r-------
·---------·--·-··-·-···------~-~-----
1
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
I
i
l
!
I
I
COMPARISON OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-CONCEPT FOR
It
MOBILE FIFTEEN YEAR OLD MALE MILITARY DEPENDENTS AND
CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE FIFTEEN YEAR OLD MALES
--
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
by
-
Eric I. Mackintosh
I
May, 1975
···--··.-------··-·-·-----~-----·- ........................... --- ·-~··----- .... -·-··--·-··..
··-···. --- ··---- ...
I
-------·-····-···~· --· -~-------·····--··-------··-··-·--·--···"..J
/.
r-----·"·-·-~···----·----~--~·-··-·-··-;---··-·----~-·~---=-·----~-~-----·-
•
l
I
The thesis of Eric I. Mackintosh is approved:
California State University, Northridge
.
May, 1975
ii
DEDICATION
I
This thesis is dedicated, with love, to the
I
writer's wife, who was always encouraging,
l
and to his parents, who always believed.
E. I .M.
I
I
I
L
I
l
I
l
1
j
:
I
.
.
.
J
( ..... ··--·-·····-··-·-·--------·-· ... ,_. -· ----- --.- --·- - ---~--·------··-·-·"•"•·--·-----··-·-~----·-----.---.----"--~----·-···---'--..----·--------·-·----J
iii
AC~NOWLEDGEMENTS
I The writer is especially grateful to the Adminisand the Educational Psychology Department of
I1 tration
this University for taking a chance.
I.
l
The writer takes great pride in acknowledging
1
several helpful people who gave their time and energies
I
in support of this thesis:
II
Dr. Gus Britton, Major Advisor, whose academic
excellence set a standard for which to strive.
I
Dr. Robert Docter, who taught me to dig deeply
l in
i
search of knowledgeable answers.
I
I
Dr. Vicki Sharp, who awakened in me a long dormant
j
interest in mathematics.
· Major Tom Vaughn, witho'ut whose friendship, help
and wise counsel, attending this University would have
I
I
not been possible.
United States Army, for the time necessary to earn
a Master of Arts Degree.
II
I
L··-··· ·---·· -··--·· -··-·---······-- ·····- . . . . . . ·-·····~ ................... -.............. ··--... ··- -···· ····-.. --·-··---·-· -· ............................._·····-·--···------------··---·-·-]
iv
.
r----e--..c----.---~~---e-----·------------·-----·
. -----··
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
. j
: THESIS APPROVAL • • • • • • • • •
DEDICA~ION • • •
...
.......
l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . .
....
I· LIST OF TABLES. • • • • • •
ABSTRACT . . . . . . .. . . .
........
I
p:l
..
I.
11
iii
iv
vii
ix
Chapter
I
II
.....
THE PROBLEM
1
Statement of the Problem •
• • •
Definitions.
• •••••••••••
Statement of the Hypotheses • • • • • • •
Limitations of the Study • •
• •
Organization of the Remainder
of the Thesis • • • • •
2
3
5
5
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE •
7
Looking Glass Theory • • • • • • • • • •
Research Relating to the
Looking Glass Theory • • • • •
Research Relating Mobility to the
Impairment of Self-Concept
Development • • • • • • • • •
Modeling Theory
• • • • • •
Research Relating to the
Modeling Theory. •
• • • • • • • •
Research Relating No Correlation
Between Mobility and the Impairment
of Self-Concept Development • • • • • •
Research Relating to Self-Concept
· and Academic Achievement • • • • • • •
Sununary. • . • • . . . . . • • • .
8
..
II
6
.
..
\'
I
...
lI
I
v
10
13
15
18
20
22
25
j
I
[-~~-~---------··--------~·-·--··--·--·-··
I
TABLE Of CONTENTS
i
Page
Chapter
•
III
........
METHODOLOGY.
.
Preparation for Testing • •
Samples. • • . • • • •
Instrumentation • • •
Test Administration.
Statistical Analysis
• • 27
• • • • • 27
• 30
......
IV
32
• • • • • 33
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. • • 35
Treatment of the Data • . • • • •
Presentation of the Data • • • •
V
• 27
• • • 35
• 35
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • 44
• • • • • • • • • . • • • • . . • . 44
Conclusions • • • • • • • • •
• • • . • 45
46
Recommendations. • • •
• • • • • •
Surnrnary.
.....
REFERENCES •
.
..
APPENDICES •
•
•
•
• 48
• • • 55
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~- -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ -~ -~ ~~--~~ ~-~ ~ -~-~~--~--~-~---- ~--~----~-_1
vi
L:LST OF TABLES
Page
1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP SELF CONCEPT MEAN SCORE
36
2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
MEAN SCORE
37
3
COMPUTATION OF THE MEAN OF SCHOOL
MOVES MADE BY THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP
37
4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP PHYSICAL SELF SUBSCORE
38
5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP MORAL-ETHICAL SELF
SUBS CORE
39
6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
- MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP PERSONAL SELF SUBSCORE
39
7
ANAL¥.SIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP FAMILY SELF SUBSCORE
40
8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP SOCIAL SELF SUBSCORE
40
9
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY
STABLE GROUP IDENTITY "WHAT HE IS"
SUB SCORE
41
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP SELF-SATISFACTION
"HOW.HE ACCEPTS HIMSELF" SUBSCORE
41
10
~
l
1
I
!
l
'
I
'-~-~-----~~-~-·-· ~-~-------------------~-~--~----"·~------~--------~----~---~-~-------------~-----·------~--------------~~~-----------·---------~~--- -------~~-----------~-·'
vii
L:('ST OF TABLES
Page
Table
11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE
MILITARY MOBILE GROUP AND CIVILIAN
GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP BEHAVIOR
"HOW HE ACTS" SUBSCORE
42
12
A PLOTTED COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES
OF THE MILITARY MOBILE GROUP, CIVILIAN
GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP AND COMBINED GROUPS WITH THE TENNESSEE SELFCONCEPT SCALE 14EAN SCORE
43
I .
I
viii
l
!
r------~--"'_
. .___
-----~------~--~-------.,.---·---·----------~------
1
l
1
ABSTRACT
COMPARISON OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-CONCEPT FOR
MOBILE FIFTEEN YEAR OLD MALE MILITARY DEPENDENTS AND
CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE FIFTEEN YEAR OLD MALES
by
Eric I. Mackintosh
Master of Arts in Educational Psychology
May, 1975
r
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
/•
effects of mobility on the developmental level of selfconcept and mobility's effect upon academic achievement
I.
of 15 year old mobile, military dependents as compared
I to 15 year old civilian, geographically stable boys.
I
I
A review of the literature revealed research that both
supported and refuted the theory that mobility impairs
the development of self-concept.
The subjects selected for this study were sixty
15 year old males.
Thirty were mobile, military de-
pendents and thirty were civilian geographically stable.
boys.
A modified, two group static design was used.
The Tennessee
S~lf~concept
scale was used to assess the
self-concept developmental level mean scores and the
subjects' academic file was used to assess the academic
i
'-·········-····-·------·-··----- ......................................................................... ----------- .................................. ------------------·-···---·---·-·--·--J
ix
~=i~~~m~~=a~~-:::t avera:e)--==-:~==~---"·---l
Ij
The general hypotheses for the study was there
1
, would be no significant difference in the developmental
1
I
level of self-concept and the level of academic achievement between the mobile, military dependents and the
•
civilian geographically stable males •
An analysis of variance was used to test the
hypotheses and supplemental data.
Within the framework of the hypotheses, the findings
of this study indicate that mobility, per se, has no
effect on the developmental level ',of self-concept as
measured by the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
This
study also indicated that mobility, per se, has no
effect on academic achievement as measured by the subjects' accumulated grade point average.
\_
i
~·~--- --···-~·>---·~--· -·----~-- ~
.. -·~·--·-·-~·- ···-~----··-----·- ~---- --- -·--·-··- -----· -- --~---~- -- ~ .. _____,__ --~;--..-------~-------~--~--~---------~-----------.:....--------··--·---·
X
--·--:------------------------·--·
r----~---~----------~-~·
CHAPTER I
I
THE PROBLEM
Few things man thinks, sees or feels are as important as how he thinks about himself, sees himself, and
)
feels about himself.
A person who doubts himself is like a man who
would enlist in the ranks of his enemies and
bear arms against himself. He makes his failure
certain by himself being the first person to be
convinced ot it.
Alexandre Dumas
II
I
In what arena is the child's self-concept more
I
I·
1
•
1
l
tested, between the ages of five and eighteen, than in
the schoolroom where the child must leave the family and
learn to relate to teachers, friends and antagonists who
l often
I
I
express facts and opinions which are much less
biased than those of his parents and siblings.
'
I
Add to
I
this a high degree of mobility where the school, social
and economic setting is constantly changing and it would
seem to compound the confusion in the development of the
child's self-concept.
I
I
The assumption that mobility im-
I
I
I
pairs the development of self-concept is supported by the
findings of many experimenters (e.g., Kantor, 1965;
Williams, 1965; Harris, 1969; Wooster and Harris, 1972)
~
I
lI
i
The impact of positive self-concept upon academic achieve-:
!I
ment is also well documented (Brookover, 1964; Bledsoe,
1967; Thomas, 1965; Farls, 1967).
i
L----·-··----· ......_ . __ ... ------· ·--·-·-··---·----~·-·----..----........
1
2
r·
I
-------·-----
~-·l
As educators are becoming more aware of the rela-
1 tionship between self-concept and academic achievement,
they are also seeking more information on what elements
I
effect the development of self-concept.
· Statement of the Problem
I
During the years 1965 to 1973, the United States
military forces have been constantly on the move.
The
·I
average tour for personnel with school age children was
less than two years.
Although at present tours have
stabilized, this eight year period of exceptionally high
I
j
mobility, along with the normal mobility of military life,!
must be taken into consideration in the development of
I
self concept of the military dependent child.
The problem of mobility no longer belongs exclusively to the.military.
The. population of America is on
the move and with a higher degree of frequency than ever
before.
Approximately 40 million people.or 1/5 of our
population change their home address every year {Long,
1970}.
Th~
effect of increasing mobility as a way of life
and frequent change of home and school upon the development of the child's self-concept has attracted far too
little research.
1
I
Even less research has been specifically!
directed at one of our most mobile subcultures, the
military dependent children.
Ii
!
3
r~=-~=-bee~-=~e~:::~:thi:sp:eci=up-=ve be=l
I divided
I
the
1
in their conclusions as to mobility's role in
dev~lopment
of self-concept.
Therefore, the research
I
has not strongly supported a relationship between mobility!
and self-concept development.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether
there is a positive correlation between military mobility_
and the development of self-concept in 15 year old male
military dependents of non-commissioned officers, by
comparing the military mobile group with a civilian,
geographically stable group of the same age.
Definitions
The definitions of the following terms were considered appropriate for this study:
Military Mobile Group.
Normal 15 year old male
l
II
dependents of non-commissioned officers whose fathers are
1
on active duty in the United States Air Force, and who
!
hnve attended at least six schools since starting their
education.
Civil.ian Geographically Stable Group.· Normal 15 year
old males of approximately the same social economic level
I as the Military Mobile Group who have not attended more
I
j. than one elementary school, one junior high school and
I one
high school and have not changed residence during
their schooling.
~...................
!
----- ........ ----·------.... -----------------------------------------··----·-··---·------·--··------------..-----·-.......................J
4
Social Economic Level.
The measure used was
th~
occupation of head of household (Father) based on monies
·
earned, position held, and social status of occupation.
Academic Achievement. · For this study· academic
achievement was judged by grade point average in high
I
school.
I
No consideration was given to
differe~ce
in
curriculum school wide, nor to differences in individual
·I
programs.
Self-Concept.
'
1
1
Self-concept is an abstract psycholog-1
ical construct and is generally defined to be the organ-
I
ization of all that seems to the individual to be "I" or
I "Me"
(Combs and Snygg, 1959).
According to English and
1
1,1
I. English (1958), self-concept is the self, as the individual who is known to himself.
from cradle to grave.
-
Self-concept is learned
It is the vast collection of
precepts the individual has about himself (Docter, 1974).
l
I
l
William H. Fitts .(1974) defines self-concept in the
following way:
I have used various definitions from the many
available, but have come more and more to prefer
the simplest one -- namely, the image which the
individual holds himself as a person. Of course,
this means that the operational definition becomes: The image which the individual reports.
I as
1
i
I.
In this study, self-concept is operationally defined
the total positive
~core
I
I
I
I
J
·I
on the Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale (Fitts, 1965).
.
.·
II
L-~-----~--------~--------------------------------·-----·--·---------------------------------------------'----------------··-----·----·······--------~
5
r·---------·-------·----·--------·-.
-
~
I
------~----·-·
·---------
·--·------..·----·l
Statement .of the Hypotheses
The present study was designed to test the following :
I
I
hypotheses:
1.
There is no significant difference in selfconcept developmental level between the
Military Mobile Group and the Civilian
Geographically Stable Group.
2.
achievement level between the Military Mobile
I
Group and the Civilian Geographically Stable
l
II
I
There is no significant difference in academic
Group.
Limitations of the Study
All the subjects participating in this study were
male; therefore, the results of this study would only be
generalizable to males who are similar to those in this
study.
This study was conducted in three high schools.
The two civilian schools draw their population from
middle class neighborhoods with low representation of
racial minorities.
The military school is isolated and
draws 90% of its population from the base, which in
total could be classified as a suburban, middle class
neighborhood with more of a representation of racial
minorities than the two civilian neighborhoods.
There-
fore, this study is only generalizable to schools with
1
6
r
i
,
!
!
---.---·-----
-~:mi~=ulat~~n~--------------~--.
All the male military dependents of this study
.
were children of non-commissioned officers in the grade
•
of Sergeant E5 or above. Therefore, this study is only
1
1
Ii
I
'
generalizable to a like population.
I
Organization of the Remainder of
th~
j
Thesis
The remainder of the thesis is organized .as
I
I
Chapter II is a review of the related literature.
.
,
r
I Chapter III describes the samples, measuring
procedure,
·
follows~
1
research design and statistical analysis.
Chapter IV
is the presentation and analysis of the data.
Chapter V
I
I
!
contains the summary: conclusions and recommendations of·
the thesis.
I;
i!
· L.·-------------·--···-··· ····--·-- .................................·-··--·------·--···· ....._. _____________...---------·--·····---------. _________________...........!
r
·----------~-~---~----·-------~~---
1
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
•
The focus of this study is the correlation between
milit~ry
high geographic
self-concept.
limited.
mobility and development of
Research in this area is exceptionally
Reviewing the literature on the theories of the
development of self-concept and the effect of mobility on
·the development of self-concept is the purpose of this
chapter.
The chapter will be organized under the follow-
ing main headings:
concept;
(1) the looking glass theory of self-
(2) empirical research to support this theory;
(3) review of research that correlates mobility with
impairment of self-concept development;
(4) the model
theory of self-concept; {5) empirical research to support
this theory;
{6} review of research finding no correla-
tion between mobility impairment of self-concept;
(7) review of research supporting the correlation between
self-concept and academic achievement.
Of the two
theories discussed in this chapter, the looking glass
.
-
theory of self-concept would seem to support the theory
I that
I
mobility could impair the development of self-concept.
and the modeling theory would seem to support the theory
1_:
I.
I that mobility per se would not impair the development
l
I
I
of self-concept.
li
1
I
j
-1
l~·-- -~-- -~- ~-~ ~. ~--- ________ ·-··----~--.·
'* ..
- - - · - - · · - · - - - - _________ ,_ _______ «
_________ - - - --··· · -
7
·-----------·~ -~ ,_-----~--•
-
---·-
·-~-- ---·-----~--------------~- ·------~--
l
_...,)
8
I
~--L:~~:7::·~:=r~o~~~=~~velopment
!
This theory of the development of self-concept holds
Ii
1
.
that the self-concept 1s
a product of the reflected
appraisals of others, especially significant others.
Cooley (1922) described it as the looking glass self.
William James (1880) first described this theory in
I. his
Principles of Psychology, when along with the self
as known and the self as ·knower, he proposed a social
self which was the recognition man receives from his
, peers.
I
Properly
1
j
speaking a man has many social selves
as there are individuals who recognize him and
'
/
~~~~n:no~m~~:s~fi~~e!ni~h~~rw~~~~shimTo[;~u~~4].
i.
I
The theory by James that one's belief regarding what .
others think of him will effect man's self-concept, aptly
describes part of the reflec.tion theory.
·I
c.
I
J
H. Cooley
(1922) described James' social self as a reflected or
"looking glass" self in which Cooley said each·man has
I
l
some idea of what he looks like and some imagination of
how others judge he looks.
1
l
l
1
The self-idea of this sort seems to have three
principle elements: the imagination of our
appearance to the other person; the imagination of his judgment of that appearance and
some of the self feeling, such as pride or
mortification [p. 184].
Cooley also believed that the character and weight of
1
1•.
I
the others in whos·e mind we see the reflection makes a
:
i
l ______ ---------·---------.-·-·-·----·----·-··--~-----· ·--·------------ ------- -----------·-------.---.·---.-----·---·--------..---"·-------·--·------------....
'
9
.
r------------~----~------·-- --~-~-------·-------------
--
1 great deal of difference in·our judgment of ourself.
I~
. I
Cooley's writings, it is difficult to ascertain the exact :
j
l: importance he attaches to the nature of others.
It is,_
however, clear that not all others are equal in deter-
!
mining the individuals self-concept.
I
I is
Mead (1934) described the self as a character that
completely different from the psychological organism
proper.
The self is something which has a development;
it is not initially there, at birth, but arises
in the process of social experience and activity,
that is, develops in the given individual as a
result of his relations to that process as a
whole and to the other individuals within that
process [p. 135].
_Mead further stated that no individual experiences himself directly, only indirectly from the view-point of
other members of the same social group or from the
_generalized view point of that social group to which he
belongs.
Here, M?ad introduces the concept of
generalized others.
In the development of the self-concept theory, a
final and important concept is attributed to Sullivan
(1953).
With Sullivan's development of the interpersonal
theory of psychiatry, a theory noted for its exclusive
emphasis on the role of interpersonal relationships in
the development of self-concept, came the "significant
other".
His application of the term, because of his
primary interest
L____________________________
-----------------
in the socialization of the infant and
.I
i
10
t:~~d~-=~- res tr::ted-: p : =ts~-
Howeve", "significant
10ther" has been gradually extended to include all those
l
lwho are instrumental in the
!
j
•
~ormation
of the individuals
1
I
'
:
!self-concept.
Argyle (1967) points out three ways in which the
,self image develops: by comparing ourself with others
I
lwell.known to us, by learning about ourselves from the
I
!reactions of others, and by the various roles we play and
!
.
/
jhave played.
All of the above theories on the development of the
Iself-concept
l
call for the child to read the reflection of
l
I
jhimself from the minds of others, generalized others or
significant others.
It is suggested that the military
,child cannot fully utilize this qoncept of self-concept
I
. !development for the constant change of friends, teachers
I
I
I
land environment would present him with an ever changing
audience that cannot have the instructive value to him
that a stable reference group would have.
Research and Empirical Evidence Relating to the Correlation
!Between Significant Others and Development of Self-Concept
One of the clearest of the early studies on the nature
of the self evaluation structure held by others was the
I
!Miyamoto and Dornbusch (1956).
One hundred ninety-five
!college students in group sizes ranging from 8 to 48 from
I.
jfour different living groups were asked to rate themselves
!
repeatedly on a set of four characteristics:
(1) intelli-
I
11
~-----~_ ----------------~---------'-
l
gence;
1(4)
-··-----~---------~
(2) Self-confidence;_ (3) Physical attractiveness;
Likeableness.
The subjects were asked to rate.first
I
:on their actual perception of themselves, second, their
1
I
I
l
!perception of the rating that each member of the group
!would give them and, third, their perception of how most
I
lof the group would rate them.
I
The results of this study
!indicate that the response, or at least the attitude of
others is related to self-conception.
They also indicated
that the subjects perception of that response is even more
I!closely
related and that an individual's self-conception
/is more closely related to their estimate of the generalized attitude toward them, than to the perceived atti.tude of the response of members of a particular group.
This study has become a milestone in the study of self!concept within the symbolic interactionist framework.
Crouch (1958) used 98 college students to study the
relationship between self attitudes and the degree an
!individual agrees with his estimate of an immediate
others evaluation when he evaluates his own performance
in a small group situation.
Crouch's findings were that
individuals who identify themselves in terms of group
membership, rely less upon the estimated evaluation of
others than do those who do not identify themselves in
terms of group membership.
He also found that females
rely more than males on their estimate of immediate
i
I
. '' "'' ·-· ,,,, ___ .. ···--"·'"' ·-··-··---------......_, __ ,, __________,,, ....~ ..------------·---..·--··-------.J
12
~- In-Ke:per~~ (1966~tud-y
Iexpectations
~conception
i
of self-conception and the
-
-lI.
of significant others, he examines the self-
of 256 male business executives and managers.
Kemper has invented the term "reference setu, taken from
IHyman's
I
"reference group" and Merton's "role set".
His
j
I
!reference set is the sum total of others, in and out of
j
I.role
I
sets, present or absent, real or imagined, individual·
or group, normative, comparitive or audience, institu1
tionally legitimate or not;
ithe individua_l.
ljof characters,
who exercise influence over
The reference set constitutes the cast
the significant others, whom the individual
I
I
!
ltakes into.account when he acts, or, to whom his behavior
lis oriented in its course.
l st~dy were wife,
The significant others in this
boss, a colleague
~nd
father.
These were
chosen by frequency of mention of important persons and
validated by asking the subjects to rank in order the ten
most important people in their life.
Kemper's findings
support the interactivist hypothesis of the relationship
between self and others and were found to depend, to a
certain extent, upon the relative importance of the other
to the respondent.
!
I who
Here again it must be postulated that
the significant others are would make a considerable
l
difference in the development of the self-concept of the
military mobile child.
Quarantelli and Cooper (1966) attempted to add to the ,
..... --·-······--·-···--·-··--···------·-······-------···-------------------J
13
telli and Cooper's findings are a replication of Miyamoto
Iand Dornbusch's
(1956) findings, that is, it is the per-
j ceived rather than the actual response of others that is
the more important in the formation of self-concept.
This holds true not only for the self-conception at a
I given
IThe data also indicated that, not only is self-definition
Ichiefly derived from the perceived rather than the actual
response of others, it is also a reflection of the perceived response of the generalized other.
Review of Research that Correlates Mobility with
Impairment of the Development of Self-concept
1
I
point in time, but also for anticipated self-rating. '
I
I
I
A longitudinal study by Kantor (1956) dealt with
residential change and found that a residential change
!:
j.with any social change upward or downward increased the
I: behavi,or
disturbances in children.
The military family,
unless moving directly from post housing to post housing,
14
r---------,--------------~-------·---'------=-·--~-----~-------~----------·----·-·----------l
l would
be constantly experiencing change, depending upon
'j
, the areas they were assigned.
For example, the home and
i
lI
social environment would greatly change in a move from
the South to California.
Williams (1965) study on the development of personality further correlates mobility with
th~
impairment of
;
His subjects were 422
II
11 year old military, mobile children, 57% of which had
I
the development of self-concept.
attended four to six schools and 16% of which had attended!
seven schools or more, and 422 civilian stable children.
When the samples were compared, the civilian stable
children were judged to be significantly higher in personality development than were the military mobile children.
Furthermore, boys were judged to be more suscepti-
ble to the disruptive effects of military life than the
girls.
Similar findings were reported by Harris
(1~69)
in his testing of 180 13 year old military and civilian
children.
Wooster and Harris (1972) found similar results in
their Concepts of Self and Others in High Mobile Service
Boys.
They used a sorting form of the repertory grid in
which photographs of boys of the same age, but unknown to
the boys, were shown to them.
The subjects were 16 year
old military mobile boys who attended an average of 5.1
primary s6hools and 2.9 secondary schools and 16 year old
,! civilian boys who had attended only one primary and one
i
'---··-------------------~ -------------~------
........... .
I
j
I
l
15
,-------~·~-----------···-------~--.--~--------~-
I secondary school.
---
'l
···---------~-·------·---·-
Wooster and Harris's results showed
Ithat the civilian geographically stable group •·ras
sig-
)nificantly better at making clear judgments involving
l
self-reference than were the military mobile group.
Imeasuring
.
I1
i
When
self-reference intensity, seven of the first ten
!were from the civilian stable group and seven of the last
i ten were from the military mobile group.
l
Using the Mann-
I
Whitney U Test, the military mobile group showed a tendencY;
greater than chance, to make lower self-reference inten1
=
lsity scores (P
l (P ~
I
I
I
=
67).
And the civilian
stable group tended to make higher self-reference scores
1
I'l
0.25 one tail, U
0.05 one tail, U
~
67).
Wooster and Harris stated:
By using vague, ill defined concepts (of self
and others) the mobile boy reduces the amount
of disturbance he meets in his interaction with
others. He will be less likely to be faced with
a discrepancy between the behavior he meets and
the behavior he expected [p. 198].
I
l
i
I
The above-studies seem to indicate that military
mobile children will suffer an impairment in the development of self-reference, self-concept and personality
development.
Model Theory of Self-Concept Development
Il
This theory of_self-concept development derives from
· the social learning theory.
1,'
I
The major architects of this
theory are Albert Bandura and Richard Walters (1963).
I Although
-
not first in their field (Dollard, Doob, Miller,
i
Miller and Sears, 1938; Dollard and Miller, 1950), they
I
16
---~
I
the Neo-Hullian point of
They rejected the rapprochement between learning
view.
theory and Freudian psychoanalytic theory.
l
They also
rejected the Neo-Hullian personality theorist's almost
exclusive use of laboratory work with animals and set up
a program of laboratory work with children.
Consequently,
their extrapolation from laboratory to "real life" phenomena is less artificial.
Bandura's modeling theory
states that a child acquires most of his behavioral
I characteristics from
I of imitating various
his attitudes, through the process
others in his environment, the
I
child's attitudes toward the self develop.
This incorpor-
ation of the behaviors and attitudes of others in the
I social
1
environment is called identification by other re-
I
j searchers.
However, Bandura (1971) states the phenomena
I
jordinarily subsumed under the labels imitation and
identification are- designated as modeling.
Modeling was adopted because its influences have a
much broader psychological effect than the simple response mimicry implied by the term imitation and the
1 distinguishing
1
.diffuse
and
properties of identification are too
arbitra~y.
In conceptualizing self-concept
1
jfrom a social learning framework, Bandura (1969) describes
I!the
!
self in terms of the relative frequency of positive
ito negative self-reinforcement.
Self-reinforcement is
·1:
i~~--~-~-·- ·--·--·---~~----·•- -···--·--~~-··•• ·-----~~------~-- --~ ·--·------ -• --------~--0
-·K-0 - - - - - - -
-~--~~--
l
I
I.
l
l
---------
~ -~--~---~
17
~~~~~ey,-·=nd~r-:~to -:::~~del:n: beh~vior
to
self-concept formation.
1
I
I
People generally adopt the standards of selfreinforcement exhibited by exemplary models,
they evaluate their own performances relative
to that standard, and then, as their own reinforcing agents, reward themselves according
to the internalized standards [p. 33].
r
In his book, Personality, Murphy (1974) states that
I
the negativism of the early adolescent is caused by the
rejection of one adult interest after another, until he
settles with his ·adolescent self.
The process is easier
with a good, clear identification object at hand.
I
Parents!
are the chief models for children at 10 to 12 years.
I 14 to 15
I models.
1
By
others move in to take the place of the chief
I
I
Murphy further states that a child who identifiesi
with a parent is engaging in some sort of process charac-
I teristic of all
·I self attributes
j
modeling behavior, that is, acquiring
through the perception and incorporation
of attributes of others.
I
Thus, according to the "modeling theory", where
self-concept formation and development depends on the
internalization of standards and attributes of the models
(in this study, the fathers) and parental self-concept
is directly related to the child's self-concept, the
military mobile child with a stable well-adjusted father
would not, because of mobility alone, suffer any impair-
! ment
I
in the development of his self-concept.
L.-----·····-·-··--··--· -·-·····------------ --·----·--···---··- ---~---·····
Palik {1966)
I
II
18
r-::;~~-s~~-·--:::~-=-~~~i ~:~:-~e~=-~-~ v~:-as -~--::~~ f~::~t
l
I phenomenon
in the lives of mobile families an~ that they
'1
I
'
Ill.. actively develop strategies to cope with it and generally
Isee themselves as
I would
successful.
One of the ways to cope
be to develop a strong close immediate family to
I provide
!
the models needed by the children.
Research and Empirical Evidence
Relating to the Modeling Theory
As in the development of the modeling theory, Albert
Bandura and associates are the most prolific researchers
1
in the field of modeling; Bandura and Huston (1961)
1
!
I
l
I
Bandura (1963) , Bandura and McDonald (1963) , Bandura (1965)'
I Bandura
I and
I
I in
In their 1963 studies, Bandura and Ross
Ross used nursery school children in the following
I manner.
1
(1971).
They exposed them to films of adults and adults
I
·
l.
person who behaved aggressively to a large inflated
Iplastic doll.
The results showed that the observer may
acquire new responses that did not previously exist in
his behavioral repertoire and exhibit a large number
of precisely matching responses.
l,
Such responses rarely
occured in children who were not exposed to the models
behaving aggressively.
The same effects of modeling
l.i
l behavior have been repeated in Bandura (1962)
I· and
Walters (1963)
1
1
Bandura
Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961), Walters,!
l
!
. '!
,
Leat and Mezei (1963), with the confirmation of modeling
'
i
19
,--~--~-~---~-----.·---------~------~-----------~------·---1
I tying the learning theory with self-concept,
self-re-
,
inforcement.
Bandura and Kuper (1964) tested the hypothesis that
,
patterns of self-reinforcement are acquired and imitative.!
I
I They
found, in exposing different groups of children to
j adult models and peer models with different criteria
Il for
self-reinforcement, that the subject's patterns and
I
I
-1
magnitude of self-reinforcement closely matched that of
the model to whom they had been exposed.
Adults
generally serve as a more powerful modeling stimuli than
do peers in transmitting self-reinforcing responses.
Jakubezak and Walters (1959) and Bandura, Ross and Ross
i.
I
I
I
I
(1963b) also found the same relative effectiveness of
models in shaping self-reinforcing responses vary as a
I function of their prestige,
competence, age, status and
I
!
social power.
Helper's (1955) study on learning theory and the
self-concept concluded that for boys,
self-concept
modeling is positively correlated with an index of
parental reward for similarity to father.
A relatively
high degree of self-concept modeling after the father,
was found to be associated with high peer status.
The
studies of Lazowick (1955) and Sopchock (1952) support
the claims that boys who incorporate their :father's
characteristics into their self-concepts tend to be
}:)~t.~~-~- ~~j \lsted
L...
than _ _
~_()Y_~---~J1o
d_()_
j
-~<?.!~---·---··-·····---··-·--··-··----··-------·-J
20
----·,
r----··------···--···c··--·'C'---·-··--~-·-----~----·----~---·-·----
1
In Reschly' s 1971 study, one: of the findings that
I provides further
I
1
support for the--social learning theory
j
I
interpretations of· personality characte-ristics is· that
•
self-esteem status was directly related to rates of
self-reinforcement.
Different rates of self-reinforce-
ment were exhibited by subjects in each of three levels
of self-esteem status determined by the Coppersmith SelfEsteem Inventory.
As the level decreased, so did the
rate of self-reinforcement.
!
I
Review of Studies Presenting No Correlation Between
!Mobility and Impairment of the Development of Self-Concept
II
The studies reviewed in this section are not all
I mobility
I
!
linked directly to self-concept, but explore
areas such as social adjustment, academic achievement,
academic self-concept; all of which are indicators of the
j
subject's self-concept.
Ramsdell (1963) studied three groups of tenth grade
students grouped in the following manner:
that had never changed residence;
changed residence once;
(1) subjects
(2) subjects that had
(3) subjects that had changed
residence -two or more times.
Using the Otis Mental
1· Ability Test, the Differential Attitude Test, grade point
I
I
averages and teacher judgment ratings, Ramsdell found no
significant difference between the three groups in ability;
!
J
l and aptitude, academic achievement, nor social acceptance •.
i
~ --~--- "~'·---~~-~---
·- ----- ·-------···-·---···-·····
····-----~ --~-~-~ -~----
!i
------- ----------- --~------ ------- --~--- -- .-----·------- -----~--~--~----- ----~-- ------ ------ --··-------~.1
21
f..~-"'-·---··~·--·------.----·-·--·---------------------~..---------------·---
!Weatherman (1964) and Burget (196~) also suggest that
-1
!geographic mobility has little effect on academic self-
!
;concept and academic achievement.
Falik (1966) matched 24 geographically stable
l
I
I
I
children!
iagainst 24 highly mobile children, both groups being evenly!
r
jmatched in intelligence, age and social economic level.
I
The two groups were compared on three measurements of
!adjustment:
{1) academic
!Iowa Test of Basic Skills;
achievement as measured by the
(2)
I
Ibehavior;
l
teacher rating of pupil
I
(3) peer ratings and social reputation in the
~classroom group.
The results of this study indicated
!that mobility was not a significant factor in the adjust-
I
'jment
I
of the subjects.
This was true for all measures of
I
Iadjustment.
Pepin (1966) concluded essentially the same results
1
in a comparison of 200 military mobile, non-military
mobile and non-mobile ninth and tenth grade students.
'
.
!There was no significant difference in standardized verbal
achievement tests, grade point averages, standardized
!mathematical achievement, and the number of personal
I
lad]ustment problems in eight out of eleven catagories on
I
!the Mooney Problem Checklist.
I
Partin's (1967) subjects
!were 262 military and 262 non-mobile students in the
I
!fourth, ninth and eleventh grade.
Partin determined there
was no significant difference in grade point level in the
I
I
1
22
r·---
-----~-~-------------------
..
-~-------------------------------------1
\, boys in the fourth and eleventh grade.
1
l
However, at the
ninth grade level, the difference did favor the non-
l
I
I
i mobile boys.
I force
I1. 101
1
Baker (1969) compared attitudes of 70 air
dependents in the ele.venth and twelveth grades with
non-mobile children and found that the mobile sub-
' jects were more inner-directed in their orientation than
the non-mobile subjects.
There was no significant dif-
£erence in their academic achievement.
I
·I
Similar results
were found by Prior (1974) in a study involving 475
I
1
children in a poor urban area of New York City.
examined for sixth grade reading score and number of
schools attended.
I
1
They were!
There were three groups:
(1) high
I
mobility group, having attended three or more schools;
{2) moderate mobility group, having attended two schools;
I (3)
non-mobile group, having attended one school.
It was
found that there was no significant difference petween
the groups in relation to reading score and mobility.
The foregoing studies would seem to indicate that the
mobile child would not suffer impairment in the development of self-concept and personality development.
Review of Research Supporting the Correlation Between
Self-:concept and Academic Achievement
LaBenne and Green (1969) present an excellent
summary of the theoretical basis upon which most of the
studies dealing wfth academic achievement and self-concept
I
l
i
L. ____________~···-· -...... ------·----........ "' --- .......... ·----------"-.. . . . -........._ ..................... _................__________________________,______ -------··---·-----'
23
"
,·
r---·--------··---"·-~---~·---~·-·---···--·····---~---------------~--------------·-l
!are based.
They define self as both process and object,
land the individual is seen to behave according to how he
l
!perceives the situation and himself at the moment of his
!
•
I act1.on.
!
They believe that self-concept is learned through
jinterpersonal interactions with significant others and it
I
lis accumulated through social experiences and contacts,
Iland
from this they see the teacher as an important agent
I·
ji~fluencing self-concept and academic achievement.
In recent years a large number of studies have been
jdirected toward the examination of the relationship beltween self-concept and academic achievement.
One of the
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
I
!
l
first to study this relationship was Jersild (1952) •
!Jersild based his work on the assumption that the school
l
.
. 1 setting
and teachers would have an impact on the student's _j
l
1
self-concept and thus effect his life.
lhe has
e~en
In later works,
suggested that teachers be encouraged to
~participate in in-service group counseling to increase
1 their
understanding and sensitivity of themselves in order
1
to be a more understanding and efficient teacher.
Brook-
i.~
over (1964) found a positive relationship between selfconcept of ability and academic achievement in a study of
lover 1,000 seventh grade students using the Self-Concept
l of
!
Ability Scale.
.
Wattenberg (1964), studying 128 kinder-
1 garten and second grade students on reading achievement
! and self-concept, found that measures of self-concept at
I
l kindergarten were good predictors of reading achievement.
L..................................... -·--.. . . --- .................................................................. -- -----· ................................................................
1
24
r---..
.
..
-----···-------~-- ---·---------------~-"~---~---~ ---~--·-----------~---~---------~~--l
lcaplin \1969) found that high academic achievement is
!correlated with high self-concept in his study of 180
I
I
1
!intermediate grade children from three different elementary'
I
!schools.
Kubiniec (1970) found the same relationship to
I
!be true in his study of 468 elementary students.
In
l
.
jFarl's (1967) study of intermediate grade students and
I
~Lewis's
(1971) study of 152 second and third grade stu-
!dents, it was found that high achievers had significantly
!higher self-concepts as students than did low achievers.
Centi (1965) tested college freshmen before school
!
!began and again after the first semester grades. One of
1
j
jhis findings was that students who received poor grades
jdropped in their self-concept level.
Irwin's (1967) study
J
!of college freshmen, using sentence completion self reports,
I
·
!concluded that there is a significant relationship between
1
and academic achievement. Mukherjee and
I!self-concept
.
·
l
Sinha (1970), using a sentence completion test with college!
l
!!students as subjects,
found that those measuring higher
I
1
on the test showed greater stability in self ratings.
l
Jones and Grienecks (1970) studied 877 college sophomores
l
and found that the following measures: grade point average,\
,S.A.T. score, self-expectancy inventory, self-concept of·
!
1
l
lability and degree of identity development \vere positively .
!related to academic achievement.
However, the self-concepti
I
jof ability was the best predictor of academic achievement. ;
i
i
'
iKeefer (1971) asked 198 college students to predict their
!
i
'--~ '----~···-·-····-··-- --·~--""
____
----·~---·-" ~---~~--~ --·-··-----~---~---------~--~·---··--·-··--·--·-.~·-···---~-----··-----··---------~-----------
'
25
"-.- -'""··- ·- - -·- .
I grades
-·-~-------~-"-
-·- :·-·-·- -·- - -·- -·- - - - - ·.-------------l
and from their predictions he found that one of
l the better dimensions which defined the accuraLe and in-
i
\
I
i accurate
predictions was that of self-concept as measured
[
i
i
l by Bill's· Index: of Adjustment and Values.
I
I
l
· Summary
A review of the literature related to the "looking
!glass" theory suggests a relationship between mobility
land the impairment of the development of self-concept
I
I
(Harris, 1969; Williams, 1965; Wooster and Harris, 1972);
!whereas a review of the literature related to the modeling
I
1 theory
I
did not reveal a significant correlation between
)mobility and the impairment of the development of self-
!
)concept (Ramsdell, 1963; Falik, 1966; Prior, 1974).
I
The two explanations for the development of self-
!! concept
are presented, not in competition with one another,(
!but with the idea in mind that the researcher's school of
thought (interpersonal,· social learning, phenomenological)
I
1
would influence his choice of test instruments, research
design and subjects, which would also influence the research conclusions.
This researcher had preconceived ideas oriented
toward the interpersonal development theory because of
his personal feelings and academic background.
Much more
research is needed in the field of the effects of mobility
on self-concept.
This research should be directed at
Ii
l1
I
26
~s~~:~fi: mob=:-~:ou~:-::~n o:~-socie:- The litera--l
l ture
reveals that self-concept is significantly related
'·
'
1
I
to academic achievement.
However, due to conflicting
findings, more research should be directed in this area.
I
l
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
i
!
L--~-- ...... ---~-------------~---------· ·-- ---------------------~------------- ---------·· ----------------- ---------------------------·------------------- ___________1
..
r-~---------~--«-------------------·····----·-··-···----· ~---:--·-~------·~····-~-----·-··
..-·--·-···-----·--------------·
I
I
CHAPTER III
I
METHODOLOGY
The purposes of this chapter were (a) to &escribe
the method of preparation for testing,
the method for obtaining a sample,
(b) to describe
{c) to describe the
instrumentation and test administration, and {d) to
describe the treatment of data and scoring procedures.
Preparation for
Testi~
Permission to conduct the testing was obtained from
the administration of each of the three high schools
volved.
To accomplish this, it was necessary to:
tact, in person, the principal of each school;
cuss the original proposal;
the collection of data;
in~
{2) dis-
(4) make selection of subjects
(5) distribute a
written parental permission form to all subjects involved
in the program.
Samples
Military Mobile Group:
To select individuals for
this group, the researcher went to Desert High School,
located at Edwards Air Force Base, California.
Desert
High School is approximately 90% military dependent
To select the
27
j
{1) con-;
(3) make tentative plans for
fitting the criteria of the proposal;
;
I
1
1
28
.
r~---,----------·---~- -------------~--·---------· -----~----~-
1
. .
.
sample needed, a meeting was called by the a dfm1n1stra
t1on
1
1·
1,:
l
of all 15 year old male boys who were sons
missioned officers.
0
non-com-
Of the. 48 volunteers, 40 met the
mobility criteria and 39 met the reading level necessary
to take the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
Of the 39
eligible to take the test, 30, the sample size chosen,
were randomly selected by a number lottery., and given a
letter of introduction (Appendix A) and a parental permission form (Appendix C) •
They were asked to obtain a
signature from their parents in order to participate in
the testing program.
A cash stipend of one dollar was
offered as an incentive for their participation in the
·I· program.
I
Civilian Geographically Stable Group:
individuals to meet the geographically stable criteria
with approximately the same social economic level as the
Military Mobile Group, it was necessary to use two high
schools; William S. Hart, Newhall, California and Canyon
High School, Canyon Country, California.
to write their name, number of schools attended, father's
occupation and a brief description of same.
Out of this
l
i,:
29
----------------------------------·
r
l
!
.
··--···------------~.-.··-···--------~--- ·----.------~-------l
group, 30 subjects met the requi:r:ements "for geographic
I
stability and social econ9mic level and were given a
1
1
letter of introduction (Appendix B) and a parental permission form.
were returned.
Of the 30, 26 parental permission forms
Upon a records check, two of the subjects
did not meet the reading level necessary to take the
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
Twenty-four- subjects were_
tested and paid a cash stipend of one dollar.
In order to obtain a sample large enough to compare
~he
with
Military Mobile Group, it was necessary to
include Canyon High School.
The same procedure was used
to obtain the subjects as was used at Williams. Hart
High School.
There were 25 initial volunteers.
Out of
this group, 22 subjects met the requirements for geo-
\
l' graphic stability and social economic level and were
\
\ given a letter of introduction and a parental permission
\ i:orrn.
Eighteen parental permission forms were returned.
I
l
ij
I
I
\ Th'<! subjects were tested and paid a stipend of one dollar·!
There was a total of 42 subjects from the Civilian
Geogtaphically Stable Group tested.
In order to match
I
\
the sample of 30 from the Hilitary Mobile Group, 30 tests ~
·I
:yro: tdhe Civilian Geographically Stable Group were chosen
an om sample, again by number lottery.
I
In order to provide the same social economic levels
for both groups, two factors for the Civilian Geographi-
'
cally Stable Group were considered.
The occupation of
30
r
~:e :a::~~-=:-~~~-:~scri:t~:~ b;-the
! factor.
Subj
:ct~-~as~n:--l
The other factor was selection of subjects from
I
i' suburban, middle class neighborhoods of predominately
single family dwellings.
I
1
!1
The population of the area was
relatively stable and most heads of households were
regularly employed.
.
· Both the Military Mobile Group and Civilian Geographically Stable Group samples were predominately
caucasian with a low representation of racial minorities.
l
I
Instrumentation
i
!
j Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
I
I
I!
I
The instrument chosen to measure self-concept was
the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965).
It has
been widely used (Gividen, 1959; Sundby, 1962; Ashcraft
and Fitts, 1964; Nystul, 1974; Kanno, 1974).
The relia-
bility and normative data are available.
Fitts (1965)
~
The standardization group from which
,
I
I
the norms were developed was a broad sample of 626 people.;
The sample included people from various parts of the
country, and age ranges from 12 to 68.
There were
approximately equal numbers of both sexes, both black
and white subjects, representatives of all social, economic, and intellectual levels and educational levels from.
sixth grade through the Ph. D. degree.
The standardiza-
tion group, however, over represented college students,
.
31
Fitts used college students to establish reliability
levels for the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
The test-
retest·reliability (for the Total Politive Score) was
.92 (.82 for the entire counseling form) for a sample of
60 students over a two-week period.
At this time, evi-
den<;:e suggests that there is no need to es_tablish separate mean scores by age, sex or race.
Degrees of concurrent validity for the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale are reviewed in Fitts(l971), The
Self-Concept and Self--Actualization.
The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale consists of 100
self-descriptive statements which the subject uses to
portray his own picture of himself.
Ninety of the state-
ments are measures of self-concept and are equally
divided as to positive and negative statements.
The
remaining 10 statements were taken from the M.M.P.I.
Lie-Scale and comprise the Self-Criticism Scale.
The
subject chooses one of five response options from "completely true" to "completely false".
The 90 statements measuring self-concept are laid
I out in a two dimensional, 3
' into rows and columns. The
X 5 scheme and are divided
total of the rows and columns
I yield the Total Positive Score,
i.
! concept used in this study.
l
(1) identity, what he is;
the measure of self-
The row subscores are
(2) self-satisfaction, how he
. L. ... ····~···· ................................................. ······· ······ ............. ·············-····- --·······--··---· ..........................._..
32
-·-------,
,----·~--~-------~·--·--·---··------·-···~-. ·-·-------~--.--- ·----~-·
l
accepts himself;
(3) behavior, how
I
i subscores are (a) physical self;
I!
j.
self;
(c) personal self;
self.
Six other areas are scored.
~e
The column
acts.
(b) moral, ethical
(d) family self;
(e) social
They are:
criticism, measures overt defensiveness;
I
I
(1) self-
(2) column
total variability;
(3) row total variability;
I variability;
(5) distribution score measures
1
(4) total
how cer-
tain the subject is about the way he sees himself;
(6) time score.
None of these scores were considered
unless they showed a marked tendency by large deviation
l
I
from the mean.
None of the subjects in this study fell
into this category.
The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale is available in two
I forms,
the Counseling Form and the Clinical and Research
II Form.
Both forms use exactly the same test booklet and
test items.
The Counseling Form is quicker and easier to
use, as it has
fe~er
variables and subscores, and is
appropriate for self-interpretation and feedback to
counselors.
p~ychometrics
It also requires less sophistication in
and psychopathology by the user.
The
Counseling Form was used in this study.
Test Administration
All tests were administered by this researcher.
They were administered during regular class and lunch
periods during the Fall of 1974.
-- ................................... --..--..-. __ ___...
..
,
I
----·-···--·-·-·----·----.---.-··-·----.---·---·----···------.......
33
[
------·------·-----------·-------~-~------··------- ----~------~-------~----~------
1
--l
The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale was administered
in groups as small as one and no larger than five.
Five
1
was chpsen as the maximum number at a time to facilitate
the answering of the questionnaire Sheet (Appendix D)
and the end of test personal interview.
The Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale directions were read orally from the
test booklet and all questions were answered.
Honesty
was encouraged by explaining that the Tennessee SelfConcept Scale was not a test of knowledge, would have no
bearing upon school evaluation system and there were no
''right 11 or "wrong 11 answers.
The subjects were also told
that all information from the scale would be held in the
strictest confidence.
Statistical Analysis
The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale was hand scored by
this researcher.
Each response was scored in accordance
with the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale answer sheet.
Each
subscore was totaled and the Total Positive Score was
obtained.
~
..!l!
All scale computation was done on a hand cal-
culator an_d computed h·lice for accuracy.
Analysis of Variance was applied to test hypotheses
I
l and 2.
II was
In each instance, the 0.05 level of confidence
set for rejection of the null hypotheses.
Also, Analysis of Variance was applied to the
supplemental data.
The 0.05 level of confidence was
·-- ••'" ••••-·-·<-••--•-••""
•""""~"'"""""
••-•-
•- --------
-~•
-
------ •
~--~-
--
--~ •••-r----~--
t
l
'
·-•·-••- __,_ • • - - · - ---~-J
34
set to-determine significant difference.
I
I
I
I
r
l
lI
i
L.---~~-·-----~---------- ···-······-------------------·· ---------------------·· -- ---- --· .... -----···--------------·· -------------------------------------....J
l
. r-·--····----,---~~--·. -·-·-----·----··-----------··-~------.·------··--·------. -~----------··-
,
I
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
1
•
The purpose of this chapter was to present the data
I
1,·
and its analysis of the results of the study.
I
Treatment of the Data
I
I
An Analysis of Variance was applied to test hypothesis 1 and 2.
In each instance, the level of confidence
necessary to reject the null hypothesis was set at the
I 0.05
Each hypothesis was treated independently.
level.
I
The statistical computations were made according to
I'
I BMDOlV-Analysis
of Health Sciences Computing Facility,
University of California at Los Angeles.
I
!
Presentation of the Data
! Hypothesis
1
The null
hyp~thesis
stated that there would be no
significant difference in the level of self-concept mean
scores for the Military Mobile Group and the Civilian
1
Geographically Stable Group.
The statistical data in
I
Table 1 show the results of the ANOVA test.
il
I
I
I.
Il
I
1
!
\
•'t~" ·•----•--~··•~ • - •-·· ·-•• ~.-•·••• --·· •~--~ -'¥•·•--~.--·-
'> - - - - - - - · - - · - •
-···--•-
--
•·---·--··••n,·n···••~
35
36
r--~-- --~-~--------
I
-----------------------------------·-·--· -------------·------------------1
.
!
!
TABLE 1
l
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE-FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
SELF-CONCEPT MEAN SCORES
1
I
i
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups
I
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
633.75
1
633.75
Within Groups
43175.23
58
744.40
Total
43808.98
59
F
0.8514*
* p > 0. 05
I
!
There was no significant difference in the level of
I self-concept
mean score between the two groups.
the null hypothesis was sustained.
Therefore~
Neither group signif-
-I
1 icantly out performed the other on the Total Positive
i
Score of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
Hypothesis 2
The null hypothesis stated that there would be no
significant difference in the level of academic achieve-
i
ment mean ·scores for the Military Mobile Group and the
Civilian Geographically Stable Group.
I
l
data in Table 2 show the results of the ANOVA test.
!.
l
i
!
The statistical
.L.-·-~---· ·-- «--- --------- ~------'-"'
37
1·---~-~--·---------------~·------~·----·-------·--·-----·-"•·---·
I
I
. ·---·-..------~,
TABLE 2 .
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT MEAN SCORES
i
•
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Sq~ares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
0.41
1
0.41
Within Groups
1827.76
58
31.51
Total
1828.18
59
Bet~een
Groups
F
0.0132*:
I
I
I
l *p>O.OS
There was no significant difference in the level of
I academic achievement mean score between the two groups.
I
Therefore, the null hypothesis was sustained.
Neither
group significantly out performed the other in academic
achievement (grade point average) attained in high
I school.
I
TABLE 3
COMPUTATION OF THE MEAN OF SCHOOL MOVES
MADE BY THE MILITARY MOBILE GROUP
I
l
i Mobile
N
30
Range
Mean
S.D.
6 to 13
7.76
.2893
!
!
t
.,---~--- ---~
-·--
--~-~--·~--~----------
__ _. _____________ -----------
i
----.,--~-----·-·-·-------------~-~---~~---J
38
,---------·-------~-~-----------------~- ----·---~-- --------·----·----~---------1
I1
,.
Presentat1on of Supplemental Data
i
This supplemental data is presented to further
, clarify the study.
I
I
1
l
Table 4 through Table 11 presents
the Analysis of Varian8e for all the subscores of the
..
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
TABLE 4
II
I
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
PHYSICAL SELF SUBSCORE
I
II
I
I
I
Source of
Variation
I Between
I
iI
Groups
Within Groups
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
30.81
1
30.81
3026.03
58
52.17
lI
I
I
I
I
Mean
Squares
F
0.5907*
l
II
II
i
Total
* p > 0. 05
3056.85
59
39
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
MORAL ETHICAL SELF SUBSCORE
Source of
Variation
I
I
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F
1l--------~---------------------------------------------------
l Between
4.26
1
4.26
Within Groups
3362.13
58
57.96
Total
3366.40
59
Groups
o. 0736*_ l
I
I
I
I
I
!================================================= I
l*p>0.05
TABLE 6
II-
l
j
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
PERSONAL SELF SUBSCORE
l
I
I __S_o_u_r~c-e__o_f__________S_um___o_f______D_e_g_r_e__e_s__o_f_____M_e_a_n--~--------
I
Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Squares
Freedom
Squares
98.81
1
98.81
2638.16
58
_45.48
2736.98
59
F
I' ~;-
'
2.1725*1
I-
I
l Total
l
i
. p>0.05
I
1
IL ____________ --- -----~----- ---------- -- ---- ------------- -- ----------- --- --- ... ---- --------------------- ----~------ ·--· ---------------- ---------------------------- ............... ------~--- .... i
J
40
. ·---·--------------,---------
r-~"--,---------_ --··------~---------·-----·-·---
TABLE 7
1
!
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
FAMILY SELF SUBSCORE
i
I
Source of
1 variation
I
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F
!
!
!
Between Groups
I Within
Groups
Total
I
0.26
1
3621.66
58
3621.93
59
0.26
0.0043*
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I' *
p > 0. OS
I
)
II.
TABLE 8
I
l
I
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
SOCIAL SELF SUBSCORE
I
Ii
I
Source of
Variation
I
Between Groups
Sum of
Squares
1.0220*
50.41
Within Groups
2861.23
58
49.33
Total
2911.65
59
l
·i
L,~-·---·
__ ., _________________,_
--~----------···"··-ft·--~---··--··---- ~---·--··--
I
F
1
p > 0. OS
I
Mean
Squares
50.41
*
.
Degrees of
Freedom
Il
41
TABLE 9
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
IDENTITY "WHAT HE IS" SUBSCORE
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups
Degrees of
Freedom
36.81
1
Within Groups
6132.83
58
Total
6169.65
59
Mean
Squares
36.81
F
0.3482*
* p > 0 .. 05
TABLE 10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GROUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
SELF-SATISFACTION "HOW HE ACCEPTS HIMSELF" SUBSCORE
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Between Groups
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
540.00
1
540.00
Within Groups
8400.73
58
144.84
Total
8940.73
59
* p >0.05
F
3.7282*
(4.00)
Although _there was a noticable difference, there
was no significant difference between the two groups.
-~~·····-~--~····--·--·······
-··
--
-------~-·-····-··.-
-- ··········-···· ··-~···-----· ·-·--·-··- --·---
i
··············· ·-------···-----·--·--------·--···----·-· ·-~ ······--·---··---'
42
;·
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE MILITARY MOBILE
GRdUP AND CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP
I______________B_E_H_A_v_I_o_R___"_H_o_w__H_E__A_c__T_s_"__s_u_B_s_c_o__RE------~-------Source of
Variation
1!
Between Groups
*
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
F
0.1682*
17.06
1
17.06
Within Groups
5885.66
58
101.47
Total
5902.73
59
p > 0. 05
43
,-~-.---~,-.-.~--~~--~-.-.---~~-------~:···-·----~--~---····---··------~-------.~···.-~-~--
TABLE 12
1
i
:
A PLOTTED COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF THE MILITARY
MOBILE GROUP, CIVILIAN GEOGRAPHICALLY STABLE GROUP,
AND COMBINED GROUPS WITH THE TENNESSEE SELF-CONCEPT
SCALE MEAN SCORES
(N
60)
4-l
r-l
~
Ul
(l)
0
(l)
CJ)
·r-1
H
0
0
+J
(l)
l>
0
4-l
r-l
+J
4-l
Ul
CJ)
CJ)
·r-1
(l)
·r-1
r-l
·r-1
ro
·r-1
Ul
+J
0
Ill
(l)
r-l
~
ro
0
H
+J
0
E-t
(l)
Ill
·~
=
(l)
+J
H
r-l
·r-1
CJ)
·r-1
0
~
(l)
4-l
r-l
rQ
H
(l)
.c:(l)
CJ)
~
l>-t
+J
+J
ro
0
ro
l>
·r-1
ro
Ul
l>-t
.c:
Ill
ro
l!-l
r-l
·r-1
CJ)
+J
r-l
r-l
0
.c:
r£1
I
r-l
ro
H
~
(l)
ro
~
0
Ul
H
(l)
P-1.
4-l
r-l
lH
.--1
(l)
(l)
CJ)
CJ)
l>-t
r-l
ro
r-l
·r-1
·r-1
!:l
0
0
ro
li-t
U)
80
90
80
,_
75-
70
60
70-
50
40
30
20
6 0L~t
10
MOBILE
·STABLE
-·-·-··-
COMBINED
---------
r---~-----·-···---~
l
l
·------------.. ---~"----------~---.~~-------~----~-------------------------------·---,
-
.
.
I
.
CHAPTER
.
.
v
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study investigated the effects of mobility on
-.
the developmental level of self-concept and mobility's
effect upon academic achievement of 15 year old mobile,
military dependents as compared to 15 year old civilian,
geographically stable boys.
The general hypothesis for the present study was that
there would be no significant difference in the developmental level of self-concept and the level of academic
achievement between the mobile, military dependents and
the civilian, geographically stable boys.
I
I
1
I
I
l
l
The subjects selected for this study were sixty
l
15 year old mates, thirty were mobile military dependents
i
and thirty were
c~vilian
geographically stable boys.
modified, two group static design was used.
A
The
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale was used to assess the self1.
concept developmental level mean scores and the subjects'
I
I
academ,ic file was used to assess the academic achievement
(grade point average) mean scores.
An Analysis of Variance was applied to test hypotheses 1 and 2.
In each instance, the level of significance
necessary to reject the null hypotheses was set at the
l
·----- ------ ....... ---- -· ................. ·- --·----···---- ... - -------- -------------..·----------_______ ...!
44
45
r-----------------.. ---·------------------·~
1
li
0.05 level.
·---l
--·-------------~--~-------------- ------------------.,-~---~------------:--·
Each hypothesis was treated independently.
Hypothesis 1 was concerned with the
comp~rison
of
I
groups.
Hypothesis 2 was concerned with the comparison
In both
null hypothesis was sustained.
I cases,ThetheAnalysis
of Variance was applied to test the
supplemental data (The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
I Subscores) •
Again, the level of significance necessary
to determine significant difference was set at the
Ii level.
I
1
i
i
the self-concept developmental level between the two
of academic achievement between the two groups.
I
I
I
I
'
1
I
o.os
In all cases, no significant difference was found.
The findings of this study lend support to the
studies of Ramsdell (1963), Weatherman (1964), Burget
(1965), Falik (1966), Baker (1969), Mackintosh (1973),
Mackintosh (1974), that mobility per se has no significant effect on the developmental level of self-concept
or academic achievement.
Conclusions
Within the framework of the hypotheses, the findings
of this study indicate that mobility, per se, has no
effect on the developmental level of self-concept as
measured by the Total Positive Score of the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale.
This study also indicates that
mobility, per se, has no effect on academic achievement
as measured by the subjects' accumulated grade point
46
r··-·--"- ---..--"-··---· ------------
l
1
~ithin
---------·:--~----- ------------------~-----------------l
the supplemental data, the military, mobile
subjects had higher mean scores on all the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale Subscores with the exception of the
behavior subscore.
Only one subscore, the Self-Satis-
faction Subscore approached any level of significance
(Table 10).
The data also show that the military mobile
subjects had a higher mean score on academic achievement.
Although none of the mean scores were significant, it
would indicate that rather than suffering any deficit
in self-concept and academic achievement, the military
mobile subject would have a slight advantage over the
geographically stable subject.
The supplemental data (Table 12) also indicate
that the subjects' average mean scores in this study
are below the scale's norm.
This is a replication of
Mackintosh (1973) and Mackintosh (1974).
Recorrunendations
From the results of this study, the researcher makes
the following recommendations:
1.
It is recommended that studies be conducted to
further explore
th~
relationship of mobility to develop-
mental level of self-concept.
2.
It is recommended that studies be conducted to
further explore the relationship of mobility to academic
achievement.
l
I
47
r··----------~---------~-----------------~-~-----------------------~-~------------1
3.
It is recommended that when using the Tennessee
'
Self-Concept Scale Counseling Form as a counseling evaluation instrument, that age norms be established, par•
ticularly when working with middle adolescent subjects.
4.
It is
reco~ended
that a similar
stu~y
be done
using a larger, more representative sample and an instrument that eliminates the sixth grade reading requirement.
-l
I
I
l
I~
I
iI
I
i'
li
.
·--------·· ............ ····-·-· .·-·-· ......... ······ . ..... ... ····-···---· ......_ -· ·····- ····-·-···-· -- ·-···-·--·-··· ·-·-·······-·--·---------·--···--···-· ·--····--· j
!
I
r···-~----~--------·----~---~-·~--"·--------~--~----.---~-----·-·-------·--~---~----------
!
I
REFERENCES
;
;
·;
Ashcraft, C. & Fitts, W. H.· Self-conce.pt change in
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 1964, 2, 115-118.
Argyle, M.
The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior.
Harmongsworth: Penguin Books, 1967.
Baker, L. R.
The influence of spatial mobility on the
selective characteristics of Air Force military
dependents compared with civilian peers. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 70-8658.
Bandura, A.
The role of imitation in personality
development. M. R. Jones (Ed.) 0ournal of
Nursery Education, 1963, 18, 207-215.
Bandura, A.
Behavioral modification through modeling
procedures. L. Krasner & L. P. Ullmann (Eds.)
Research in Behavior Modification. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965, 310-340.
Bandura, A.
Principals of Behavior Modification.
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
Bandura, A.
Psychological Modeling.
Atherton, Inc., 1971.
New
Illinois: Aldine-
Bandura, A. & Huston, A. C.
Identification as a process
of incidental learning. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 311-318.
Bandura, A. & Kupers, C. J.
Transmission of patterns of
self-reinforcement through modeling. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, ~, 1-9.
l
!'
I.
Bandura, A. & McDonald, F. J.
The influence of social
reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping
children's judgements. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1963, §]_, 274-281
Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, s. A.
Transmission of
aggression through imitation of aggressive models.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961,
63, 575-582.
?
. i~. ------~
i
l
. ------· .--. --· ~~·-···- -----·· .. ... ·----~-~------ --- -·~· .. ~~ ·-·-----·-«···~------- -----~-~------- ---------------·---~:..--~-- -~1
48
49
..
-------------------------·-------·.---~-----·-----~--------·---------------~----·------~~---·-----1
Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S. A.
Im:i:tation of filmmediated aggressive models. · Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psycholog_z, 1963a, 66, 3-11.
Bandura, A., Ross,· D. & Ross, s. A. A comparative test
ot the status, envy, social power and secondary
reinforcement theories of identification learning.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963b,
671 527-534 •
Bandura, A. & Walters, R. H.
Social Learning and
Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
. & Winston, 1~63.
Bledsoe, J.
Self-concept of children and their intelli- ·
gence, achievement, interests and anxiety.
Childhood Education, 1967, _il, 436-438.
Brody, N. Personal~ty, Research and Theory.
Academic Press, 1972.
II
1
i
New York:
Brookover, w. B. Self-concept of ability and school
achievement.
Sociology of Education, 1964, 37,
271-278.
BUrget, D. E. Mobility and its effects on school
achievement. Unpublished Ed. D. dissertation,
University of Oklahoma, 1965.
M. The relationship between self-concept and
I Caplan,
achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education,
1969, 37, 13-16.
Centi, P. Self-perceptions of students and motivation.
Catholic Education Review, 1965, ~' 307-319.
I Combs,
A. W. & Snygg, D.
Individual Behavior.
Harper and Brothers, 1959.
New York:
Cooley, C. H. Human Nature and the Social Order.
· New Xork: Charles Scribner Sons, 1922.
Couch, C. H. Self-attitude and degree of agreement with
immediate others. American Journal of Sociology,
1958, 63, 491-496.
Docter, R.
1974.
Education Psychology seminar lecture notes,
!
I
j
I!
i
!
50
r---.-.~·---·-··~·-··· ··---·-----·---·------~-------··-----·---------~-·-·-------·--------"-:---1
l! Dollard,
J. ·, Miller, N.
theraEY· New York:
I
l
I
I
1
1
E. Personality and PsychoMcGraw-Hill, 1950.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. w., Miller, N. E., Miller,
& Sears, R. R. Frustration and Aggression.
Haven: Yale University Press, 1939.
o.
H.
New
English, H. B. & English, A. C. A Comprehensive
Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytic
Terms.
New York: David McKay Company, 1958.
!
! Palik, L. H.
The effects of high geographical mobility
i
on the academic and social adjustments of children
j
t~ the~r schoo~ envl·r o n ments. Wayne State Univers1ty D1ssertat1on, 1 9 6 6 •
R. J.
lI Farls,average
I
j
I
High low achievement of intellectually
intermediate grade students related to
the self-concept and social approval. Dissertation
Abstracts, 1967, 28, 1205.
I
Farquhar, W. W. A comprehensive study of the motivational factors underlying achievement of eleventhgrade high school students. U.S. Office of
Education, Cooperative Research Report No. 846,
East Lansing: Office of Research and Publications,
Michigan State University, 1968.
Ij
Fitts, W~ Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Manual. Nashville: Counselor Recording and Tests, 1965.
W.
Self-concept and.self-actualization.
Dede Wallace Center, 1971.
I, Fitts,Nashville:
l Fitts,garding
W.
Personal letter to Eric I. Ma.ckintosh reoperational definition of self-concept
used in developing The Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale, 1974.
I
lI
Ii
1
I
i
I
I
Gividen, G. M. Stress in airborne training as related
to.self-concept, motivation and biographical
factors,
Unpublished Masters thesis. Vanderbilt
University, 1962.
Harris, G. A study of the self-image concept of s.ervice
children. Unpublished dissertation, University
of Nottingham, 1969.
Helper, M. H. Learning theory and the self-concept.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955,
51' 184-194 . .
I
.... -·-~--------~~- ·---~--~-------··---------.- ··-. --"- ----··----~-- -- --------- --~-------~---~--- --~--~----·-----'"·----- ··- ·- ---~ ..1
51
l"-----····--~-·---···--·--···--·---·---·---·-·--.-····--·---·.····-·-----~-····-···--····-···-----·-·---·-·-·------·-·--·-------'--1
I Helper;
M. M. Parental evaluations of children and
children's self-evaluations. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 190-194.
I
l
Hull, L. L.
Principles of Behavior.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.
1
New York:
I Irwin,
F. S. Sentence completion responses anC. scholastic success or failure.
Journal of Counselin~
Psychology, 1967, 14, 269-271.
I,l_·
l
.J
l Jakubczak, F. L. & Walters, R. H.
!
dependency behaviors.
1
Suggestibility as
Journal of Abnormal and
2
l :o:~alP: :~:::~::Y~f :;~h~~g: ~
;
James
-:::. York:
Holt,
1890, two volumes.
l Jersild,
A. T.
In Search of Self. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia
University, 1952.
f
i
I
1
Jones, J. G. & Grieneck, L. Measures of self-preception
as predictors of achievement. Journal of Education Research, 1970, ~' 201-203.
l Kanno,
H. A study of self-concept and achievement in
high school dropouts. Unive~sity of Massachusetts
Dissertation, 1974.
I
I
Kantor, M. B. Some consequences of residential and
social mobility for the adjustment of children.
Mildred B. Kantor, Mobility and Mental Health.
Springfield, ·Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1965,
86-122.
Keefer, K. E. Characteristics of students who make
accurate and inaccurate self-predictions of
college achievement. Journal of Educational
Research, 1971, 64, 401~404.
Kemper, T. D. Self-conceptions and the expectations
of significant others. Sociological Quarterly,
1966, ~' 323-343.
Kubiniec, C. M. The efficacy of various dimensions of
the self-concept in predicting academic achievement.
American 'Educational Research Journal, 1970, 7,
321-336.
~.~,. ~··~---· -~ ""•-•·~---~~-··--~
_,
• •• •u-.•-
ll
~··••H~·.•-·---·--~·• ...~.--._~•> •>··---~ -•••~•·•--- ---• ~--•-•••.~-----· -••·••--·-- -• --~•••-""-----~~----·--·-···-·---~-~~-.----··-J
52
···--········--------.--..<'-·-~·-·------~----·---··---~-----·····-:···--·----~---- . . ---~-----------···..---~---------------l
I LaBenne,
(
I.
W. D. & Green, B. I. Educational Implications
of Self-Concept Theory. Pacific Palisades, Calif.:
Good Year Publishing Company, Inc., 1969"
,
!
!
Lazowich, L. On the nature of identification. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51,
175-183.
.
1
Lewis, L. M. The relationship of achievement to
reported self-concept.
Dissertation Abstracts,
1971, 32:(la), 245.
Long, L. H. On measuring geographic mobility. Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 1970, 9.
Mackintosh, E. I. A study of the self-concept developmental level of fifteen year old military mobile,
civilian mobile and civilian geographically stable
males. Unpublished study, 1973.
Mackintosh, E. I. The study of self-concept developmental level of military mobile and civilian
geographically stable males. Unpublished thesis
pilot study, 1974.
Mead, G. H. Mind, Self and Society.
of Chicago Press, 1934.
Chicago: University
Miller, N. E. & Dollard, J. Social Learning and
Imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941.
Miyamoto, S. F. & Dornbusch, S. A. A test of the
symbolic interaction hypotheses of self-conception.
American Journal of Sociology, 1956, 617, 399-403.
Mukherjee, B. & Sinha R. Achievement values as related
to self-concepts and stability of self-images.
Personality: An International Journal, 1970, .!_,
129-144.
Murphy, G. Personality: A Bisocial Approach to Origins
and Structure. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974.
Nystul, M.S. The effects of birth order and sex on
self-concept. Dissertation Abstracts, 1974, 35, 450.1
Partin, R. P. Survey of the effects of mobility on
1
dependent military children. Dissertation Abstracts,;
1967, 28: (3a), 971.
I
..
l
L .......................................................................................................... ·--·--------·-----··------·---··--------·----------------------------_]
53
r··-~
-·---· ·- ------·-·- -----------·--·--
I
--~----
----:--.. .--'"··------ ·---··----------------------·----·-1
.
! Pepin, R. R. A study of scholastic achievements and
personal adjustments of military and non-military
transitory high school students. Dissertation
Abstracts, 1966, 28: (4a), 403.
Prior, D. R.
Inner city elementary pupil mobility
reading achievement and environmental process
variables. Dissertation Abstracts, 1974, 35:
(3), 1509.
Purkey, W. W.
Self-Concept and School Achievement.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1970.
i
l
-/
Quarantelli,E. L. & Cooper, J. Self-coticeptions and
others: A further test of median hypotheses.
Sociological Quarterly, 1966, 2' 281-297.
Ramsdell, R. E. A study of the effects of student
mobility on pupil achievement and adjust.ment in
a selected group of tenth grade students in the
Vernon public schools. Dissertation Abstracts,
1963, 64-3557.
Reschly, D. J.
Self-reinforcement as related to task
ambiguity and self-esteem status in seventh grade
students. Dissertation Abstracts, 1971, 32:
(6a),3103.
I Sopchak, A. L.
Parental identification on tendency
toward disorders measured by the f1}'1PI. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47,
159-165.
!
·
I
1
Staats, A. W.
Child Learning, Intelligence and
I Sulli::::o:~l:~Y·Co:::p::::: ::r:::e::dp:::~i:::::
D. C.: W. H. White Psychiatric
I Washington,
Foundation, 1947.
H. s.
I Sullivan,
New York:
I
The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1953.
Sundby, E. S. A study of personality and social
variables related to conformity behavior.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt
University, 1962.
Il
l
1
j
t,_ "•--• ~·--~·->"-
•+-•'• - - -
>'0 ·- ~·-
~·---~-· - ··--·· ---• ---·-··-•on•••·-·-·.---.-·•·------··-··~· •'-'"""" ~ -··-·--· ·-·-~---•·"-·•·- •- •-·-•··--~••• •- --•~·-----· --·•-h·--•·-••-·•-·--·-··---~--·--~.J
54
r.
--~·~·-··--·~--~-~"
----------·----·----·-..
-----~-·· ~--··· ·----------------~~------------l
!l Thomas,
S. An experiment to enhance se~f-concept of
ability and raise school achievement among low-
I
1
·
achieving ninth grad~ students.
Abstracts, 1966, 26, 4870.
Dissertation
Walters, R. H., Leat, M. & Mezei, L. Inhibition and
disinhibition of responses through empathetic
learning. fanadian Journal of Psychology, 1963,
17, 235-243.
Wattenberg, W. W. & Clifford, C. Relation of selfconcept to beginning achievement in reading.
Child Development, 1964, 35, 461-467.
Weatherman, R. F. A study of the relationship of
mobility to academic self-concept and academic
achievement of sixth grade children. Dissertation
Abstracts, 1964, 64-9760.
Williams, R. C. The effects of school changes on
service children. Torch (Journal of the RAEC),
1965.
Wooster, A. D. & Harris, G. Concepts of self and others
in highly mobile service boys. Educational
Research, 1972, 14, 195-199.
1
r .
.
r-·······--·----·--·-····--------~ :~--------·
...
.
.
-~~--------------·· --~----·-. ----------·---~- ~----------·------·--.---
1
I
i
!
J'
I
l.
I
I
I
i
I
I
APPENDICES
I
I
II
Ii
55
56
r--------------__. _____
---~-
- - - ---------------------
-:------------~
------------- ----------·-----------------------1
I
APPENDIX A
!
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO MII.ITARY PARE:~TS
I
I
I
Dear Parents,
Allow me to introduce myself.
I am a Major in the
United States Army studying for my Masters Degree in
Educational Psychology at California State University
at Northridge. My thesis is a comparison of the selfconcept level of 15 year old geographically stable,
civilian boys versus 15 year old mobile, military dependents.
To accomplish this, I am using the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale.
This is not a test of knowledge and
would have no bearing upon school grades. All information from this scale will be held in the strictest conj fidence.
I
I
Your son has been selected for consideration because
he fits the mobility aspect of this test, that is attendance of at least six schools.
There are other criteria
he must meet, that I shall have to have your permission
to research.
The first is that he have at least a
sixth grade reading level. The second is that he answer
questions from an interview sheet. The interview questions will be made available to you upon your request.
Third, that I review his accumulated grade point average.
If he meets the required criteria and is chosen by random sampling to participate, he "livill be paid a stipend
of one dollar·for his participation in the project.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
Thank you.
I
I
I
Ii
Eric I. Mackintosh
26801 Las Mananitas Drive
Valencia, California 91355
(805: 259-2375)
57
r- - ~-
I
!
---~
--~-~~··-- ·~----·--~-----
..
--~------·----
. ----·---..
-·-·---~l
APPENDIX B
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO CIVILIAN PARENTS
I
Dear Parents,
i
'
Allow me to introduce myself.
I am a Major in the
i.
I
! United States Army studying for my Masters Degree in
I
! Educational Psychology at California State University
i
. l
' at Northridge. My thesis is a comparison of the self1
! concept level of 15 year old geographically stable,
civilian boys versus 15 year old mobile, military boys.
1 To accomplish this,
I am using the Tennessee Self-Concep.t
l Scale.
This is not a test of knowledge and would have no
I bearing upon school grades. All information from this
I scale will be held in the strictest confidence.
I
!
Your son has been selected for consideration because 1
he fits the geographically stable aspect of this test,
that is, attendance at only one elementary school, one
junior high school and one senior high school. There are
other criteria he must meet that I shall have to have
your permission to research.
The first is that he have
at least a.sixth grade reading level. The second is
that he answer questions from an interview sheet. The
interview questions will be made available to you upon·
your request.· Third, that I review his accumulated
grade point average.
If he.meets the required criteria
and is chosen by random sampling to participate, he will
be paid a stipend of one dollar for his participation
in this project. ·If you have any questions, I .would be
happy to answer them.
l
I
I
Thank you.
Eric I. Mackintosh
26801 Las Mananitas Drive
Valencia, California 91355
(805: 259-2375)
58
•
My son
---------------------------------
has permission to
take the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
Eric I. Mackintosh has my permission to check the reading level and accumulated grade point average of my son.·
I would like to study the questionnaire before
my son answers it.
Signed
Address
Phone·
I·i
1
l
--------------------------
59
r·-···~-~·"··---------~------~--~---~------·------·----··--·~··-----·-------·----------~------------~l
l
'
I
AJ?:PENDIX D
INTERVIEW FORM
I
II ,
I
INTERVIEW:
I1 1 ·
1·
I .
Name · · ·
····:······ :·
; 2 • . Age in years and months and birthday
I
I
1.:
---
3
Number of children in the family
4-:
Order of birth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5.
Approximate grade point in high school
6.
Academic aspirations
7.
Employment aspirations
8.
Father's occupation and job description
----------------------------------
l
I
I
I
How do you feel ab6ut yourself in general?
9.
jlO.
If you had the power, what one thing would you change
about yourself?
IIll.
How do you feel after completing the Tennessee SelfConcept Scale?