Parental Behavior and Dimensions of Adolescent Self-Evaluation

Author(s): Viktor Gecas

Source: Sociometry, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1971), pp. 466-482
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786193 .
Accessed: 15/11/2014 10:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociometry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Sociometry
1971, Vol. 34, No. 4, 466-482

ParentalBehaviorand Dimensionsof
AdolescentSelf-Evaluation
VIKTOR GECAS
WashingtonState University
The focus of the studyis on the relationshipbetweentwo dimensionsof
parentalbehavior:supportand control,and the adolescent'sself-evaluation.
Drawingon sociologicaltheorywhichstressestheimportance
of theevaluative
othersin the developmentof the individual'sselfbehaviorof significant
evaluation,it was hypothesized
that bothparentalsupportand parentalcontrolwould be positivelyrelated to adolescentself-evaluation.
The findings
strongly
supportedthe firsthypothesisbut not the second.Two foci of selfevaluationwere identifiedthroughfactoranalysis: Power and Worth,and
werefoundto be relted to supportbut not control.Both the level of selfevaluationon powerand worthand the relationshipsbetweenthe parental
and the selfvariablesvariedsomewhatby social class and by sex of parent
The findings
wereinterpreted
and respondent.
as givingadded supportto the
interactionist
proposition,that the self-conceptarises throughinteraction
with significant
others,by pointingto the behavioraldimensionespecially
salientin thisrespect,parentalsupport. The studyalso suggeststhe importance of focusingon specificcontentsof self-evaluation,
such as powerand
worth.
A basicpremiseofsymbolicinteraction
theoryand relatedcognitive
orientationsin sociologyis that the self-concept
developsin responseto the reactions of others.Cooley's metaphorof the "looking-glassself" and Mead's
conceptualizations
of the "generalizedother"and the processof role-taking
rootedtheemergence
and maintenance
of theselfin social interaction
through
theindividual'sassessmentand internalization
of the evaluativeresponsesof
others.Researchemanatingfromthis traditionhas consistently
tendedto
supportthis centralproposition(cf. Couch, 1958; Denzin, 1966; Kemper,
1966; Maehn et al., 1962; Miyamotoand Dornbusch,1956; Preiss, 1968;
Quarantelliand Cooper, 1966; Sherwood,1965). The more relevantresearch concernnow is to specifywhichaspects or dimensionsof the selfconceptare affected
by whattypesof social influences.
* Appreciation
is extendedto ReubenHill forhis assistancein the formulation
of the
studyand to DarwinThomas and AndrewWeigertfor theirsuggestions
and critical
ofearlierversions
comments
ofthispaper.
466

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT SELF-EVALUATION

467

researchhas, in fact,been towardgreaterspecifiThe trendin self-concept

cation (cf. Wylie,1961, 1968 forexcellentreviewsof thisliterature).In the
threeextensivemonographs
have beenpublishedin
area of familyinteraction
recentyearswhichattemptto specifysalientparentalbehaviordimensions
as
theyrelateto thechild'sself-concept.
Rosenberg,1965; Coopersmith,
1967;
and Bachman,1970. In a sampleof highschoolboys and girlsin New York
to be relatedto parentalinterestin
state,Rosenbergfoundhighself-esteem
the child,interestin his friends,his academicperformance,
and his contributionto mealtimeconversations.
Similarly,Bachmanfoundhighself-esteem,
in a nationalsample of 10th grade boys, to be positivelyassociatedwith
"good" familyrelations-"good" familyrelationswerecharacterized
by such
thingsas affection
betweenfamilymembers,commonactivities,fairness,inclusionof childrenin familydecision-making.
Coopersmith,
dealingwith a
slightlyyoungerpopulation(5th and 6th graders),foundthreegeneralconin the child: (1) parentalacditionsto be associatedwithhighself-esteem
ceptanceof the child, (2) clearlydefinedand enforcedlimitson the child's
behavior,and (3) the respectand latitudeforindividualaction that exists
withinthe definedlimits.Coopersmith'sfindingsare of special interestin
the emphasistheyplace on parentalcontrol,along withparentalacceptance
Taken together,
and affection,
the child'sself-esteem.
as a variableaffecting
as
well
as a comparathefindings
and Bachman,
of Rosenberg,Coopersmith,
tivestudyof PuertoRican and Americanyouthby Gecas et al., (1970), point
to the importance
of certainparentalbehaviorpatternsforthe development
of thechild'sself-evaluation-primarily
to theimportance
of parentalsupport
and control.
Takingour lead fromtheseinvestigators
and fromthe social-psychological
in the development
theorywhichstressestheimportance
of social interaction
of the self-concept,
the presentpaper examinesthe relationshipbetween
parentalcontroland supportand adolescentself-evaluation.
In this respect
thisstudyis similarto thoseof Rosenberg,Coopersmith,
and Bachman,and
will constitutea replicationof theirworks.Supportas well as controlare
expressions
ofparentalconcernand interest
in thechild,and bothare hypothesized to be positivelyassociatedwiththe child'sself-evaluation.
However,the presentstudygoes beyondpast studieson these variables
in its treatmentof the dependentvariable: self-evaluation.
Self-evaluation
or self-esteem
is typicallytreatedas a unidimensional
variable referring
to
the individual'soverall feelingsabout himself.It is here definedas the
individual'sconceptionofhimselfin termsof variousqualitiesand attributes.
This is certainlylegitimate.However,there is considerableadvantage to
anchoringthe individual'sconceptof himselfto key contentsor fociof selfevaluation,One reasonforthisspecification
is that thesedimensionsof self-

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

468

SOCIOMETRY

relatedto othervariables,such as parental

evaluationmay be differentially
supportand control.
Two contentsor foci of self-evaluation
whichappear to have theoretical
relevanceas well as empiricalgeneralityare the dimensionsof powerand
worth.These referto the person'sfeelingsof competence,
effectiveness,
and
personalinfluenceand his feelingsof personalvirtueand moralworth,respectively.Ernest Becker (1962) views the individual'sfeelingsof power
as thekey elementin his psychologicalstability.He arguesthat man as an
active animal defineshimselflargelyin termsof the effecthe has on his
environment.
When this feelingof confidence
in one's powerbreaksdown it
is oftenaccompaniedby seriousrepercussions
throughout
the self system.
Beckerconsidersalienationand schizophrenia
to be two manifestation
of the
person'sfeelingofpowerlessness.
Adler(1927) consideredthe"will to power"
as themodusoperandiof man as a social being.Foote and Cottrell's(1955)
conceptof "interpersonal
competence,"whichtheydefineas the abilityto
produceintendedeffects(p. 38), and White's(1965) "senseof efficacy,"
both
stresstheimportance
forthe selfof beinga causal agentin the environment
(cf. Smith,1968, fora good reviewof theoryand researchon competence).
a person'sfeelingof moralworth,to use Gordon's(1968) term,
Similarly,
is an importantelementin his self-conception
and psychologicalmake-up.
Various psychologicaldisorders,especiallypsychoticdepression,are characterizedby feelingsofworthlessness,
personalcontempt,
and suchotherconceptionsof oneselfas an evil, wretchedperson (Diggory, 1966; Sullivan,
with
1953). In fact,researchon theselfhas tendedto equate self-evaluation
thisdimension,
to theneglectofthepowerdimension.
'Both dimensionsof self-evaluation(SE) are expected to be similarly
relatedto parentalsupport-a positiverelationship.But SE-Worthis expected to be morestronglyrelatedto controlthan is SE-Power,although
thereshouldbe a positiverelationshipforboth. The rationalefor this hyis the idea impliedby development
such
pothesizeddifference
psychologists
as Maslow (1954) and Bruner (1961) that the individualneeds to have
in orderto experiencehimselfas a component,
morefreedomfromconstraint
effective,
powerful
person,thanhe needs to experiencehimselfas a good person,even thoughthesetwoevaluationsof selfare of courserelated.'
The available researchsuggeststhat both the sex and the social class
of individualsaffectpatternsof parent-childinteractionand individuals'
That parentsact differently
self-evaluation.
towardtheirchildrendepending
1 This hypothesisis highly speculative since contraryevidence is available. Baumrind
and Black (1967), in a study of competence in nurseryschool children,found that
parents of the competent children were more controlling,demanding, communicative,
and loving than were the parents of the less competentand self-reliantgroups.

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT SELF-EVALUATION

469

on the sex of the childis a commanobservation(Douvan and Gold, 1966;

Becker,1964; Dropplemanand Schaefer,1963; Sears et al., 1957). It is
almostas commonlyobservedthat patternsof socializationdifferaccording
to social class. Middle-classparents are usually reportedas being more
towardtheirchildren,whilelower-classparents
supportiveand affectionate
place greaterstresson obedienceand relymoreheavilyon physicalpunishment
1958). Less informationis available on
(Kohn, 1969; Bronfenbrenner,
of individuals.Rosenberg(1965),
in self-evaluation
social class differences
evaluationof groupsin society
arguingfromthepositionthatthedifferential
of groupmembers,proposedthat
shouldbe reflectedin the self-evaluation
than those
membersof the upperclasseswouldhave higherself-evaluations
of lowerclasses. His findingsshoweda weak relationshipin this direction.
We would expectthis relationshipto hold in the presentstudy,especially
on the dimensionof SE-Power.
researchavailable indicatingthe importanceof sex and
There is sufficient
socialclasson thevariablesand relationships
underinvestigation
to necessitate
theinclusionof thesevariablesin theresearchdesign,eitheras controlsor as
explanatory
variablesin theirown right.They are treatedin bothcapacities
in the presentstudy.
METHOD

The subjectsforthe studywere620 adolescents,mostly16 to 17 yearsof

area of
age,selectedfromfivesuburbanhighschoolsaroundthemetropolitian
which
obtained
by
questionnaire
Minnesota.
All
of
the
data
were
Minneapolis,
was administered
to the studentsin the classroom.The specificclasses used
in each schoolwere selectedon the basis of the degreeto whichtheyconsuch as English,Civics,
stitutedrequiredcoursesin the school'scurriculum,
and History,ratherthan Home Economicsor Typing.It was feltthat this
as well as minimizethe chancesof
wouldinsurea moreevensex distribution
systematicbias occurringfromthe selectionof specializedcourses.
MeasuresofSelf-Evaluation
is a modifiedversionof Osgood'ssemantic
The measureof self-evaluation
whichhas been used to drawout the
differential
(1962, 1964), an instrument
connotativemeaningsof symbolsand has been applied to a wide rangeof
concepts.The concept"myself"was measuredby twelvebipolar pairs of
scale. Some of the itemswere
Likert-type
adjectives,each set on a five-point,
borrowedfromOsgood's list and otherswere added to fit the particular
"as you
populationbeingstudied.The subjectswereasked to ratethemselves,
think
of
on
each
of
the
twelve
adjective
pairs.
yourself,"
ordinarily

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

470

SOCIOMETRY

The focusofOsgood'sworkhas beenon developing

a stableand reproducible
set of dimensions(factors) withinwhichmeaningful
judgmentsare made.
work three factorshave emergedwhich
From his extensiveexperimental
appear to be stable across samplesof subjects,even across cultures.These
have been labeled "evaluation,""potency,"and "activity."But even though
thesefactorswerefoundstableacrosspopulations,Osgood'sevidenceindicates
thattheydo notholdacrossconcepts.That is, thetypeofconceptbeingjudged
affectsscale meaning.Furthermore,
Osgood foundthat such concept/scale
interaction
is especiallylikelyto occurwithpersonalityconcepts.In a study
usingpersonalityconcepts,such as, "me," "my mother,""my best friend,"
Osgood (1962) identifiedthe factorsto emergemost distinctlyfromtheir
factoranalysisas "morality,""volatility,"and "toughness."These findings
led Osgood to suggestthat theremay be a commonsemanticsystemwithin
whichpersonalityconceptsare described.
The presentstudyoffers
somesupportto Osgood'scontention.
The semantic
differential
itemswere factoranalyzedby varimaxrotationand two factors
appearedmostprominently
(cf. Table 1). These have been labeled "power"
and "worth."The firstfactorcorresponds
to Osgood's"potency"factor,and
the second is similarto his "morality"factor.A thirdfactorwas weakly
present,whichwas tentatively
labeled "adjustment."The itemsconstituting
thisfactortendedto be unstable.For thisreason,and because the factorhad
less theoretical
relevancethan the firsttwo,it is not included.
On the basis of the factoranalysis,threeself-evaluation
scales were constructed:GeneralSE, SE-Power,and SE-Worth.The resultsof theprincipal
factorloading,Table 1, indicatethat all but one of the scale items (restrained/impulsive)
had a highenoughinter-correlation
to justifycombining
themintoa GeneralSelf-Evaluation
scale. The itemloadingson theprincipal
factorrangedfrom-.51
to .72,witha meanloadingof .63. Factorloadingsfor
SE-Powerrangedfrom.54 to .76 for the fiveitemscomprisingthe scale:
POWERFUL, CLEVER, ATTRACTIVE, CONFIDENT, INTELLIGENT.
For SE-Worththeloadingsrangedfrom.56 to .72 acrossthethreescale items:
HONEST, GOOD, DEPENDABLE.
MeasuresofControland Support
The independent
variables,parentalcontroland support,were measured
by the Bronfenbrenner
Parent Behavior Questionnaire(BPB) (Rodgers,
1966). The BPB requiresthatthechildanswerquestionsabout how his parents acted towardhim.The utilizationof children'sperceptionsof parental
in self-conception,
behaviorto explaindifferences
ratherthanmeasuresbased
upon behaviorof parentsas reportedby themor as observedby the inwas suggestedby the theoretical
vestigator,
positionadoptedin this paper.

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT

471

SELF-EVALUATION
TABLE 1

Factor Analysisof Self-EvaluationItems

Principal
Factor
Loading

Varimax Factor Matrix

Three Factor Solution
III
Adjustment

Item
Variance

I
Power

II
Worth

Powerful-powerless
Clever-foolish
Attractive-unattractive
Confident-unsure
Intelligent-stupid

.64
.72
.66
.54
.76

.16
.09
.19
.27
.12

.18
.14
.18
.33
.12

.52
.55
.51
.57
.61

.62
.57
.63
.70
.59

Honest-dishonest
Good-bad
Dependable-undependable

.03
.16
.23

.72
.71
.56

.17
.27
.36

.58
.61
.51

.51
.59
.64

Happy-sad
Active-passive
Restrained-impulsive
Keep trying-quit easily

.25
.41
.10
.33

.45
.34
.36
.43

.40
.48
.57
.35

.63
.62
.70
.53

.68
.72
.24
.68

23.14

20.15

14.24

57.52

Item

Factor Variance

From the symbolic interactionperspective,it is less relevant to establish the

nature of the actual environmentto which the individual is exposed than to
ascertain the distinguishingfeatures of his perceived world. Since the child
interpretsthe interactionbetween himselfand his parents,it is his own definition of the situation that is most significantfor him.
The BPB was chosen with this in mind. In the "short form" of the instrument, the factors called "support" and "control" are each measured by the
sum of four items. A typical item in the Support Scale is, "If I have a problem, I can count on (him/her) to help me out," and one for the Control Scale
reads, "If I don't do what is expected of me, (he/she) is very strictabout it."
The subjects were asked to respond to these items for each parent on a fivepoint Likert-typescale rangingfrom"never" to "very often." Rodgers (1966)
reportedthe average inter-itemcorrelationsformothersupport and controlas
.69 and .62, and for father support and control as .73 and .63 respectivily.
The correlationsfor sub-scale scores for control and support between parents
was .65 and .55 respectively.
Inter-itemcorrelationswere also computed for the present study. The internal consistency coefficientsfor mother support have a mean of .57, and
for mother control a mean of .33. For the father the coefficientmeans are
.56 for support and .41 for control. The correlations between parents for
support and control sub-scales is .47 and .57 respectively.These coefficients

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIOMETRY

472

tendto be lowerthan thosereportedby Rodgers.However,theyare quite

withthosereportedby Weigertand Thomas (1970).
consistent
MeasureofSocial Class
The indicatorused to measuresocial class was father'soccupation.This
was coded into nine categoriesrangingfrom"unskilledworker"to "profeswere
"blue collar"occupations,
constituting
sional."The firstfourcategories,
used to signifythe Lower-Classgroup,whilethe fivecategoriesconstituting
"whitecollar" occupationsrepresentthe Middle-Classgroup.
Data Analysis
relationships
of thehypothesized
The statisticused to testthe significance
is analysisof variance,and the measureof associationis Pearson'sr. The
resultsof both the two-wayand the three-wayanalyses are presentedin
betweenperceivedparentalbehaviorand adoorderto showtherelationships
both across the variablesof sex and social class as
lescents'self-evaluations
well as withinthesevariables.In the two-wayanalysisof variance,sex and
socialclass are treatedas controlvariablesbearingon the question:To what
extentdoes the relationshipbetweenparentalbehaviorand adolescentselfevaluationvary by sex of the respondentand familysocioeconomicstatus?
In the three-wayanalysisof variance,thesebecome independentvariables
and familysocial class
addressedto thequestion:How are sex of respondent
the hypotheseswere
although
Thus,
self-evaluation?
relatedto adolescent
bothof thesevaristatedwithoutregardto sex or social class of respondent,
ables are consideredin the data analysis.
FINDINGS

An overallinspectionof the findingspresentedin Tables 2 through5 rerelatedto thevarious

and consistently
veals thatparentalsupportis strongly
The F ratios for parentalsupport
measuresof adolescentself-evaluation.
at the .001 level for GeneralSE, SE-Power,and
(Table 2) are significant
supportis morestrongly
SE-Worth.Of the twosub scales of self-evaluation,
related
relatedto SE-Worththanto SE-Power.In fact,it is not significantly
to SE-Power for boys under conditionsof maternalsupport,the single
relationshipbetweensupportand self-evaluationthat is not statistically
significant.
is significantly
relatedto Genthatsex of respondent
It is also noteworthy
withgirlshaveral SE and SE-Worth,at the .01 and .001 levelsrespectively,
inghigherSE meanscoresthanboys.Whensex ofparentis consideredin comvariationsemerge.In
binationwithsex of child (Table 3) a fewinteresting

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT SELF-EVALUATION

473

forgirls
general,therelationship
betweenparentalsupportand SE is stronger
thanboys (forgirls,r - .46, .38, .42 on thethreemeasuresof SE vs. r = .37,
apparentin Table 3 is that the in.24, .37 forboys). Anotheruniformity
fluenceof parentalsupportis strongestfor the same-sexchild and weaker
forthe cross-sexchild.That is, maternalsupportis morestronglyrelatedto
girls'self-evaluation
thanit is to boys',and paternalsupporthas a stronger
thanto thatof girls.This appearsto be
relationship
to boys' self-evaluation
true for GeneralSE, SE-Power,and SE-Worth.The influenceof parent's
of self-evalueffect
on thedimensions
genderis also evidentin thedifferential
ation. Maternalsupporthas a strongeffecton SE-Worth,whereaspaternal
supportis morestrongly
relatedto SE-Power.
unrelatedto self-evaluation.
Control,on theotherhand,is almostuniformly
The one exceptionis therelationship
betweenfathercontroland GeneralSE
forboys,whichis statistically
significant
at the .05 level.Even here,however,
the correlation
coefficient
is only .18, substantiallylowerthan most of the
The predictionthat controlwould be more
supportand SE relationships.
strongly
relatedto SE-Worththanto SE-Poweris notsupportedeither.If anything,controlis slightlymorestronglyrelatedto SE-Power,and in the case
is almostsignificant
at the .05 level. This
mentioned
above, the relationship
couldbe interpreted
as givingmildsupportto Baumrind'sfindings(cf. footnote1).
effect
was foundforany of the
It shouldbe pointedout thatno interaction
two-wayor three-wayanalyses. This indicatesthat the combinationsof
control,support,sex, and social class do not produce distincteffectson
different
in kind fromtheir separate effects.
self-evaluation
on onlyone dimension,
Social class appearsto be relatedto self-evaluation
SE-Power.Table 4 showsthatmiddle-classrespondents
have slightlyhigher
SE-Power means than do lower-classsubjects (p < .05). General SE and
across social class. Withinsocial class
SE-Worthdo not vary significantly
betweenparentalcontroland support
categories(Table 5), the relationships
withthosereportedin Tables 2 and 3,
and themeasuresof SE are consistent
namely,supportis stronglyrelatedto the dependentvariablesand control
however,variesby social class. The
is not.The strength
of the relationships,
in Table 5 indicatethateven thoughparentalsupport
correlation
coefficients
is morestronglyrelatedto SE-Worththan it is to SE-Powerin both social
classes,the relationshipbetweensupportand SE-Worthis strongerin the
middle-class(r .63), whilethatbetweensupportand SE-Poweris stronger
in the lower-class(r = .49).
meaA sex-within-class
analysison parentalbehaviorand self-evaluation
sureswas also run,althoughthetablesare notpresentedhere.For all but two
sets of conditionsthe relationships
reportedin Tables 2 through5 werenot

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 2

Self-EvaluationMeans by Sex and ParentalSupport and Con

Gir

Boys

Control
Low

GeneralSE

Support

Contro
Low

High

High

216.8

219.1

High

223.7

Low

202.4

205.0

Low

207. 7

Control

Support

Contr

Low

High

High

94.4

94.2

High

93.8

Low

88.4

89.5

Low

88.8

SE-Power

Low

Contro

Control
Low

High

High

62.1

63.0

High

65. 0

Low

58.5

57. 7

Low

61.8

SE-Worth
Support

* F significant
at p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p <

.001; n.s. =

Low

not significant.

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT

SELF-EVALUATION

475

TABLE 3
F Values and correlationCoefficients
for Self-EvaluationDimensionsby Parental,Mother,
and Father Support and Control for Boys and Girls
General SE
Girls

Boys
F

Pearson's r

Pearson's r

Parental

Control
Support
Interaction

.70
12.01***
.00

.15
.37

. 18
21.46***
.24

.04
.46

Mother

Control
Support
Interaction

.19
6.73**
.46

.11
.33

.01
14.12***
.42

.03
.42

Father

Control
Support
Interaction

4.79*
6.46*
.43

.18
.32

3.69
5.42*
.35

.11
.28

SE-Power
Parental

Control
Support
Interaction

.20
5.19*
.25

.18
.24

Mother

Control
Support
Interaction

.02
2.67
.46

.04
.17

.02
5.61*
.38

.05
.30

Father

Control
Support
Interaction

3.61
6.28*
.51

.19
.30

2.30
5.32*
.42

.13
.28

.04
12.34***
.34

.09
.38

SE Worth
Parental

Control
Support
Interaction

.12
12.70***
.36

.07
.37

.04
16.78***
1.49

.03
.42

Mother

Control
Support
Interaction

.21
9.53**
.62

.02
.35

.63
13.84***
.31

.12
.48

Father

Control
Support
Interaction

2.11
7.39**
.58

.17
.32

.84
6. 00*
.29

.06
.28

* Analysis of variance for these relationshipswere significantat p < .05; ** p < .01;
.001.

*** p <

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 4

Self-Evaluation
Means by Social Class and ParentalSupportan
LowerClass

Middl

Control
General SE

Support

Con

Low

High

High

221.7

220.2

High

220.9

Low

203.5

206.1

Low

207.3

Low

Control
SE-Power

Support

Con

Low

High

High

93.8

93.5

High

94.5

Low

87.0

87.5

Low

90.9

Low

Control
SE-Worth

Support
* F significantat p < .05; ** p <.001;

Con

Low

High

High

65.2

63.4

High

63.9

Low

59.6

60.0

Low

59.4

n.s. =

not significant.

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Low

ADOLESCENT

477

SELF-EVALUATION

TABLE 5
forParentalControl,Support,and SE by Social Class
Correlation
Coefficients
Lower Class (r)

Middle Class (r)

General SE

Control
Support

.03
.64**

.01
.60**

SE-Power

Control
Support

.00
.49**

.01
.31*

SE-Worth

Control
Support

.04
.56**

.02
.63**

* Analysis of variance for these relationshipswere significantat p < .01; ** p < .001.

forvariouscombinations
of sex of parent,sex of child,
different
substantially
whichneed qualification,
however,are
and social class. The tworelationships
(a) fathercontrolrelatedto SE-Power,and (b) mothersupportrelatedto
SE-Power.The sex-within-class
analysisrevealedthatfathercontrolis signifiboys (p < .01), butnot significant
cantlyrelatedto SE-Powerforlower-class
boys.Mothersupport,whichwas reportedin Table 3 as sigformiddle-class
analysis
nificantly
relatedto SE-Powerforgirlsbutnot forboys,upon further
forlowerand middle-class
was foundto be significant
girlsand forlower-class
boys (p < .01), but quite unrelatedfor middle-classboys.
The overalleffectof social class on the parentalbehaviorand the selfevaluationvariablesis depictedin Table 6. Middle-classrespondentshave
slightlyhigherSE means than do lower-classsubjects,especiallyfor SEand
Power.They also perceivetheirfathersas somewhatmore controlling
Girlsreceivemoreparentalsupsupportivethando lower-classrespondents.
portand less controlthando boys in both social classes.
TABLE 6
ScoreMeans ofParentalBehaviorand SelfEvaluationVariablesby Sex and Social Class
Middle-Class

Lower-Class
Variables

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Parental Support
Parental Control
Mother Support
Mother Control
Father Support
Father Control

27.84
28.81
14.03
14.62
13.81
14.19

28.25
27.48
14.96
14.14
13.29
13.34

27.88
29.91
13.69
15.01
14.19
14.90

30.65
28.86
15.81
14.56
14.84
14.31

208.79
89.98
59.95

214.70
90.29
63.20

212.56
92.95
60.82

219.53
93.34
63.85

General SE
SE-Power
SE-Worth

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

478

SOCIOMETRY
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

like
The positiontakenin this studywas that a person'sself-evaluation,
otheraspects of his self, emergesand is maintainedin social interaction.
In theprocessof socializationthe individualinternalizesthe ideas and attipersonsin his life.This appliesto attitudes
tudesexpressedby thesignificant
expressedtowardhimselfas wellas towardotherobject.As a result,he comes
similarto thoseexpressed
to respondto himselfand to developself-attitudes
othersin his life.Amongthe mostimportant
towardhim by the significant
significant
othersforthe developingchild are his parents.2If the childperceives his parent'sbehaviortowardhim as expressingpositiveevaluation,
support,and directionhe will evaluatehimsuchas, love,concern,attention,
self positively.
parentalsupportwas
Of thetwocategoriesof parentalbehaviorconsidered,
related to the adolescent'sself-evaluation,
while
found to be consistently
parentalcontrolwas not.This was generallythe case forbothboys and girls
as well as forlowerand middleclass groups.
What are the implicationsof these findings?Althoughcaution should
correlationalstudies in causal terms,the
always be used in interpreting
findings
reportedheresuggestthatchildrenwho are raisedin familysettings
and supportfromthe parentswill develophigher
characterized
by affection
as persons,thatis, theywill tendto thinkof themevaluationsof themselves
and worthyindividuals.When the affection
and support
selvesas competent
comesfromthemother,thisis especiallytruefortheirconceptionsof themselves as personsof worth; when it comes fromthe father,it will have a
as competent
and effective
stronger
impacton theirevaluationsof themselves
of
individuals(a findingcompatiblewithParsons' (1955) conceptualization
in termsof "instrumental"
roles forhusbandsand "expresfamilystructure
sive" rolesforwives).
betweenparentalcontroland self-evaluThe failureto finda relationship
both
the theoreticalimportanceof control
ation raisesquestionsconcerning
variableand theadequacyof themeasuresofcontrolused in
as an explanatory
the study.There are reasonsto suspectthat the impactof parentalcontrol
than was meamorecomplexin its effecton self-evaluation
is considerably
suredby the studyinstrument.
Coopersmith(1967), forexample,criticized
studies.He sugtheunidimensional
conceptionof controlused in personality
components,
gested that parentalcontrolis likely to containcross-cutting
to the development
of highselfwhenit contributes
firmness
and flexibility,
in the senseof imposingwell-defined
rulesand
esteemin thechild; firmness
2 Empiricalevidenceindicatesthatparentsrepresent
significant
otherseven for their
adolescent
children:Bowermanand Kinch(1959), Brittain(1963), Thomasand Weigert
(1971).

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT SELF-EVALUATION

479

regulationson the child combinedwith flexibility

which allows the child
freedomwithinthese boundaries.
It may be thatparentalcontrolis a morecomplicatedvariablethan had
beenassumed.On theotherhand,the"flexibility"
component
mightconstitute
a separatedimensionof parentalbehaviorwhich modifiesthe influenceof
parentalcontrol(as well as supportperhaps).Such a thirdvariablehas been
postulatedby Rollins (1967), parentalanxiety,in combination
withcontrol
and support.Althoughparentalanxietyis not the same as flexibility,
it most
likelycomprisessomeof thesamebehavioralelements.Failure,in thepresent
study,to take into account the flexibility-rigidity
componentin measuring
controlmay have dilutedthe effectof controlon self-evaluation.
Perceivedparental behavior and adolescentself-evaluation,
as well as
therelationships
betweenthesevariables,wereinfluenced
by thesex and social
class of therespondents.
Girlsgenerallytendedto evaluatethemselves
higher
thanboys,especiallyon SE-Worth.This may,to someextent,be a function
of age, sincehighschoolgirlsmay stillhave a maturational
and intellectual
edge overboystheirage. The relationship
betweenparentalsupportand selfevaluationwas strongerforgirlsthanboys. The latterfindingsuggeststhat
girlshave a greaterdependenceon familyinteraction
as a sourceof theirselfconcept.
With regardto social class, middle-classrespondentsreportedthat their
fathers
weremoresupportive
and controlling.
Kohn and Carrol(1960), Bronfenbrenner
(1958), and othershave found that middle-classfathersgive
more supportto their childrenthan do lower-classfathers.The present
findingthattheyalso exertslightlymorecontrolovertheirchildrensuggests
thatmiddle-class
fathersare generallymoreinvolvedwiththeirchildrenthan
are lower-class
fathers.
The difference
betweensocialclass withrespectto selfevaluationwas not very large, similar to Rosenberg'sfindings,although
middle-class
scoredhigheron SE-Power.This finding
is interestrespondents
ingin thelightof theclass differences
foundforthestrength
of the relationships betweensupportand self-evaluation
variables.The relationshipbetweensupportand SE-Powerwas strongerforthe lower-class,and that betweensupportand SE-Worthwas strongerforthe middle-class(even though
SE-Worthwas morestronglyrelatedto supportthanwas SE-Powerin both
social classes). This means that while middle-classadolescentsevaluated
was less influencedby the
themselveshighlyon power,this self-evaluation
amountof parentalsupporttheyreceivedthanwas the lowerSE-Powerreportedbylower-class
respondents.
In conclusionthe presentstudypointsto the utilityof treatingdelimited
and forrelatingthemto the perceivedbehaviors
aspects of self-evaluation
of significant
The tworeference
othersin theindividual'senvironment.
points
foradolescents'self-evaluation
whichhave been examined,feelingsof power

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

480

SOCIOMETRY

and worth,have been foundto be differentially

relatedto parentalsupport
and to varyby sex and social class of therespondents.
Otherreference
points
forself-evaluation
mightbe profitably
considered,
suchas, self-satisfaction
or
happiness,as wellas otherpatternsofparentalresponse.The taskforresearch
in thisarea is the specification
of componentsof social interaction
and the
conditions
underwhichtheyeffect
dimensions
of the self-concept.
REFERENCES
Adler,Alfred
1927 The Practiceand Theoryof IndividualPsychology.
New York: Harcourt.
Bachman,JeraldG.
1970 Youth in Transition,
Vol. 2. InstituteforSocial Research,The University
ofMichigan.
Baumrind,
Diana, and A. E. Black
of competence
in pre1967 "Socializationpracticesassociatedwith dimensions
schoolboys and girls."ChildDevelopment
38:291-327.
Becker,Ernest
1962 "Socialization,commandof performance,
and mentalillness."American
JournalofSociology67:494-501.
Becker,
W. C.
1964 "Consequences
of Different
Kinds of ParentalDiscipline,"in M. L. Hoffman (Eds.), Reviewof Child Development
Research,Vol. I. New York:
RussellSage Foundation.
Bowerman,
C. E. and J. W. Kinch
of childrenbetweenthe fourth
1959 "Changesin familyand peer orientation
and tenthgrades."SocialForces37:206-211.
C. V.
Brittain,
1963 "Adolescent
choicesand parent-peer
AmericanSociological
cross-pressures."
Review28:385-391.
Urie
Bronfenbrenner,
1958 "Socializationand social class throughtime and space." In Eleanor E.
Maccoby,T. M. Newcomb,and E. L. Hartley(Eds.) Readingsin Social
NewYork: Holt.
Psychology.
Bruner,JeromeS.
1961 The Processof Education.Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
HarvardUniversity
Press.
Coopersmith,
Stanley
1967 The Antecedents
of Self-Esteem.
San Francisco:W. H. Freedmanand Co.
Couch,Carl
1958 "Self-attitude
and degreeof agreement
withimmediateothers."American
ofSociology
Journal
63:491-496.
Denzin,NormanK.
1966 "The significant
othersof a collegepopulation."The SociologicalQuarterly
7:298-310.
Diggory,J. C.
1966 Self-Evaluation:
Conceptsand Studies.New York: JohnWileyand Sons,
Inc.

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ADOLESCENT

SELF-EVALUATION

481

Douvan, E. and Gold, M.

1966
"Modal patternsin American adolescents." In M. L. Hoffmanand L. W.
Hoffman (Eds.) Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 2. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation 469-528.
Droppleman, L. F. and E. S. Schaefer
1963
"Boys' and girls' reports of maternal and paternal behavior." Journal of
AbnormalSocial Behavior 67:648-654.
Foote, Nelson N. and L. S. Cottrell,Jr.
1955
Identity and Interpersonal Competence. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gecas, V., D. L. Thomas and A. J. Weigert
1970
"Perceived parent child interactionand boys' self-esteemin two cultural
contexts." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 11:317-324.
Gordon, Chad
1968
"Self-conceptions:configurations
of content,"in C. Gordon and K. J. Gergen
(Eds.), The Self in Social Interaction.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kemper, Theodore D.
1966
"Self-conceptionsand the expectations of significantothers." The Sociological Quarterly7:323-343.
Kohn, Melvin
1969
Class and Conformity.Homewood, Illinois: The Dorcey Press.
Kohn, Melvin and Eleanor E. Carroll
1960
"Social class and the allocation of parental responsibilities."Sociometry23:
372-392.
Maslow, A. H.
1954
Motivation and Personality.New York: Harper.
Maehn, Martin, JosefMensing and Samuel Nafager
1962
"Concept of self and reactions of others." Sociometry 25:353-357.
Miyamoto, S. Frank and Sanford Dornbusch
1956
"A test of the symbolic interactionhypothesisof self-conception."American Journalof Sociology617:399-403.
Osgood, Charles E.
1962
"Studies of the generalityof affectivemeaning systems." American Psychologist17:10-28.
1964
"Semantic differentialtechnique in the comparative study of cultures."
AmericanAnthropologist
66:171-200.
Parsons, Talco'tt and Robert F. Bales
1955
Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press.
Preiss, Jack J.
1968
"Self and role in medical education,"in C. Gordon and K. J. Gergen (Eds.),
The Self in Social Interaction,New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Quarantelli,E. L. and Joseph Cooper
1966
"Self-conceptionsand others: A furthertest of Meadian hypothesis."The
SociologicalQuarterly7:281-297.
Rodgers, R. R.
1966
"The Cornell parent behavior description-the proposed short form."
Unpublishedreport,CornellUniversity.

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

482

SOCIOMETRY

Rollins,B. C.
in the socialization
1967 "A workingpaper on a theoryof parentalinfluence
on familytheory;
A paperpresented
at theannualsymposium
of children."
NationalCouncilon FamilyRelations.San Francisco,California.
Rosenberg,
Morris
N. J.: PrincetonUni1965 Societyand the AdolescentSelf-Image.Princeton,
Press.
versity
Sears,R. R., E. E. Maccobyand H. Levin
ofChildRearing.
NewYork: Harper.
1957 Patterns
Sherwood,
JohnJ.
28:66-81.
others."Sociometry
1965 "Self identityand referent
Smith,M. Brewster
in J. A. Clausen,(Ed.) Socializationand
and socialization,"
1968 "Competence
Society.Boston:Little,BrownandCo.
Sullivan,H. S.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Theoryof Psychiatry.
1953 The Interpersonal
Thomas,D. L. and A. J. Weigert
to significant
others:a cross1971 "Socializationand adolescentconformity
nationalanalysis."AmericanSociologicalReview (forthcoming).
A. J. and D. L. Thomas
Weigert,
analysisof Catholicadoa cross-national
1970 "Socializationand religiosity:
Sociometry
33:305-326.
lescents."
White,R. W.
in schizophrenia."
of efficacy
28:199-211.
Psychiatry
1965 "The experience
Wylie,Ruth C.
1961 The Self Concept: A CriticalSurveyof PertinentResearchLiterature.
of NebraskaPress.
Lincoln,Nebraska:University
1968 "The PresentStatusof SelfTheory"in E. F. Borgattaand W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of PersonalityTheory and Research.Chicago:
RandMcNallyand Co.

MANUSCRIPTS FOR THE

ASA ROSE SOCIOLOGY SERIES
oftheAssociation
Fellowsand Activeand Studentmembers
of 100 to 300 typed pages for
may submitmanuscripts
publicationin the ASA Arnoldand Caroline Rose Monograph Series in Sociology fo the Series Editor,Sheldon
Stryker,Departmentof Sociology, Indiana University,
Indiana47401.
Bloomington,

This content downloaded from 130.102.158.12 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:46:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions