leaders in many situations]
and to be generally independent, self-confident thinkers.

STUDY3
METHOD
Subjects
Eighty-nine fifth-grade children from a middle-class suburban metropolitan
neighborhood completed the questionnaires. They ranged in age from 9 to 12;
the overwhelming majority (74) were 10 years of age. The final sample was com-
prised of 49 males and 40 females from four classrooms.
Procedure
Because of a serious time constxaint, it was not possible to administer the com-
plete Children’s Personality Questionnaire (CPQ), the age-appropriate parallel
to the HSPQ and 16PF. On the basis of results from Studies 1 and 2, CPQ factors
A, C, H, 0, and Qs were selected for admini~tration.~ Again the short form of Cooper-
smith’s SEI was employed as the ineasure of self-esteem.
apemission to use the CPQ in this abbreviated form was granted by its publisher] the Institute
for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign] Illiiois.
 Structural Analysis of Self-esteem 307
The questionnaires were administered to the students in their regular class-
rooms. Instructions printed on the questionnaires were read aloud by one of two
university students who were collecting these data as a part of a larger research
project. All responses were anonymous.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
The pattern of significant correlations for females observed in Studies 1 and
2 is essentially repeated in these data. Table 4 displays the coefficients, which
suggest a striking similarity between the personality correlates of self-esteem
in this sample and those in the other samples described. Table 4 also includes
a significant positive correlation between factor A (friendliness) and self-esteem,
TABLE 4
CORRELATIONSBETWEENCOOPERSMITH’SSELF-ESTEEMINVENTORY
(SEI) AND SELECTEDPERSONALITY
VARIABLES(FROMTHE
CHI~DREN’SPERSONALITYQUESTIONNAIRE,
CPQ) IN A SAMPLE
OF FIFTH-QRADE
CHILDREN

Correlation coefficientsb
Personality factop Femalea Males
A (friendliness) .64d .29
C (ego strength) .46c .50”
H (immunity to threat) .6lold .@c,d
0 (guilt proneness) - .530 - .4w
Q8 (self-sufficiency) .37 .32

aFor explanations of significant correlations, see text. Elaborations

on these dimensions can be found in Cattell (1957), and Cattell, Eber,
and Tatsuoka (1970).
bAll coefficients reported are Pearson 7s. N for females was 40, while
that for males was 49. Any absolute value 2.40 was inte reted as sig-
nificant (p <.01) in the female sample. Any absolute v z u e 2.36 was
interpreted as significant in the male sample (p <.01).
CSignificant. Contributes to the second-order factor of anxiety.
dsignificant. Contributes to the second-order factor of extraversion.

a relationship that was not significant in Studies 1 and 2. The absence of other
variables in the battery mitigates against observing any kind of divergent validity,
but the findings do lend support to the possibility of an essentially constant com-
position of self-esteem from preadolescence to young adulthood in females.
Interestingly, the preadolescent males manifest the same pattern of inter-
correlations reported in Study 1 and essentially replicated among females in Study
2. Factors C and 0 appear as they did in the sample of adolescent males. Factors
A and Q3, however, did not replicate, while factor H was significant for the first
time.
GENERAL
DrscussIoN
A consideration of the present findings a t the level of second-order factors
helps to clarify their interpretation. Research into the second-order structure
of the 16PF clearly has indicated five first-order factors as markers of the second-
order factor of extraversion: A+, E+, F+, H+, and Q2-.4 As well, there are
six replicated markers for the second-order factor of anxiety. These are C-, H-,
L+, 0+, Q 3 - , and Q4+ (Cattell et al., 1970). The second-order structure for
the HSPQ is slightly different. Extraversion is identified by A+, E+, F+, H + ,
‘In Cattell’s nomenclature, + and - signs occasionally are employed in order to communicate
a pattern of high and low scores in an unambiguous fashion.
308 Journal of Clinical Psychology, April, 1982, Vol. 58, No. 2.

and Q3-. Anxiety, on the other hand, is marked by C-, D+, G-, H-, 0+,
&a-, and Q4+ (Cattell &, Cattell, 1969). A re-examination of the present findings
in this context reveals that every significant correlate of self-esteem in the three
analyses except one (the significant correlation of factor Q2 in the female sample
of Study 2) is either an extraversion (high) or an anxiety (low) factor. Reconsidera-
tion of Table 2 reveals that all three significant factors (C+, H+, and 0-) are
low second-order anxiety factors. As well, one other anxiety factor (Q4)falls just
short of significance (r = -.29, -.30 is required in order to achieve significance).
I n addition, H+ contributes to extraversion as well as to low anxiety. Three other
extraversion factors manifest weak relationships with self-esteem (A, El Q2, and
&a), but nonetheless magnitudes greater than any of the other factors and are
mentioned here because of their appearance in subsequent analyses. The results
reported in Table 3 confirm and extend this finding. I n the female sample, factors
C, H, 0, and Q4 are all anxiety factors and are significant in the appropriate di-
rections, which confirms that self-esteem consistently correlated with low anxiety.
As well, it correlated with extraversion (high) as revealed in the significant cor-
relations with factors El H, and Q2. The final significant correlate, Q2, loads on
the second-order factor of independence. Examination of the pattern of inter-
correlations among the males reveals the same pattern of high self-esteem cor-
relating with low anxiety and extraversion. The significant factors C, 0, Qs, and
Q4 are all anxiety factors, while factor A marks extraversion. The final analysis,
as noted, does not provide as clear a test of these observations as the first two,
but does confirm three anxiety factors in both samples (C, H, and 0) and two
extraversion factors in the female sample (A and H).
Thus we find that, at the level of second-order personality correlates, there
is considerable stability in the structure of self-esteem across the age range sampled.
Those inconsistencies that do exist from age to age or between sexes are all at the
first-order level. Even a t the first-order, however, there is stability. In the female
samples, the primary source traits C, H, and 0 were significant correlates of self-
esteem at three age levels. Factors C and 0 correlated with self-esteem in both
samples of males.
It is possible that, while there are similarities between the sexes in the structure
of self-esteem, interesting albeit subtle differences do exist. The data on the adoles-
cent samples reported in Study 2 do point in this direction. While as noted above,
with the exception of the significance of factor Qp in the female sample, all sig-
nificant correlates of self-esteem are either anxiety or extraversion factors, the
specific patterns among first-order factors are sufficiently different to be of interest.
Most notably, the difference between the sexes on factor QZ (self-sufficiency) and
Qa (self-concept control, cf. Table 3) may prove to be revealing in terms of under-
standing sex differences in the structure of adolescent self-esteem. The differences
on these dimensions euggest that adolescent females may derive a portion of their
sense of self-worth from satisfactory peer-acceptance, while adolescent males
do so by asserting independence.
It is the belief of the present writer that the observed pattern of relationships
among anxiety, extraversion, and self-esteem is an important one. A question
that must be answered is why these relationships occur. One hypothesis is that
there is a common set of parental training conditions that yield the observed results.
Research into the parental antecedents of these variables is limited, but a brief
examination of some related studies reveals an interesting degree of consistency.
Siegelman (1966), who worked within the framework of Roe’s (1957) theory
of the early determinants of vocational choice, has published some data that relate
parental behaviors to extraversion.
An underlying assumption of Roe’s theory is that because the child finds
loving parental behavior satisfying, he is motivated to interact with people in
anticipation of similar pleasurable experiences. Unpleasant experiences for the
child, on the other hand, resulting from rejecting parental behavior might produce
 Structural Analysis of Self-esteem 309

allxiety about, and a need to escape from, interpersonal contacts as he grows older
(Siegelman, 1966, p. 358).
Working with a sample of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-gradc males, Siegelman
reports that students rated by their peers as more withdrawn reported less loving
behavior and greater punishmcnt from their parents. These results are consistent
with those reported earlier by Siegelman (1965)) who found that extraverted
college students reported more loving mothers and fathers.
Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite, and Ruebush (1960) made a similar
attempt to investigate parental correlates in their classic study of anxiety in school
children. Because the conceptual framework of this study was different, direct
comparisons between the Siegelman study reported above and the Coopersmith
study t o be reported below are difficult. However, they did report that mothers
of highly anxious children were uncertain about their own abilities and appeared
to be concerned about maintaining a “proper” image. The mother’s affection
was more likely to be contingent upon the child’s maintenance of “good” behavior.
These mothers strongly punished aggressive behavior in their children and issued
more negative evaluations of their children’s behavior. The authors reported th a t
mothers of highly anxious children tended to evaluate their children’s behavior
more in terms of the mother’s perceptions of the standards and values of others
than on the actual capabilities or age-appropriate needs of the child.
Sarason e t al. speculate that these maternal behaviors elicit considerable
hostility on the part of the child. This in turn, because of the child’s feelings of
affection toward the parents, leads to feelings of guilt. They also argue th a t the
joint experience of hostility and guilt, especially when they are being aroused
when judgment is being passed on their adequacy (e.g., in a school testing situation)
will lead to a derogation of self-worth. Thus, we can see a situation arising th a t
simultaneously would result in high test anxiety and low self-esteem. As well,
the behavior of the mothers of highly anxious children in this sample corresponds
to the behavior of mothers of introverted children in Siegelman’s reports.
Consideration of the data reported by Coopersmith (1967) will help to clarify
this relationship further. He found that mothers of high self-esteem pre-adolescent
boys manifested characteristics that are of very real interest in the present context.
Such mothers tended to enjoy a more loving and closer relationship with their
sons than mothers of boys with lower levels of self-esteem. They showed greater
interest in their children, were more concerned about the availability of companions
and in engaging in congenial joint activities. Coopersmith notes th a t the children
appeared to interpret this interest and concern as an indication of his significance.
As well, Coopersmith found interesting differences between mothers of high and
low self-esteem boys in terms of their disciplinary practices. He found that it
was the type rather than the frequency of punishment that was related to level
of self-esteem in the child. The context in which the punishment occurred seemed
to be critical. Mothers of high self-esteem boys were judged to be more careful
and consistent in their enforcement of rules than were mothers of boys with lower
levels of self-esteem. As well, the high self-esteem mothers were more likely to
see their punishment as effective, while the sons were more likely to see their punish-
ments as deserved. Thus, it appears that the high self-esteem mothers again were
seen as expressing an interest in the child when meting out punishment-the
consistency of such action and clarity of communication of reasons apparently
were critical. Finally, mothers of high self-esteem boys were rated as being more
democratic in their child-rearing practices. Rules were laid out, limits were set,
and a n environment was created that is noncoercive within these limits and recog-
nizes the rights and feelings of the child. Conversely, in the case of low self-esteem
homes, few limits existed, those that did were not well defined, and enforcement
of these rules, weakly stated as they were, was often autocratic. Examination
of these conditions suggests, a t least on a rational basis, th a t those conditions
that foster high self-esteem are also conducive to low anxiety. Note, in particular,
310 Journal of Clinical Psychology, April, 1986, Vol. 38,N O . 2.

the relative absence of ego-threatening behaviors among the mothers of high

self-esteem children. In fact, Coopersmith reports a significant inverse relationship
between anxiety and self-esteem (r = -.67).
I n the light of findings such as these, the present writer tentatively concludes
that the observed interrelations between anxiety and extraversion variables on
the one hand and self-esteem on the other emerge on the basis of common parental
practices. Either these dimensions develop together or a chain of events takes
place whereby one or more variables participate in the development of others.
Further understanding of this situation might be gained by a reconsideration of
these findings in the light of Cattell’s source trait-surface trait distinction. The
fact that self-esteem has not appeared as a source trait in the extensive analyses
by Cattell and his students suggest that it is a surface trait. I n addition, multiple
regression analyses on the three samples in Studies 1 and 2, which predicted self-
esteem from a knowledge of either 16PF or HSPQ scores, yielded high R values
(.70 to .83), a phenomenon that is possible but improbable when predicting from
a comprehensive set of source traits to another source trait.
On the basis of such an analysis, and bearing in mind that anxiety and extra-
version have been well-established as source traits, one would argue that common
parental child-rearing practices lead t o low anxiety and high extraversion which,
in turn, leads to a positive self-esteem. Such a combination of anxiety and extra-
version is likely to lead to greater social contact in a range of situations, which
will allow for increased chances for feedback that will enhance self-regard. Lower
anxiety often will mean lower guilt (lower scores on factor 0), which will mean
less tendency to worry and to turn one’s concerns into self-devaluation when
such opportunities do arise. (In fact they, too, may arise more often on the basis
of greater interpersonal contact.)
In summary, the data reported in this study point to a correlation between
anxiety and extraversion variables on the one hand and self-esteem on the other.
The present study helps to confirm others (e.g., Coopersmith, 1959, 1967; Horowitz,
1962; Many & Many, 1975) that have reported inverse correlations bet)ween mea-
sures of anxiety and self-esteem in samples of children; such a relationship has
been demonstrated over the range of 10 to 21 years of age. As well, it allows for
a more precise specification of the particular components likely to be involved,
most notably factors C, H, and 0 as measured by the 16PF, HSPQ, and CPQ.
The relationship between extraversion and self-esteem is less clear in this study
than that with anxiety and appears to be far from established in the literature.
CONCLUSION
In the judgment of the present writer, it is the origins of these interrelation-
ships that are of greatest importance t o theoreticians and practitioners alike.
On the basis of present knowledge (e.g., Coopersmith, 1967; Sarason et al., 1960;
Siegelman, 1965, 1966) it appears that anxiety and extraversion form together
as a result of common parental training practices. Parents who are warm and
accepting create a home environment that generates low anxiety (Coopersmith
and Sarason et al.). Either extraversion forms directly in the same way or emerges
as a result of lower perceived interpersonal threat created by such an environment.
I n turn, the level of self-esteem develops as a result of the first two source traits.
While the exact flow of these relationships is not certain, the fact that they inter-
relate is important.
Following through with the analysis Cattellian theory would apply, the self-
esteem measures employed in this study (and probably most others) are either a
measure of a surface trait or a loose collection of measures of parts of various pri-
mary source traits with projections onto the second-order source traits of anxiety
and extraversion (exvia in Cattell’s theory). In either case, we have a clearer under-
standing of the flow of development of the evaluative aspect of the self-concept
and a tool for analysis of reversal of low levels of self-esteem.
 Structural Analysis of Sew-esteem 311

Pending further confirmation of these results, school teachers or counselors

interested in helping people increase their level of self-regard are encouraged to
work on lowering anxiety and increasing social interaction. More specifically,
using the primary factors as a guide, helping a person to achieve greater personal
maturity and a lower level of disorganized general emotionality (factor C-),
aiding in overcoming shyness in social contacts (A-, H-), and lowering ten-
dencies to worry excessively (0+) should increase self-esteem. Of particular in-
terest is the fact that factor 0 (guilt proneness) correlated significantly negatively
with self-esteem in each of the five instances reported (three female samples plus
two male samples). Thus, it appears to merit special recognition for further study
by researchers and potential therapeutic use b y practitioners. As well, the fact
that H is both an anxiety (in its H- manifestations) and extraversion (H+)
factor suggests that it, too, is worthy of careful examination.
REFERENCES
BECK,A. T. Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspeds. New York: Harper & Row,
1967.
CATTELL, R. B. Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson: World
Book, 1957.
CATTELL,R. B., & CATTELL, M. D. The high school personality questionnaire. Champaign, 111.:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1969.
CATTELL,R. B., EBER,H. W., & TATSUOKA, M. M. Handbook for the sixteen personality fador
questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.
COAN,R. W. Child personalit and developmental psychology. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook
of multivariate experimentdpsychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
COOPERSMITH, S. A method for determining types of self-esteem. Journal of Abnormal and Social
PSychOlOgy, 1959, 69, 87-94.
COOPERSMITH, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967.
HOROWITZ, F. D. The relationship of anxiety, self-concept, and sociometric status among fourth-,
fifth-, and sixth-grade children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 66, 212-214.
MANY,M., & MANY,W. The relationship between self-esteem and anxiety in grades four through
eight. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 36, 1017-1021.
MEDINNUS, G. R., & CURTIS,F. J. The relation between maternal self-acceptance and child ac-
ceptance. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 542-544.
ROE,A. Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957,4,212-217.
ROGERS,C. Client-eentered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.
SARASON, S. B., DAVIDSON, K. S., LIGHTHALL, F. F., WAITE,R. R., & RUEBUSH, B. K. Anxiety
i n elementary school children. New York: John Wiley, 1960.
SIEaEmAN, M. College students' personality correlates of early parent-child relationships. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 558-564.
SIEaELMAN, M. Loving and punishing parental behavior and introversion tendencies in sons.
Child Development, 1966, 37, 985-992.
VANCE,J. J., & RICHMOND, B. 0. Cooperative and competitive behavior as a function of self-
esteem. Psychology i n the Schools, 1975, 12, 225-229.