self-respect. a neglected concept
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
1/43
This article was downloaded by: [79.112.42.116]On: 13 February 2013, At: 15:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Philosophical PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cphp20
Self-respect: A neglected conceptConstance E. Roland & Richard M. Foxx
Version of record first published: 19 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Constance E. Roland & Richard M. Foxx (2003): Self-respect: A neglectedconcept, Philosophical Psychology, 16:2, 247-288
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515080307764
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515080307764http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515080307764http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cphp20 -
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
2/43
PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 2003
Self-respect: a neglected concept
CONSTANCE E. ROLAND & RICHARD M. FOXX
ABSTRACT Although neglected by psychology, self-respect has been an integral part of philosophical
discussion since Aristotle and continues to be a central issue in contemporary moral philosophy.
Within this tradition, self-respect is considered to be based on ones capacity for rationality and leads
to behaviors that promote autonomy, such as independence, self-control and tenacity. Self-respectelicits behaviors that one should be treated with respect and requires the development and pursuit of
personal standards and life plans that are guided by respect for self and others. In contrast, the
psychological concept of self-esteem is grounded in the theories of self-concept. As such, self-esteem is
a self-evaluation of competency ratios and opinions of significant others that results in either a positive
or negative evaluation of ones worthiness and inclusionary status. The major distinction between the
two is that while competency ratios and others opinions are central to self-esteem, autonomy is central
to self-respect. We submit that not only is self-respect important in understanding self-esteem, but that
it also uniquely contributes to individual functioning. Research is needed to establish the central
properties of self-respect and their effects on individual functioning, developmental factors, and
therapeutic approaches.
1. Introduction
The development of ethical and moral standards in children is essential to the
welfare of any society (Damon, 1993). This effort includes the teaching of the rules
and norms of society and extends to the quest to find meaning or significance in
ones life (Kane, 1994). Although this quest begins with moral education and
engagement in ethical living, there is mounting evidence that these processes have
become more difficult and more precarious as society has become more complex
(Kane, 1994).Crucial to the accomplishment of these lofty goals is the selection of a concept
of self that promotes the development of personal growth and standards of behavior.
While psychology has generally regarded the concept of self-esteem as meeting this
need, our analysis suggests that this emphasis is too narrow because another concept
of selfself-respecthas been ignored.
Consider that the field of psychology has focused on self-esteem and paid little
attention to self-respect. Because psychologists have unwittingly emphasized the
importance of self-esteem, a public self-esteem fallacy has developed (Baumeister
Constance Roland, Pennsylvania State University-Harrisburg, W157 Olmsted Building, Middletown,
PA 17057 USA, email: [email protected]
ISSN 0951-5089/print/ISSN 1465-394X/online/03/02024742 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/09515080320103355
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
3/43
248 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
et al., 1994; Dawes, 1994; Leary & Downs, 1995; Mruk, 1995). Indeed, many
parents believe that if their children do not feel good about themselves (i.e., have
high self-esteem), then they will be at risk for any number of emotional and
psychological problems. Many therapists also have accepted the notion that if we
could only enhance their self-esteem, then everything would be so much better(Mruk, 1995, p. 57). Pipher (1997, p. 158) suggested that in focusing on self-esteem
instead of good character, therapists often fall into the trap of feeding narcissism.
When clients are concerned mostly with massaging the self, they neglect the work
that is necessary to build a solid foundation for meaningful personal change. The
American educational system has also been affected by this fallacy as evidenced by
the subordinating of its standards to the fostering of self-esteem independent of
performance (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, p. 432).
Despite the fact that respect for self and others is necessary for stability and
harmony within a society, there is little literature on self-respect or how it influences
the mental health of individuals and communities. This paper will attempt to (1)differentiate self-respect and self-esteem, (2) demonstrate the importance of self-
respect, and (3) explain the implications of the absence or presence of self-respect
for individuals. It begins by tracing the role of self-respect in the development
of Western civilization, continues by examining the development of the concept
of self-esteem within the psychological community, and ends by evaluating the
different contributions that self-respect and self-esteem make to individual function-
ing.
2. Philosophical approaches to self-respect
The concept of self-respect has had significant impact on the culture of Western
civilization through literature and philosophy (Dillon, 1995). Authors of the great
tragedies and epic poems of the classical era to twentieth century playwrights have
woven tales of heroes who by a sudden stroke of fate dishonor themselves and lose
their self-respect. This loss of self-respect dooms the heroes to fates worse than
death unless they are able to redeem themselves by some heroic means.
Philosophers have also discussed the moral significance of self-respect. Terms
such as magnanimity, proper pride, and a sense of dignity were an integral
part of discussions by Aristotle, Aurelius, Augustine, Aquinas, Montaigne,Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume, Hegel, Mill, and Nietzsche
(Dillon, 1995). However, it was Kant who first placed the concept of self-respect
into its central role in moral philosophy.
Attempts to understand complex and elusive concepts, such as self-respect, are
often aided by identifying the conceptual family to which a concept belongs
(Dillon, 1995). Self-respect is considered to be a conceptual off-spring of respect,
which allows its logical placement into the same conceptual family as dignity, regard,
esteem, and honor because all are concerned with worth. Dignity derives directly
from the Latin word for worth, regard is considered to be the recognition of the
worth of an object, esteem is the appraisal of worth, and honor is described as thereward for great worth. Pride is an important related concept and helps to delineate
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
4/43
SELF-RESPECT 249
the differences between the closely intertwined concepts of self-respect and self-
esteem. Indeed, Dillon (1995, p. 7) considered self-respect to be synonymous with
pride because both are concerned with a sense of ones own dignity or a sense
of personal dignity and worth. On the other hand, self-esteem, or a favorable
opinion of oneself, appears more evaluative and may be identified with pride whenit is overweening or inordinate.
An advantage of identifying the concepts closely related to self-respect is that
discussions related to it can be identified even if the term is not used. This is
important in tracing the historical development of self-respect. The works of
Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, and Kant appear to have had a particularly significant
impact on contemporary understandings of self-respect and self-esteem (Dillon,
1995).
Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics (1962) is the first recorded systematic discussion
of ethics in Western civilization (Denise et al., 1996). He believed that an essential
dimension of the fully virtuous person was the proper appreciation of ones worth.Magnanimity, pride, and confident self-respect were to be found in such an individ-
ual. Aristotle contrasted this virtuous individual with the vain individual, who
believed that he was more worthy than he was, and the unduly humble individual,
who thought that he was less worthy than he was. Aristotle believed that what
motivated virtuous conduct was an appropriate concern for self-knowledge, accurate
judgment, and correct values rather than simply a good opinion of oneself (Dillon,
1995). The virtuous man, because he knew his own worth and maintained his
worthiness, did not depend on the opinions of everyone and wished only to
perpetuate his honor by being honored by those who also were virtuous.
With Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant introduced a new and still
topical perspective to the concept of self-respect, namely, that all persons deserve
respect, regardless of their character. His (1785/1967, p. 91) formulation, Act in
such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end, is considered by many philosophers to be the preeminent statement of the
principle of respect for persons (Dillon, 1995, p. 14). This simple yet powerful
idea, that everyone must be respected and that all persons should behave in ways
that maintain that respect, is a major contribution to the understanding of self-re-
spect. Kant proposed that because of their ability to rationalize, think, and choose,individuals have a moral duty to respect others and themselves, which requires them
to act in certain ways and not in others. The foundation of Kants concept of
self-respect was ones dignity as a person, which was also the foundation of all
morality. Having self-respect carries the responsibility to only act in ways that reflect
ones status as a moral being. The duty of self-respect becomes the supreme moral
duty, for it is a precondition of respecting others. In effect, there would be no moral
duties if there were no duties to respect oneself.
Pre-Kantian descriptions of the concept of self-respect (e.g., Aristotle, Hobbes,
Hume) diverge into two lines of thought, the idea of respect as it pertains to the
recognition of something important and the evaluation of the quality of something(Dillon, 1995). Kants writings joined these two lines of thought by defining two
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
5/43
250 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
distinct grounds for the presence of self-respectthe person and the quality of the
persons conduct.
The writings of contemporary moral philosophers are grounded in these histori-
cal accounts of self-respect and can be categorized into four distinct groups (Dillon,
1995). One views self-respect as the proper appreciation of being a person (e.g.,Boxhill, 1995; Hill, 1991; Thomas, 1995). A second treats self-respect as grounded
in character and conduct (e.g., Downie & Tefler, 1970; Rawls, 1995). A third argues
that there are two kinds of self-respect (importance of personhood and quality of
personhood) (e.g., Darwell, 1995; Massey, 1995). The fourth group (e.g., Meyers,
1995) does not differentiate between the importance and quality of personhood.
Table 1 displays the differences and similarities between the views of both the
historical and contemporary philosophers.
3. Self-respect as appreciation of being a person
The central argument for respect as proper appreciation of the importance of being
a person is grounded in Kant. Thomas (1995) and Hill (1991) argued that
individuals have two important duties that result from their status as rational beings.
The first is to respect the moral law that provides individuals with their rights, and
the second is to respect the self by affirming ones moral rights in ones thought
processes and behaviors. The fulfilling of these duties via thoughts and behavior is
dependent upon certain beliefs and attitudes regarding oneself as a person, ones
relationship with morality, and ones place in the moral community. Earlier, Sachs
(1981) had suggested that such beliefs and attitudes translated into dispositions for
certain actions and thoughts. Boxhill (1995) extended the importance of ones
beliefs and attitudes by emphasizing that self-respecting persons must have
confident conviction in their belief of their worth and rights. The self-respecting
person responds to unjust treatment in calmly controlled ways that reveal inherent
invulnerability of status as a person and belief in that status (Dillon, 1995, p. 23).
Self-respect demands that persons protest the violation of their rights and that they
do so within the boundaries of dignity.
Another important aspect of the appreciation of the importance of being a
person is the public availability of ones dignity (Meyer, 1989). Meyer also
believed in the inherent worth of persons, although he suggested that while worth isnot necessarily perceivable to others dignity is. Dignity is the way in which individ-
uals visibly demonstrate their humanity and their worthiness of respect. It is how
self-respect is displayed to others. To Kant, all humans had dignity by virtue of their
capacity for rationality. Meyer pointed out that, while self-worth is inherent, it is
possible that some individuals may be unable to express it and/or see it in others
because of prejudiced views and insights. The inability to see anothers dignity is an
affront to both the self-respect of the viewed and the viewer. To give meaning to
their lives, it is important for people being oppressed to be able to display their
dignity to their oppressors. Doing so will display the existence of dignity and cause
the oppressors to view the oppressed with respect (Meyer, 1989).An example of the importance of visibly displaying dignity is found in Levis
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
6/43
SELF-RESPECT 251
TABLE1.Historicaland
contemporaryviewsofself-respect
(a)H
istorical
ComponentsofSelf-respect
Capacityfor
Autonomous
Sub
jectivefeelings
Importanceof
Theorist
rationality
behavior
Lifeplansguidedby
tow
ardself
othersopinions
Aristo
tle
Self-knowledge;
Virtuousbehavior
Pride
Ifalsovirtuous
(trans
.1962)
Accuratejudgment
Hobb
es
Continualcompetition
Determ
inedworth
(1651
/1965)
withothersforhonor
Hume
Self-survey
Whatisgoodfor
Pride
Declareprideas
(1739
/1965)
humanity
appropriate
Kant
(1785/1967)
Dignity
Principalofrespect
Morallaw
Rev
erence:humility
Worthy
ofadmiring
forpersons
and
pride
respect
ofothers
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
7/43
252 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
(b)C
ontemporaryGroupI(appreciationofbeingaperson)
ComponentsofSelf-respect
Capacityfor
Autonomous
Sub
jectivefeelings
Importanceof
Theorist
rationality
behavior
Lifeplansguidedby
tow
ardself
othersopinions
Thom
as(1995)&
Dignity
Affirmrightsin
Respectmorallaw
Hill(1991)
thought&behavior
Sachs
(1981)
Dignity
Dispositionsfor
Em
otion:indignation
thoughtsandactions
orresentment
Boxhill(1995)
Dignity
Convictioninworth
Meyer(1989)
Dignity
Publicavailabilityof
dignity
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
8/43
SELF-RESPECT 253
(c)C
ontemporaryGroupII(charac
terandconduct)
ComponentsofSelf-respect
Capacityfor
Autonomous
Sub
jectivefeelings
Importanceof
Theorist
rationality
behavior
Lifeplansguidedby
tow
ardself
othersopinions
Down
ie&Tefler
Conativeself-
Objectivestandard
Estimativeself-respect
(1970
)
respectobjective
ofautonomy;
favorableopinionof
standards
Subjectivestandard
self
setforself
Taylo
r(1995)
Protectselffrom
Standardsbasedon
Self-definitionvs.
intolerabletreatment
whathasvaluein
executionofself-
ownlife
defi
nedvalues
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
9/43
254 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
(d)C
ontemporaryGroupIII(importanceofpersonhoodandqual
ityofpersonhood)
ComponentsofSelf-respect
Capacityfor
Autonomous
Sub
jectivefeelings
Importanceof
Theorist
rationality
behavior
Lifeplansguidedby
tow
ardself
othersopinions
Darwell(1995)
Recognitionself-
Expectrespect;
Objectivestandards
Appraisalself-respect
respect
Unwillingtotolerate
ofworthyconduct
groundedin
disrespect
excellenceof
cha
racter
Massey(1995)
Dignity
Moralcomponent:
Psy
chological
beliefsandconduct
com
ponent:favorable
meetobjective
self-regardingbeliefs,
criteria
attitudesandfeelings
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
10/43
SELF-RESPECT 255
(e)C
ontemporaryGroupIV(unifie
daccountofself-respect)
ComponentsofSelf-respect
Capacityfor
Autonomous
Sub
jectivefeelings
Importanceof
Theorist
rationality
behavior
Lifeplansguidedby
tow
ardself
othersopinions
Meyers(1995)
Exercisemoral
Triadicrelationship:
autonomy
attitude,behaviorand
object
Self-co
nceptTheorist
James
(1890/1952)
Eva
luationsuccessesvs.
pretensions
Coole
y(1902/1956)
Lookin
g-glassself
Mead
(1934/1967)
Genera
lizedother
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
11/43
256 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
(1986) memoir of a Nazi death camp, wherein the Nazis purpose was not death of
the prisoners, but rather the annihilation of dignity. Prisoners were subject to what
DesPres (1976) termed excremental assault, i.e., a systematic subjection to filth.
They were forced to spend their days in excrement, to sleep and work in it, to
remain covered in it, even at times to eat or drink it. The goal was to destroy theprisoners sense of humanity. To survive, it was necessary to hold onto ones dignity
by trying to remain visibly human. According to Levi, efforts to be clean were often
the only opportunity prisoners had to express their self-respect and maintain their
dignity. Unfortunately, the Nazi death camps are only one of several historical and
current examples of the vulnerability of self-respect to the attitudes and treatment of
others. Fortunately, counter examples exist (Dillon, 1995). Benevolence, kindness,
generosity, and compassion are all virtues that nourish and maintain the self-respect
of the giver and the receiver.
4. Self-respect as grounded in character and conduct
The second group of contemporary philosophers, who treat self-respect as grounded
in character and conduct, followed Aristotle and Hume by suggesting that self-
respect entails more than just being a person. In order to possess and maintain
self-respect, one must also be self-aware. Within this context, Downie & Tefler
(1970) defined two kinds of self-respect: conative and estimative. Conative self-
respect follows in the Aristotelian tradition by suggesting that self-respect is a
motivational character trait. A concern for dignity causes one to refrain from
behavior that is unworthy and motivates behavior that meets both objective and
subjective standards of what is moral and worthy. Hill (1991) developed this idea
further by stating that autonomy is exercised by developing and committing to a set
of personal standards for conduct and character that are central to ones self-concep-
tion. The second form of self-respect discussed by Downie & Tefler (1970) is
merit-based and called estimative self-respect. This form of self-respect fits
Humes view and is described as a favorable opinion of oneself. This opinion, which
is grounded in ones conduct and character, is spawned by the belief that one has
met the standards that one should meet.
Taylor (1995) defined self-respect as having a favorable opinion of oneself that
motivates self-protection from treatment or behavior that is intolerable. AlthoughTaylor agreed with Boxhill (1995) that self-respect demands behavior that protests
attacks on ones worthiness, they differed on the source. For Boxhill, the sole source
of self-respect was personhood, whereas for Taylor it was the congruence between
ones self-definition and ones execution of self-defined values. Taylor suggested that
the expectations or standards for the self-respecting persons behavior are grounded
in what has value for the life one wants to lead. Self-respect is especially grounded
in the values from which ones normative identity derived. Respecting the self means
living in accordance with ones own standards and expectations. Because it is
necessary to live with ones values in order to have integrity, self-respect serves to
preserve ones integrity and identity. Shame also operates to preserve integrity andidentity. It is a protective emotion that is experienced if one violates ones standards
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
12/43
SELF-RESPECT 257
and expectations (Taylor, 1995). Although shame may be considered as damaging
to self-respect, experiencing it ensures that self-respect still exists. Individuals cannot
experience shame unless they still value the code that underlies their self-respect.
Taylor felt that individuals who experience shame are still aware of and value their
standards and hence can regain self-respect.
5. Two kinds of self-respect: recognition and appraisal
A third group of contemporary philosophers argue that the issue is not what
self-respect is, but rather that there are different kinds. Darwell (1995) proposed two
different kinds of self-respect, recognition and appraisal. Recognition self-respect
is the regard that all persons are entitled to have. It is derived from the writings of
Kant and supported by our earlier discussions of Boxhill (1995), Hill (1991), and
Downie & Teflers (1970) notion of conative self-respect. Recognition self-respect
motivates the individual to engage in worthy conduct, to eschew unworthy conduct,expect respect from others, and to not tolerate disrespect. Appraisal self-respect
refers to the positive appraisal of oneself as a person (Darwell, 1995). It is merit-
based and grounded in the excellence of ones character. It was considered by
Aristotle and Hume and discussed earlier in Downie & Teflers (1970) discussion of
estimative self-respect.
Massey (1995) proposed that self-respect had two important components: a
psychological or subjective one and an objective or moral one. The psychological or
subjective component is both necessary and sufficient for an individual to have
favorable self-regarding beliefs, attitudes, and feelings. The self-respecting persons
favorable attitude is grounded in morally appropriate ways because it is important to
both value ones moral status as having basic rights and to possess a character that
is truly good.
6. A unified account of self-respect
Meyers (1995) represents the fourth and final perspective and proposed a unified
account of self-respect. She suggested that there is a triadic relationship among
attitude, behavior and object. Self-respect exists when the relationship between the
triads components is unqualified and uncompromised such that there is a respectfulattitude expressed through respectful behavior toward an object that is worthy of
respect. If any element of the triad is inappropriate, self-respect is compromised in
either an indecent or innocent manner. Indecent compromise occurs if individuals
knowingly respect themselves for conduct they know is immoral. Innocent compro-
mise occurs when individuals know that everyone has dignity and respect, but,
because of social conditioning, believe themselves to have less. Only uncompro-
mised respect has the intrinsic goodness of self-respect. Meyers suggested that the
resultant correspondence between attitude and self-worth leads to uncompromised
self-respect, which because of its greater stability, has increased value when individ-
uals strive to meet their self-defined values and life plans.In summary, several themes run consistently through both historical and
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
13/43
258 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
contemporary philosophical literature. Self-respect exists on a variety of levels and
each carries its own implications. Self-respect based on ones capacity for rationality
leads to behaviors that promote autonomy, such as independence, self-survey,
self-control, and tenacity. Self-respect also demands behaviors that display a
confident conviction that one should be treated with respect. Finally, self-respectrequires the development and pursuit of personal standards and life plans that
are guided by the moral law of respect for self and others. Motivation to engage
in self-respecting behaviors occurs through the desire to sustain the emotions
of reverence towards oneself, pride in ones actions, and confidence in ones life
plan. Although the opinions of others can help to sustain the subjective feelings that
result from actions that are congruent with self-respect, these opinions are only
relevant when these individuals are also engaged in respectful behaviors and
attitudes.
7. Psychological theories of self-esteem
Dillons (1995) review of the contemporary discussions of self-respect revealed that
while philosophers speak of self-respect, psychologists discuss self-esteem. A com-
puter search of PsychINFO (1984 to February 2001) using the term self-respect
resulted in 150 abstracts, whereas the term self-esteem resulted in 13,811. These
figures suggested either that the two terms were not being differentiated, or that
self-respect was given little attention; the latter possibility seems more likely. One
reason why is that modern theories of self-esteem are grounded in historical
psychological theories of self-concept rather than historical discussions of self-re-
spect. Thus, the self-concept theorizing of James (1890/1952), Cooley (1902/1956),
and Mead (1934/1967) laid the foundation for the development of self-esteem
theory from a psychological perspective.
James is generally recognized as the first psychologist to develop a theory of
self-concept (Marsh et al., 1992). Self-esteem and the social self were two important
components of his theory. He defined self-esteem as a ratio of ones successes to
ones pretensions or the value that an individual places on successes in a particular
activity or attribute. Another important theoretical component was the social self.
This component highlighted the importance of the evaluations of others to thedevelopment of an individuals self-concept. The social self became an important
part of the self-concept theories espoused by Mead (1934/1967) and Cooley
(1902/1956).
Cooley (1902/1956) believed that ones self-concept derived from the attitudes
of significant others. He postulated that individuals are motivated to assess the
attitudes of significant others towards them. Cooley referred to this phenomenon as
the looking-glass self. This formulation is very similar to Meads (1934/1967)
concept of the generalized other. Mead postulated that self-concept was depen-
dent, to a large extent, on the pooled or collective judgments of significant others
towards the individual.Self-concept continued to be the focus of considerable research and theorizing
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
14/43
SELF-RESPECT 259
(Backman et al., 1982). Wylie (1979) examined over 4,500 references for her review
of the self-concept literature. She found that the vast majority of self-concept
discussions were limited to just one of its components, global self-esteem. Rosenberg
& Kaplan (1982, p. 2) recognized the increasing awareness in the literature of the
complexity of self-concept and its constituents, e.g., self-esteem. To them, self-concept should be viewed as the totality of the individuals thoughts and feelings
with reference to himself or herself as an object. In this formulation, self-esteem
functions as a dimension and as a primary motive. Dimensions are considered to be
abstract qualities that characterize either self-concept as a whole or its specific
components and how one thinks and feels about oneself. Self-esteem is the dimen-
sion of self-concept that addresses whether one accepts, respects, and considers
oneself worthwhile.
Motives were described as impulses to act in the interest of self-concept
(Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982). Self-esteem was considered to be the most prominent
and possibly the most powerful self-concept motive. Kaplan (1982) also discussedfour categories of empirical observations regarding the prevalence of the self-esteem
motive. One was that individuals tend to describe themselves in positive terms.
Another was the tendency for individuals with low self-esteem to employ behaviors
that were self-enhancing and self-defensive. The third was that those with low
self-esteem manifest subjective distress. The final observation was that individuals
with positive self-attitudes maintain them, while those with negative self-attitudes
change them in a more positive direction.
In our attempt to differentiate self-respect and self-esteem, it is important to
note the place that morality held in Rosenberg & Kaplans (1982) notion of
self-concept. Gordon (1982) assists in this regard because he developed 30 broad
categories with which to classify responses to the question, Who am I? A category
separate from self-esteem was termed A Sense of Moral Worth and defined as a
sensed degree of adherence to a valued code of moral standards that transcended the
self. In effect, individuals evaluate their own attributes and actions in terms of the
moral standards of their culture and through this process they have a continuing
sense of greater or less moral worth (Gordon, 1982, p. 17).
Even though the concept of self-esteem evolved as a component of self-concept
theory, it has become pervasive in the social sciences. Both the 4,500 articles
reviewed by Wylie (1979) and the 13,811 references found in the psychologicalliterature since 1984 confirm the continued widespread interest in self-esteem.
Although the terms self-concept and self-esteem have been used interchangeably,
Hart & Edelstein (1992) suggested that a distinction should be made. Self-concept
should be used in reference to the cognitive process in which a description of oneself
is developed and maintained, whereas self-esteem should be used to denote an
affective process that evaluates ones self-description (Brinthaupt & Erwin, 1992).
This process of self-evaluationself-esteemhas been viewed as a key to under-
standing normal, abnormal, and optimal behavior (Bednar et al., 1989; Markus &
Wurf, 1987; Wells & Marwell, 1976). Furthermore, connections have been made
between self-esteem and social problems such as substance abuse, teen pregnancies,school drop-out rates, and delinquency (Mecca et al., 1989). The practical implica-
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
15/43
260 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
tions of self-esteem to individual mental health included assumptions that it was
related to positive mental health (Bean, 1992; Steffenhagen, 1990). Relationships
were suggested to exist between higher levels of self-esteem and high ego function-
ing, personal adjustment, internal control, favorable therapy outcomes, positive
adjustment to old age, and autonomy (Bednar et al., 1989). Conversely, a lack ofself-esteem has been suggested to be related to negative outcomes, including some
mental disorders.
As early as 1959 it was noted that those who seek psychological help are often
suffering from feelings of unworthiness, inadequacy, and anxiety (Coopersmith,
1967). A number of studies suggested that low self-esteem was a correlate or risk
factor for both depression and suicide (e.g., Brage & Meredith, 1994; DeMan &
Leduc, 1995; Harter et al., 1992; Marciano & Kazdin, 1994). These studies
suggested the importance of self-esteem, but were unclear regarding its specific role
in exacerbating conditions that may lead to depression and/or suicide. The research
of Coopersmith (1967), Rosenberg (1979), Harter (1986, 1990a, 1990b, 1993) andHarter & Jackson (1993) has been influential in defining the concept of self-esteem,
although its role remained unclear. These researchers agreed with earlier theorists
(e.g., Cooley, James, Mead) that self-esteem was either a positive or negative
evaluation of ones worthiness. They disagreed, though, concerning the processes
individuals used to arrive at expressed levels of self-esteem. Harter (1990b) sug-
gested that this evaluative process can be explained by a unidimensional (e.g.,
Coopersmith, 1967; Rosenberg, 1979) or multidimensional model (e.g., Harter,
1990b). An examination of the differences and similarities between the most popular
measures of self-esteem reveals these two differing processes and helps to answer our
earlier question of whether or not the self-esteem literature is addressing the concept
of self-respect (see Table 2).
8. Unidimensional models
The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (1967) and the Piers-Harris Self-Concept
Scale (1969) were the prevailing models for self-esteem assessment in the in late
1960s (Harter, 1990b). Both are unidimensional measures because self-esteem is
considered to be a unitary concept. A single score is calculated by summing theresponses across a range of content areas. This score should reflect an individuals
sense of self-esteem across various life areas. The Piers-Harris scale (1969) asks
respondents to comment on what they do and do not like about themselves within
six different areas: behavior, intellectual and school status, physical appearance,
anxiety, popularity, and happiness/satisfaction. The Coopersmith scale (1967) taps
self-attitudes across four areas: peers, parents, school, and personal interests. Rosen-
bergs Self-Esteem Scale (1979) also is based on the unidimensional model. It
remains one of the most widely used measurements of self-esteem (Hagborg, 1993).
Rather than arriving at a score that is an aggregate of items from separate domains,
this scale taps self-esteem directly via respondent evaluations of 10 statements suchas I have a number of good qualities (Rosenberg, 1979).
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
16/43
SELF-RESPECT 261
TABLE2.M
easuresforself-esteem
Measure
Contentofsubscales
Calculationofscores
Basisofself-esteem
Unidimensionalmodels
CoopersmithSelf-EsteemInventory
Peers,parents,school,personalinterests
Sumofallresponses
Self-evaluationofcapacities,
(1967
)
performanceandp
eception
ofothersopinions
Piers-
HarrisSelf-ConceptScale
Behavior,intellect/schoolstatus
,physical
Sumofallresponses
Self-evaluationofcapacities,
(1969
)
appearance,anxiety,popularity,
performanceandp
erception
happinessandsatisfaction
ofothersopinions
Rosen
bergsSelf-EsteemScale(1979)
Doesnotaddressseparatedomains.
Sumofallresponses
Self-evaluationofcapacities,
10questionstapself-esteemdirectly:
performanceandp
erception
i.e.Iamsatisfiedwithmylife,
ofothersopinions
IthinkIamafailure.
Multidimensionalmodels
Harte
rsSelf-PerceptionProfilefor
Fivecompetencedomains:scho
lastic,
Scoresforeachdomainandfor
Self-evaluationofcapacities,
Child
ren(1985)
athletic,socialacceptance,physical
globalscalearesum
med
performanceandp
erception
appearance,behavioralconduct.
separately.Attemptto
ofothersopinions
Globalself-worth
evaluatehowdoma
ins
areweightedandcombinedto
produceglobalself-worth
MarshsSelf-Description
Sevenseparatedomains:schola
stic,
Scoresforeachdomainare
Self-evaluationofcapacities,
Questionnaire(1984)
math,reading,physical,peer,p
arent.
summedseparately
.Global
performanceandp
erception
Generalself-worth
scoreissumofdom
ainscores.
ofothersopinions
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
17/43
262 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
9. Multidimensional models
The multidimensional models have developed in response to the concern that
unidimensional models masked important evaluative distinctions that individuals
made regarding their proficiency in different domains of their lives (Harter, 1990b).
Harters Self-Perception Profile for Children (1985) and Marshs Self-DescriptionQuestionnaire (Marsh et al., 1984) are two multidimensional scales with consider-
able empirical support (Harter, 1990b). Both evaluate competence or self-evaluation
across specific domains such as scholastics, athletics, social acceptance, physical
appearance, and behavioral conduct as well as on a scale that evaluates an overall or
global sense of self-worth.
Although there had been much self-esteem research by the late eighties, many
questions remained regarding its determinants, consequences, and contribution to
individual functioning (Harter, 1990a). To explore them, Harter (1990a) incorpor-
ated both the unidimensional and the multidimensional models so that all aspects ofthe theoretical development of the self-esteem construct were represented. The
initial phase relied on the contributions of James (1890/1952) and Cooley (1902/
1956), and the unidimensional model of self-esteem in the Coopersmith (1967),
Piers-Harris (1969), and Rosenberg (1979) scales. This phase investigated whether
the ratio of competencies and pretensions or the opinions of significant others had
a greater impact on global self-esteem. The study was conducted across the life span
with elementary- and middle-school age children, adolescents, college students, and
adults.
Harter (1990a) found that for all age groups, except college students, compe-
tency ratios and the regard of significant others contributed about equally to globalself-esteem. For the college age group, the competency ratio had more impact than
the regard of significant others. Across all age groups perception of ones physical
appearance was a better predictor of self-esteem than any other competency domain.
Social acceptance was the second best predictor of global self-esteem. Parents and
peers were equivalent significant others for elementary, middle school, and ado-
lescent groups, whereas peers were the most significant for college students. The
findings for adults differed slightly in that intimate relationships were a slightly better
predictor than the regard of others. The significant others for the adult group were
represented by religious groups, civic activities, and coworkers.The above review of what the most frequently used self-esteem measures
actually measured and reported revealed that self-esteem measurements evaluate
how one feels about ones capacities, performance, and perception of others
opinions. Self-esteem is considered to be an emotional response to self-evaluation
and is often discussed in terms of liking or feeling good about oneself. Although, the
desire to feel good is often motivationally valuable, individuals who focus on
maintaining or enhancing this positive affect of self-esteem may not be objectively
evaluating their responses. Sometimes the quest to feel good results in dysfunctional
or dangerous behaviors (Baumeister, 1991; Mecca et al., 1989). Leary & Downs
(1995, p. 139) suggested that if individuals do not engage in an adequate consciousand rational assessment of the consequences of engaging in such behaviors,
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
18/43
SELF-RESPECT 263
they may attempt to maintain self-esteem at a personal cost. Their sociometer
hypothesis explained this phenomenon.
Leary & Downs (1995) reported that even though there has been a great deal
of attention to the behaviors that result from the accepted motives of self-esteem, the
basic questions of source and function have not been adequately addressed. Theysuggested that if the function of self-esteem could be adequately explained, then
answers could be found to important questions, such as why individuals need to
maintain or in some instances enhance their self-esteem, why negative affect is
associated with lowered self-esteem, and why individuals tend to behave in ways that
protect and enhance self-esteem, even when these behaviors are detrimental. Their
proposed answer is found in the sociometer hypothesis (Leary 1999; Leary &
Downs, 1995; Leary et al., 1995), which posited that the self-esteem system evolved
as a means of maintaining interpersonal relationships. It should be noted that during
the past decade other researchers have also been investigating the function of
self-esteem in psychology. For example the theory of terror management (Greenberget al., 1997) proposes that self-esteem is a buffer against the anxiety that is caused
by the awareness of ones mortality.
Leary (1999) described the self-esteem system as a subjective indicator or
gauge that is designed to monitor the quality of personal relationships. The
sociometer hypothesis subscribed to the multidimensional model of self-esteem,
where trait self-esteem referred to an average level of self-esteem and state self-es-
teem referred to the fluctuations in self-esteem that occurred during the course of
daily living (Leary et al., 1995). Upward changes in state self-esteem signal an
improvement in the degree to which one is being socially included or accepted by
other people, whereas downward changes in state self-esteem signal a deterioration
in the degree to which one is being included or accepted (Leary, 1999, p. 208).
The importance of social groups to the survival and reproduction of the human
species is a universally accepted theory (e.g., Ainsworth, 1989; Barash, 1977;
Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Bowlby, 1969). Given this inherent need for social
acceptance, the sociometer hypothesis suggested that the self-esteem system devel-
oped as a means to monitor others response to us. At a pre-attentive level, the
system continuously monitors others responses for cues that indicate disinterest,
disapproval, avoidance, or rejection. When any of these or similar cues are noted,
the system responds with negative self-relevant affect (a loss in self-esteem) thatmotivates us to behave in ways that should increase our acceptance (Leary, 1990;
Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary, 1999).
The four central predictions that derive from this perspective of the self-esteem
system are as follows: (1) events that threaten self-esteem increase the likelihood of
social exclusion, (2) exclusion and rejection result in lower state self-esteem, (3) an
association exists between low trait self-esteem and a generalized expectancy of
rejection, and (4) approval seeking behaviors are motivated by rejection (Leary &
Downs, 1995) [1].
Using the sociometer hypothesis as a basis for understanding the self-esteem
system, Leary (1999, p. 216) suggested the following revisions to the three majorassumptions that pervaded the self-esteem literature:
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
19/43
264 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
(1) Human beings are motivated to preserve, protect, and occasionally, enhance
the degree to which they are accepted, included, and valued by other people.
The self-esteem system is involved in the process of monitoring and regulat-
ing peoples social acceptance.
(2) The psychological benefits of low and high self-esteem derive from the factthat both self-esteem and psychological benefits are associated with per-
ceived social acceptance.
(3) Raising low self-esteem improves psychological well-being and produces
desirable changes in peoples behavior because interventions that raise
self-esteem promote a sense of social inclusion. It is this sense of being
acceptednot self-esteem per sethat produces desirable effects.
Examining Learys revised assumptions and explanation of the self-esteem system
led Kirkpatrick & Ellis (2001) to expand the sociometer hypothesis. They suggested
that the problems of social inclusion vary according to domain. Inclusion criteriamay be driven by the differences in relationships between individuals and their
mates, families, and various peer groups. Each of these adaptive problems requires
its own sociometer, such that an individuals behavior is guided by multiple
sociometers that not only distinguish between the inclusion criteria of specific
domains, but also recognize the adaptive value of the individuals acceptance by a
particular person or group.
Leary (1999) pointed out that the sociometer hypothesis offered a new perspec-
tive to the social and psychological importance of self-esteem. Socially, self-esteem
maintains interpersonal relationships by alerting us to potential rejection and motiv-
ating us to engage in behaviors that will increase inclusionary status. Psychologically,
self-esteem is important because social acceptance promotes psychological well-
being.
Leary & Downs (1995), as well as others (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1994; Dawes,
1994; Mruk, 1995; Pipher, 1997), have raised concerns regarding the popularization
of self-esteem theory and the persistent public belief that the development of high
self-esteem is the solution for individual and societal dysfunction. In his review of
self-esteem theory, Mruk (1995) found that a public self-esteem fallacy has devel-
oped such that many parents believe that without high self-esteem their children will
be at risk of emotional and psychological problems. In a review and research onself-regulation, Baumeister et al. (1994, p. 5) suggested that rather than suffering
from low self-esteem, America is suffering from a spreading epidemic of self-
regulation failure. Dawes (1994) report on psychotherapy suggested that many
mental health professionals, whose treatment protocols are based on intuitive
understanding rather than on empirical evidence, have perpetuated the belief that
self-esteem is a causal variable of behavior.
Such beliefs were bolstered by the publication of the California Task Force on
the Importance of Self-esteem, which, in 1986, embarked on a major effort to prove
scientifically that low self-esteem was a causal factor in the behaviors that become
social problems. We all know this to be true, and it is not really necessary to createa special California task force on the subject to convince us. The real problem we
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
20/43
SELF-RESPECT 265
must address is how we can determine that it is scientifically true (Smelser,
1989, p. 8). The task force reviewed several thousand studies and journal articles,
yet they were unable to find more than a weak correlation between behavior and
self-esteem, e.g., associations between self-esteem and its expected consequences
are mixed, insignificant, or absent (Smelser, 1989, p. 15). Nevertheless, the taskforce continued to argue for programs designed to increase self-esteem.
Accompanying the belief that low-self esteem causes emotional distress and
dysfunctional behavior was the belief that high self-esteem is related to optimal
mental health. Its general importance to a full spectrum of effective human
behaviors remains virtually uncontested (Bednar et al., 1989, p. 1). Branden (1994)
claimed that the likelihood of treating others with respect, kindness, and generosity
increased as self-esteem increased. Mecca et al. (1989) identified self-esteem as a
causal factor in personal and social responsibility. However, the belief in high
self-esteem as a panacea for emotional and psychological dysfunction has begun to
lose its luster in peer-reviewed literature. This change resulted from the lack ofscientific evidence supporting contentions that low self-esteem leads to negative
outcomes and that high self-esteem leads to positive outcomes, as well as the
accumulating empirical evidence that high self-esteem does not necessarily lead to
positive or desirable behaviors.
Self-serving attributions, a strategy often employed to increase self-esteem, can
create social difficulties when others realize that this tactic is being employed
(Forysth et al., 1981). When their egos were threatened, high self-esteem individuals
allowed self-enhancing illusions to affect decision processes and committed them-
selves to goals they were unable to meet (Baumeister et al., 1993). High self-esteem
has been related to non-productive persistence (McFarlin et al., 1984). There is also
an association between excessively high self-esteem and such dysfunctional and
undesirable behaviors as childhood bullying (Olweus, 1994), rape (Scully, 1991),
and violence in youth and adult gangs (Jankowski, 1991). A multidisciplinary review
of studies related to aggression, violence, and crime conducted by Baumeister et al.
(1996, p. 5) found that violence appears to be most commonly a result of
threatened egotismthat is highly favorable views of self that are disputed by
some person or some circumstance, and added that atrocities have been perpetu-
ated against humanity by those who, because of their sense of superiority, believed
they had the right to manipulate, dominate, and harm others. Although separatebodies of literature devoted to the understanding of self-esteem and aggression
have been developed over the years, it is only recently that psychologists have
undertaken efforts to understand the relationship between these two phenomena
(e.g., Bushman, & Baumeister, 1998; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; McGregor et al.,
1998).
As this review demonstrates, efforts to understand self-esteem continue. One of
the most promising avenues for determining the importance of self-esteem is
provided by Leary & Downs (1995) sociometer hypothesis because it examines the
source and function of self-esteem. Thus the continuation of research related to the
sociometer hypothesis should be important in clarifying the role of self-esteem inindividual and societal functioning.
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
21/43
266 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
Discussion
Our review of self-respect and self-esteem suggested several differences. First, the
literature regarding self-respect is grounded in philosophical discussions and is often
discussed in relation to morality, while self-esteem literature developed from and
then dominated the psychological discussions of self-concept. Second, central to thedefinition of self-respect was the existence of a defined moral code that clearly stated
the importance of behaving in ways that treat the self and others as worthwhile
entities, rather than simply as a means to an end. In contrast, the personal evaluation
of ones successes and the opinions of others that were central to the definition of
self-esteem were not subject to a particular moral code. Instead, the moral code that
accompanied how individuals valued their choices was entirely within their discre-
tion. This suggests the third difference; namely, that the objective components of
self-respect are predefined, whereas those of self-esteem are not. These distinctions
lead to two conclusions: (1) the relationship between self-respect and self-esteem is
worthy of study, and (2) the importance of self-respect to psychological functioning
requires separate evaluation and discussion.
10. Self-respect and self-esteem: more than a difference in terminology?
Why did the psychological literature become focused on self-esteem rather than
self-respect, given the ubiquitousness of the term self-respect in the philosophical
literature and the evolution of psychological concepts from philosophical roots? Are
self-esteem and self-respect considered to be different concepts? Or, if they are
considered to be synonymous, then how did the public and psychological communi-
ties conception of self-esteem become focused on the importance of feeling good
and ignore the development of self-respect? To answer these questions we must
revisit the basic tenets of self-respect discussed earlierthe role of rationality in
human dignity, the importance of autonomous behaviors, the importance of per-
sonal standards and life plans that not only advance ones own aspirations, but are
also based on law of respect for persons. We shall look closely at both meaning and
language.
According to Kant, it was human rationality that provided for equal dignity
among humans and was the basis for the law of respect for persons. It is the humancapacity for rational thought that allows us to realize our inherent worth, and
provides us with the ability to display that worth by making choices that consider the
consequences of our actions for ourselves and others. Appreciating the capacity for
rationality is demonstrated through treatment of the self and others as worthwhile
entities by virtue of ones existence and subjectively experienced through feelings of
dignity. Rationality is also present in models of self-esteem. Individuals are encour-
aged to evaluate their options and choose wisely their course of action. Yet, it is the
personal evaluation of capacities and successes and the perceptions of others
opinions that leads to the emotional experience of either feeling good or bad.
Conversely, the basis of self-respect is the acceptance of ones worth as a fact or agiven.
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
22/43
SELF-RESPECT 267
Personal autonomy follows this acceptance and provides the power to respect
ones self and have the personal standards and personal life plans that give meaning
to life while respecting others. As with rationality, these tenets are found in models
of self-esteem, but in contrast to self-respect, appear to reside in the individuals
intent. Individuals experience a loss of self-esteem when their self-evaluation revealsthat they have not achieved success or acceptance by a particular social group. If
increasing self-esteem is the sole motivation for behavior, one may respond to this
self-evaluation by acting in ways that achieve success or increase acceptance without
regard to the law of respect for persons. Yet if one is committed to the principles of
self-respect, the knowledge that one has inherent worth and is living his or her life
in a manner that honors that worth in oneself and others would provide for the
positive feelings related to self-respect and the motivation to continue self-respecting
behaviors.
The above comparison demonstrates the differences in interpretation of the
tenets of self-respect. Rationality and autonomy did remain part of self-esteemdiscussions, while the law of respect for persons did not. A closer look at the
language of both historical and contemporary philosophers may explain why. The
two words rationality and morality appear consistently throughout philosophical
writings. Regarding rationality, discussions of both self-respect and self-esteem
acknowledge the importance of the ability to think and choose a course of action.
Regarding morality, as discussed earlier, Pipher (1997) suggested that, in the 1970s,
many psychologists determined that the prescription of moral behavior was outside
their roles. Perhaps not surprisingly, this time frame coincides with the beginning of
a marked increase in the number of publications in PsychINFO with self-esteem in
their title (Jacobson, 2000). Recall also that while philosophical discussions of
self-respect were oriented to the reciprocation of individual behavior and cultural
development, the psychological concept of self-esteem evolved from self-concept,
which was focused on individuals perceptions.
Perhaps psychologists abandoned self-respect and chose self-esteem because
philosophers were discussing self-respect in terms that some psychologists regarded
as negative. Also, self-esteem was studied as a component of self-concept. Simply
put, psychology would become increasingly oriented to the needs of the individual
expressed by personal evaluations based on the evaluations of others opinions, and
less focused on the role that this individuality played in the development of society.The declaration that feeling good would lead to optimal mental health and protect
one from emotional or mental dysfunction, provided the populace with a simple
focusensure that everyone feels good all of the time.
As discussed previously, there were concerns in the psychological community
(e.g. Baumeister et al., 1994; Leary, 1999; Mruk, 1995) regarding the notion of
self-esteem as a panacea for individual and societal ills. One outcome was the
development of the sociometer hypothesis (e.g., Leary, 1999) which explained ones
experiences of positive and negative affect (high and low self-esteem) and their
relationship to ones perceived inclusion or exclusion from social groups. Recall that
Leary & Downs (1995) emphasized the importance of considering the consequencesof behavior that would increase feelings of acceptance. We suggest that self-respect
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
23/43
268 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
motivates individuals to consider consequences and engage in another important
aspect of human nature and a major developmental taskbalancing the need to
connect with others and the need to maintain independence and autonomy (Lorenz,
1987; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990). Is it possible that aversion to the word
morality contributed to the proliferation of psychological literature that popularizedthe importance of an autonomy geared towards feeling good and overshadowed
the importance of another essential human characteristic, empathy? Empathy and
prosocial behavior are inherent aspects of human nature and cannot be ignored. It
may be that making a distinction between self-esteem and self-respect will enhance
the study of human nature by allowing theorists and researchers to focus on the
effects of perceived inclusion or exclusion, as well as the processes of balancing our
innate tendencies for prosocial behavior and autonomy. Understanding these two
processes and their interactions should lead to a better understanding of the
relationship between self-esteem and self-respect.
We propose that a relationship exists between self-respect and self-esteem suchthat self-respecting individuals may experience either high or low levels of self-
esteem and individuals with high levels of self-esteem may or may not possess
self-respect. This would explain the spectral differences (i.e., violent vs. nurturing)
found in the behaviors of individuals reporting high levels of self-esteem. This
relationship may also account for the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the
contention that those who report low levels of self-esteem will suffer from emotional
or psychological dysfunction.
Recall that the sociometer hypothesis contended that the function of the
self-esteem system is to continuously monitor inclusionary status and notify the
individual when that status is threatened. Given that social groups were crucial for
protection and reproduction (Barash, 1977), this function of self-esteem is easily
understood. What is less easily understood is the wide range of pro and antisocial
behaviors displayed by individuals who demonstrated high self-esteem on accepted
psychological measures. Although violent individuals have demonstrated high levels
of self-esteem, everyone with high self-esteem levels is not violent. Even though
non-productive persistence occurs in individuals with high self-esteem levels, all
individuals with high self-esteem do not engage in non-productive persistence.
Conversely, there is no empirical evidence that individuals demonstrating low
self-esteem are at a significantly greater risk of emotional or psychological difficultiesthan individuals with moderate or high self-esteem levels. This lack of consistency
between levels of self-esteem and resulting behaviors suggests the presence of an
unidentified mediating factor. We propose that self-respect, rather than being a
synonym for self-esteem, is the unidentified mediating factor that accounts for the
differences in how either low or high self-esteem is emotionally experienced and
behaviorally expressed.
11. Self-respect and self-esteem: affect and behavior
The literature reviewed suggests several differences in how self-respect and self-es-teem impact individual functioning. A comparison of the interactions between
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
24/43
SELF-RESPECT 269
cognition, affect, and behavior demonstrates these differences (see Figure 1). As
noted above, the presence of a particular moral code within a system of self-respect
dominates its objective components. Consider that self-esteem may be somewhat
more subjective in nature, not only because evaluations are based on differing
criteria, but also because affect is regarded to be its predominate property. Asdiscussed earlier, there is agreement among theorists that self-esteem is an attitude,
specifically an attitude about oneself derived from personal evaluations of the self
and perceptions of others opinions (e.g., Coopersmith, 1967; Rosenberg, 1979;
Harter, 1990b). Attitudes can develop from any of the three components, cognition,
affect, or behavior (Edwards, 1990). Drawing on early theorists (e.g., James,
1890/1952; Mead, 1934/1967), as well as more recent ones (e.g., Rogers, 1959;
Kagan, 1989; Watson & Clark, 1984), Brown (1993) has persuasively argued that
self-esteem was grounded in affective rather than cognitive processes, and that
feelings are most important to individuals. Hence, individuals do not just think
positive or negative thoughts about themselves, they feel good or bad about them-selves. The sociometer hypothesis (Leary & Downs, 1995; Leary et al., 1995; Leary,
1999) clarified the central role of affect in self-esteem. It is the negative or positive
affect that is described as low or high self-esteem that provides ongoing feedback to
individuals regarding their potential inclusion or exclusion from a particular social
group. Because this monitoring often occurs at a preconscious level, cognition may
not play a role until a threat is perceived. When threats to an individuals inclusion-
ary status are noted, the individuals attention is turned towards the self. The
individual is then motivated to behave in ways that will increase the potential for
inclusion by that social group. Behaviors may occur without serious thought as to
their potential consequences.
On the other hand, cognition and the law of respect for persons would be
considered the predominate properties of self-respect. The central tenet of self-re-
spect is the understanding and consideration of mans humanity, which then extends
to the duty to treat the self and others in a manner that honors that humanity.
Specifically, it requires treating the self and others as an end, never as a means. To
do so, one has to think carefully about what is important to oneself and others.
Individuals have to think of themselves and others outside of the experience of the
moment and determine if ones actions will be in concordance with ones values,
move one closer to the realization of predefined objectives and goals, and alsodemonstrate respect for the self and for others. Simply put, it means considering the
consequences of ones actions before performing them. Feelings, such as pride and
confidence, when one has chosen the correct course of action, or shame or guilt,
when one has chosen the incorrect course of action, motivate one to continue the
processes related to self-respect. According to the sociometer hypothesis, behaviors
motivated by self-esteem may be performed with minimal or no consideration when
they are guided by the immediate desire to achieve social inclusion. By definition,
behaviors motivated by self-respect consider the law of respect for persons and are
not subject to inclusionary needs. This does not mean that individuals acting from
the tenets of self-respect may not act without stopping to think. Many respectfulbehaviors, such as manners or listening carefully to others, are learned, incorporated
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
25/43
270 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
FIG. 1. Proposed models for interaction of cognition, affect, and behavior of self-respect and self-esteem.
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
26/43
SELF-RESPECT 271
into ones repertoire, and then performed automatically. The crucial difference here
is that if individuals possessing self-respect detect cues of rejection, they will not
abandon self-respecting behaviors in order to meet inclusionary needs. On the other
hand, individuals lacking self-respect may behave in ways that violate the law of
respect in order to meet their inclusionary needs and experience positive levels ofself-esteem.
12. Self-respect: importance to individual and societal functioning.
The philosophical literature reviewed earlier clearly supports the importance of
self-respect to individual and societal functioning. Support also exists in the theoreti-
cal discussions and empirical evidence of existing psychological literature, even
though the term or concept of self-respect, as defined herein, is rarely used. A closer
look at how the differences described above between self-respect and self-esteem
impact functioning on a daily basis demonstrates existing support within the psycho-logical community for the tenets of self-respect.
Consider the following: (1) self-esteem is important to individual functioning,
and (2) the level of esteem that individuals hold for themselves is determined by the
number of successes they have experienced (e.g., experiencing inclusion as defined
by Leary and his colleagues) and their willingness to accept themselves in their
present state of development. Now consider these questions: What happens to the
individuals mental health on the days, or weeks, or months when successes are
limited or non-existent and self-esteem dips into the danger zone? Do they suffer
mental setbacks? Not necessarily, since many individuals strive toward goals despite
repeated setbacks and dissatisfaction with their current state. An excellent example
comes from the life of Abraham Lincoln. According to Branden (1969), a leading
exponent of the importance of self-esteem, individuals who experience deep insecu-
rities or self-doubts have nothing to offer the world. Indeed, despite the lack of any
empirical evidence, Brandens assumption is typical regarding the benefits of high
self-esteem. Yet, Dawes (1994) cited Abraham Lincoln as one of the many admir-
able people who have suffered from deep insecurities and self-doubts. What keeps
such a person from falling into the psychopathological trap of lowered self-esteem?
Could it be that there is a related concept that ensures that an individuals sense of
worth is not dependent on learning to read before everyone else, making a hit in thebaseball game, or being awarded a job promotion? Might that concept be self-
respect? We submit that those who respect themselves believe that they are worth
the effort it takes to consider their disappointments and failures as closely as their
triumphs and successes. They believe that they are worth the effort needed to try
again tomorrow and will set new goals, rather than remain satisfied with their
present ability or level of maturity. Viewed in this context, self-respect is the couch
on which the cushion of self-esteem resides. Self-respect is more than just the
consideration and appreciation of ones own personal attributes, talents or accom-
plishments. It becomes the core of ones psychological strength by proclaiming
worth in the simple fact of ones existence, providing protection from despair in theface of setbacks or failures, and furnishing guidance and purpose for ones future.
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
27/43
272 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
The objective components of self-respect provide guidelines and structure.
Behaviors that are respectful towards the self and others can be defined and
observed. When individuals are struggling with problems or issues, specifics are
much more valuable in helping them determine a course of action than subjective
affirmations of ones worth or potential. Pipher (1997) has found in her years as atherapist that many adults try to bolster their self-esteem with self-affirmation tapes
and self-help books. These media are designed to convince the listeners or readers
that they are good people and should feel good. Although these messages may have
their place, they mask the need for concrete changes in ones goals and behaviors
(Dawes, 1994). If ones work is meaningless or ones relationships are fragmented,
approaches are needed that are specific in terms of behaviors (e.g., Borkovec &
Costello, 1993; Halford et al., 1994; Jacobson, 1992) that can bring about change.
Based on the tenets of the sociometer theory, Leary (1999, p. 215) has suggested
that some people ought to have low self-esteem. Those who behave in destructive
and inappropriate ways that lead to exclusion experience low self-esteem becausetheir sociometer has accurately detected a threat to inclusion. Change is what is
needed, not messages of self-affirmation.
The attempt to rid oneself of unpleasant feelings through self-affirmation points
to another potential difference between self-esteem and self-respect. When the
feelings of both shame (feeling of disgrace or dishonor) and guilt (feeling of
responsibility for a wrongdoing) are appropriate, they serve useful purposes in
preserving self-respect. Feelings of shame are a warning signal that one is struggling
with ones conviction to valued standards or has lost confidence in ones ability to
meet these standards (Taylor, 1995). Self-affirmation without prior self-evaluation
ignores the underlying causes of the shame and prevents one from identifying the
thought processes or events that preceded the feeling. Without this self-survey and
evaluation, individuals cannot take the necessary actions to recommit to their
espoused values. Likewise guilt, if appropriate, preserves self-respecting behavior.
Guilt is a sensation of anxiety that occurs when one engages in an action that violates
ones standards (Taylor, 1995). Anxiety serves as an interrupt mechanism by
interrupting the behavioral chain that may culminate in undesired behavior and
prompting cognitive reassessment (Baumeister & Tice, 1990). Efforts to avoid this
anxiety motivate individuals to refrain from behavior that would undermine their
self-respect.Self-respect also provides guidelines for parents who may be struggling with
their child-rearing efforts. Helping children to make decisions and expecting behav-
iors from them that are consistent with respect offers both children and adults
concrete direction. Many parents are more concerned about their childrens feelings
than their behaviors and as a result focus on cultivating self-esteem, and other goals
such as creativity, sociability, or parental love, rather than self-control (Baumeister
et al., 1994).
As noted earlier, Baumeister et al. (1994) voiced their concern regarding the
attention given to self-esteem and the lack of attention afforded self-regulation. They
explained that in studying the self, psychologists and social scientists have paid agreat deal of attention to self-concept, self-esteem, and self-presentation. Yet,
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
28/43
SELF-RESPECT 273
although the issue of self-regulation was considered in the 1960s, most of the
self-regulation literature did not appear until the late 1980s. Social interest is offered
as one explanation for this delay. Baumeister et al. (1994) suggested that under-
standing self-concept and the formation of identity were of interest when the baby
boomers were in their adolescence and trying to find themselves. When the babyboom generation began developing careers, attention turned to issues of self-
presentation. Then, during the 1980s, growing and pervasive social problems related
to individuals inability to delay gratification and control impulses turned attention
to issues of self-control.
Self-regulation involves starting, stopping or changing a process. It is initiated
by competition among parallel processes (Baumeister et al., 1994), such as the desire
to smoke a cigarette and quit smoking. A hierarchy exists among processes such
that, when attention is focused on the higher-level process, the lower-level process
is overridden (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Baumeister et al. (1994, p. 8) explained that
higher-level processes involve larger time spans, more extensive networks of mean-ingful associations and interpretations, and more distal and abstract goals. If the
higher-level processes do not override the lower-level ones, and instead the lower-
level processes determine the behavior, self-regulation failure occurs. The basic
ingredients for self-regulation include standards, monitoring, and the ability to alter
ones behavior in order to bring it into line with ones standards. As noted
previously, self-regulation or self-control is an integral component of a self-respect
system.
Teaching young children self-control, rather than encouraging immediate
momentary satisfaction, can provide them with effective skills for social interaction
and coping with disappointments or difficult circumstances. In a 10-year-longitudi-
nal study, Mischel et al. (1988) found that 15-year-olds who at the age of 4 and 5
were most able to resist immediate temptation and choose delayed gratification
demonstrated superior abilities in school performance, social competence, and the
ability to deal effectively with frustration and stress. A follow-up study (Shoda et al.,
1990) found that the children with the highest capacity for self-control at age 4 and
5 scored the highest on the SAT entrance exams when applying for college.
Thus, the behaviors of self-control, self-survey, and tenacity promote indepen-
dence and lead to the development of the autonomy needed for self-respect to exist.
These actions represent a beginning for those who find functioning difficult and helpthose who are able to maintain their functioning to continue their growth as human
beings. Autonomy provides the means to control ones behavior. It also provides a
foundation for the self such that dependence on others is limited.
Harters (1990a) study, as well as Learys (1999) theory of inclusion, illustrated
the significant impact that the opinions of significant others have on self-esteem.
Because of our social nature, the opinions of others will always play a role in an
individuals self-image. However, over-dependence on others opinions may be
destructive. Individuals may be led to beliefs that are not true, such as I deserve to
be beaten. They may be led to engage in unacceptable behaviors such as the crimes
of street gangs. They may become dependent on people who may not always beavailable because of other obligations, termination of the relationship, or even death.
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
29/43
274 C. E. ROLAND & R. M. FOXX
Defining ones self, managing ones day and creating ones life plan around the
objective behaviors inherent in self-respect provide the knowledge and actions
necessary to recognize the truth, associate with constructive rather than destructive
individuals and social groups, and cope effectively with the loss of personal relation-
ships. These behaviors also provide the skills to cope with unmet expectations inregards to personal successes.
The other important factor contributing to self-esteem found in the studies
discussed earlier was how one feels about oneself regarding capacities and perform-
ance. Because self-respect relies on only one capacity, rationality, it provides a solid
foundation from which one can develop abilities and pursue interests. Most of us do
not possess the natural talent of famous athletes, writers or inventors. Many of us do
not possess the talent to earn a living in the professions on which we may place
personal value. All of us, though, possess the ability to respect ourselves and others
in our daily endeavors, regardless of bad days or inabilities to reach the pinnacle of
success. If the underpinnings of ones motivations to pursue an activity were basedonly on past success, it would follow that individuals would lower their expectations
to ensure success. Coopersmith (1967), however, found that those considered to
possess high self-esteem increased their goals and expectations. We contend that
Coppersmith was actually tapping into the mediating effects of self-respect. A more
recent study conducted by McFarlin et al. (1984, p. 153) found that individuals
scoring high on measures of self-esteem may engage in nonproductive persistence,
concluding that high self-esteem can mean delusionally conceited as easily as low
self-esteem can mean pathologically insecure. Again, we suggest that self-respect
mediates the effects of high self-esteem for those who do not demonstrate nonpro-
ductive persistence or delusional conceit.
The tenets of self-respect provide requirements for how to approach the process
of living from the perspective of everyday functioning to the perspective of lifetime
goals. The confidence to evaluate successes and failures realistically, and to make
sound decisions about pursuing an endeavor exists within the self-respecting individ-
ual. The ability to think and to reason ensures that there is always a foundation from
which to work to (1) recover the feelings of pride that come from living within the
standards of self-respect, (2) continue the pursuit of unrealized goals, and (3)
attempt the pursuit of new challenges.
One of the reasons parents are having difficulty passing on values to theirchildren may be that they have become overly concerned with the development
of specific talents. Children and parents are hurrying and scurrying to coaches,
tutors, and private teachers rather than spending time sharing values. In effect,
children are being outsourced. Clearly, while the development of talents contri-
butes to childrens favorable opinions of themselvesprovide future goals and
directionit does not ensure that they will develop self-respecting standards or
understand the value of ethical living. However, if a child possesses the behaviors
and attitudes of self-respect, the lack or loss of a special talent will not be a
devastating event. Also, the tenets of self-respect suggest that when children possess
self-respect they will be inclined to use their talents in meaningful ways for them-selves and for society.
-
7/28/2019 Self-respect. A neglected concept
30/43
SELF-RESPECT 275
Self-respect provides a sense of purpose greater than ourselves. Pipher (1997,
p. 123) explained that many therapists trained in the 1970s are made uneasy by
issues of morality, noting that, Speaking in terms of duty was called musterbation,
and the worst word in the English Language was should. She continued that
clients had been taught to expect their therapists to agree with them and beconcerned only with how they feel. Yet, she noted several well-known therapists who
endorsed moral responsibility. Feeling better as a result of helping others is one
theme of Banduras (1977) ideas of self-efficacy and Becks (1987) theories of
depression. Doherty (1995) encouraged therapists to engage in moral discourse with
their clients, not as a means of imposing ones personal beliefs, but rather because
good therapy should increase moral sensitivity and build character. Self-respecting
behavior engages one in a communal effort that is larger than the self and provides
a sense of purpose beyond the boundaries of ones life.
Most importantly, in terms of psychotherapy and societal functioning, a system
of self-respect demands accountability and responsibility from both individualsseeking services and from professionals providing services. A therapists first
responsibility is to provide services that have sound empirical evidence demonstrat-
ing their effectiveness. Dawes (1994, p. vii) report, discussed earlier, demonstrated
the need for mental health professionals to base therapeutic approaches on well-
validated techniques and principles, rather than intuitive understanding obtained
from experience. After reviewing more than 300 empirical investigations and sum-
maries of investigations, Dawes concluded that those who practice from an intuitive
basis are no more effective than minimally trained professionals who lack the
credentials for licensure. Of major concern is the profound effect that mental health
professionals, working without a scientific basis for their expertise, have had on
the cultural beliefs regarding what constitutes a good life, what types of behavior
are desirable, andmost importanthow people should feel about the world
(p. 9).
Dawes (1994) suggested that the most prevalent of these beliefs is that child-
hood experiences are the major determinant of adult behavior, even very subtle
experiences and especially those that enhance or diminish self-esteem. This has lead
to the belief, despite virtually no empirical evidence, that self-esteem is a causal
variable of behavior. Branden (1994; see also Dawes, 1994; Leary, 1999), one of the
leading contributors to the popularization of self-esteem, claimed that he could notthink of a single psychological problem that is not traceable to low self-esteem. The
unfortunate effect of the perpetuation of this type of belief is that individuals are
encouraged to do whatever is necessary to feel good about themselves, rather than
to tackle the hard work necessary to effect behavioral change and psychological
growth (Baumeister et al., 1994; Dawes, 1994, Leary, 1999).
Th