[This text is machine generated and may contain errors.]

Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 855-858. © Psychological Reports 1970SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND ADJUSTMENT REVISITED:A REPLICATIONCHARLES H. MOORE AND JAMES C. ASCOUGHEast Carolina University Purdue UniversitySummary."Taylor and Combs (1952) found that adjusted children aremore capable of accepting threatening statements than poorly adjusted chil-dren. The present study was an attempt to repeat their research with collegestudents. Their list of damaging statements was modified for an older popu-lation and the California Test of Personality (CTP) was used as a measure ofadjustment. Data were collected for 79 Ss who were asked to identify them-selves. Critical ratios were not significant and a correlation of .01 between in-dices was obtained. When the measures were later administered to 109 Ss with-out requiring names, r = .04. Inspection showed that results for Ss in the CTPmid-distribution were in predicted directions but that scores for Ss at the ex-tremes were reversed. Results were discussed in terms of neurotic symptomsand stable adult behavior.Taylor and Combs (1952) investigated a theoretical statement of selftheory that oa phenomenal self is adequate to the degree to which it is capableof accepting into its organization any and all aspects of reality? (Snygg &Combs, 1949, p. 136). They reasoned that the adjusted individual should bemore capable of accepting derogatory and therefore threatening facts about him-self than might be expected for a poorly adjusted individual. Their experimen-tal hypothesis was: ogiven two groups of children, one better adjusted than theother by some external criterion; we predict that the better adjusted childrenwill be able to accept more damaging statements about themselves than thepoorer adjusted individuals? (~Taylor & Combs, 1952, p. 89). Ss were 205randomly selected children of similar age, education and socio-economic levelfrom six grades of rural, consolidated, northeastern Pennsylvania schools. TheCalifornia Test of Personality (CTP), Elementary Form A, was used as an ex-ternal measure to distinguish between adjusted and maladjusted children whowere divided into upper and lower 50 per cent groups according to adjustmentscore. Two weeks after the administration of the CTP, the children were pre-sented a list of items to determine the extent to which they could accept dam-aging statements about themselves, Complete protocols were obtained for 105boys and 75 girls. Data were analyzed separately for boys and girls by meansof a critical ratio which yielded significant results. Taylor and Combs (1952)felt that their predictions were supported and they experimentally demonstrateda relationship between adjustment and ability to accept damaging statementsabout the self. 7The present study was an attempt to repeat their study using college stu-dents rather than children to determine whether or not the same relationship

856 C. H. MOORE & J. C. ASCOUGHbetween self acceptance and adjustment obtains with older Ss whose adjustmentpatterns are presumably more stable.METHODThe California Test of Personality (CTP), Adult Form A, was administered to 102undergraduate students enrolled in psychology adjustment courses at the University ofGeorgia. This group was more heterogeneous than that employed by Taylor and Combs(1952). While socio-economic backgrounds were not compared, educational levels in-cluded all four college classifications and ages ranged from 18 to 25 yr.The list of damaging statements was revised for use with a college population.Seven statements were left in the original form, one or two words were changed in eightTABLE 1ORIGINAL (a2) AND MODIFIED (b) DAMAGING STATEMENTS. I sometimes disobey my parents.. I sometimes disregard parental instructions.I sometimes say bad words or swear.I sometimes use profanity.I sometimes copy or cheat on schoolwork.I sometimes copy or cheat on schoolwork.. I sometimes am rude to older people.I sometimes am rude to older people.I sometimes tell lies.I sometimes am untruthful.. I sometimes make fun of other schoolmates.. I sometimes make fun of other people.. I sometimes pretend to forget things I am supposed to do.I sometimes purposefully fail to do things that I should.I sometimes steal things when I know I will not get caught.I sometimes steal things when I know I will not get caught.. I sometimes fib to my classmates.I sometimes fib to my friends, roommates, or family.I sometimes pretend to be sick to get out of things.I sometimes use sickness as a way out.I sometimes am unkind to younger children.. I sometimes am unkind to younger persons.I sometimes am lazy and wonTt do my work.I sometimes am lazy and wonTt do my work.I sometimes tell dirty stories.. I sometimes tell dirty jokes.. I sometimes cheat in games.I sometimes cheat in games.. I sometimes am unruly at school.I sometimes am temperamental in the dorm, house, or where I live.I sometimes do not brush my teeth on purpose.. I sometimes behave inappropriately on purpose.I sometimes talk back to my mother.. I sometimes talk back to my parents.. I sometimes am mean to animals.. I sometimes abuse the belongings of others.I sometimes waste time when I should be working.. I sometimes waste time when I should be working.. Isometimes show off in front of other children.. I sometimes show off in front of others.10.11.Lee114.id:16.are18.he20.TP TP OP TE TE TP TP TP TP TR TP TR TP TP TP TP TP TR TP oPSELF-ACCEPTANCE AND ADJUSTMENT 857statements, and six were modified more extensively with attempts to retain a similarmeaning except for two statements. The original and the modified statements are shownin Table 1. Statements were mimeographed and the list was administered one week afterthe personality measure. Ss were instructed to mark statements true for them and towrite their names on the papers. Both CTP and damaging statement lists were obtainedfor 79 Ss, 31 women and 48 men.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe data were treated by the procedure described by Taylor and Combs(1952). The CTP was used to divide Ss by sex into the upper and lower 50%in terms of adjustment scores. Mean number of damaging items endorsed werecomputed for each group and the critical ratio applied. Data in Table 2 showthere were no significant differences between group means and the hypothesiswas not supported. For pooled Ss a Pearson product-moment correlation of.014 was obtained.TABLE 2MEAN ADJUSTMENT SCORES, MEAN NUMBER OF DAMAGING ITEMS CHECKEDAND CRITICAL RATIOS OF DIFFERENCES FOR MEN AND WOMENGroup More M Damaging Msp SEx CRItems CheckedMen Lower 50% 99.75 14.92 3.55 69 2.95Upper 50% 137.30 12.42 4.73 .98Women Lower 50% 108.80 12.73 3.99 1.06 2.84Upper 50% 135.0 13.13 5.26 1.33This study differed from that by Taylor and Combs (1952) in that Ss wereasked to write their names on the CTP and the damaging statements list. Toinvestigate this difference both measures were administered by the same pro-cedure to 109 additional Ss without requiring names. Critical ratios were notcomputed but the correlation was .0406.Taylor and Combs (1952) hypothesized that much effort is given to theconstruction and conservation of an acceptable self image. The well-adjustedself can accept threats while the poorly adjusted individual experiences feelingsof unworthiness, guilt, and inadequacy when threatened which results in de-fensive efforts to maintain his existing self concept. Their research was in-terpreted as supporting these contentions. The present study yielded no rela-tionship between adjustment and ability to accept threat in two separate groupsof college students. The insignificant results might be due to a lack of motiva-tion, changes in administration, or test materials that do not effectively tap be-havior of a college population. However, these alternatives do not explain cer-tain specific findings. Taylor and Combs indicated that not only were pre-dicted tendencies observable in individual cases, but that their statistical resultswould have been magnified by using the upper and lower 25% groups rather

858 C. H. MOORE & J. C. ASCOUGHthan the upper and lower 50% groups. Visual inspection of present datashowed that while individuals at the middle of the CTP distribution scored inthe predicted direction, those at the extremes obtained reverse scores on damag-ing statements list. For example, of the first group, the individual who ob-tained the lowest CTP score accepted 19 of the 20 damaging statements as truewhile the individual with the highest CTP score accepted only two damagingstatements. 42% of Ss in the upper 25% of the men and women accepted 10or fewer damaging statements. Of the men, 83%, and 50% of the women inthe lower 25% accepted 10 or more damaging statements. In the secondstudy, 70% of Ss in the upper 25% accepted nine or fewer damaging state-ments while 51% of Ss in the lower 25% accepted 11 or more damaging state-ments. In general, for the first group, men in the lower 50% accepted morestatements than men in the upper 50% group.The first results were initially surprising but were supported by the sec-ond administration. They seem at least partially explained by clinical experi-ence. Poorly adjusted adults have crystallized personality structures which in-clude negative perceptions about self. They are frequently self-depreciatingand derrogatory and openly state the unworthiness they feel. Thus, they mightwell obtain low scores on the CTP and accept most statements. This is a com-mon defensive ploy of individuals with depressive reactions who are attempt-ing to obtain onarcissistic supplies? and reassurance. An obsessive compulsiveneurotic might obtain low CTP scores and yet with rationalization, intellectuali-zation, and critical perceptions about self, check most statements as true. Onthe other hand, many individuals who obtained high CTP scores endorsed fewof the statements. It may well be that adjusted adults with mature personalitydevelopment and stable behavior patterns do not actually engage in the specificbehaviors supplied on the damaging statement list.REFERENCESSNYGG, D., & COMBS, A. W. Individual behavior: a new frame of reference for psychol-ogy. New York: Harper, 1949.TAYLOR, C., & COMBS, A. W. Self-acceptance and adjustment. Journal of ConsultingPsychology, 1952, 16, 89-91.Accepted March 31, 1970.