self-respect. a neglected concept

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


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


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


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


5/43


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


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


7/43


(b)C

ontemporaryGroupI(appreciationofbeingaperson)


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


8/43

SELF-RESPECT 253

(c)C

ontemporaryGroupII(charac

terandconduct)


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


9/43


(d)C

ontemporaryGroupIII(importanceofpersonhoodandqual

ityofpersonhood)


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


10/43

SELF-RESPECT 255

(e)C

ontemporaryGroupIV(unifie

daccountofself-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


11/43


(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


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


13/43


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


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-


15/43


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).


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


(1969

)

appearance,anxiety,popularity,

performanceandp

erception

happinessandsatisfaction

ofothersopinions

Rosen

bergsSelf-EsteemScale(1979)

Doesnotaddressseparatedomains.

Sumofallresponses


10questionstapself-esteemdirectly:

performanceandp

erception

i.e.Iamsatisfiedwithmylife,

ofothersopinions

IthinkIamafailure.

Multidimensionalmodels

Harte

rsSelf-PerceptionProfilefor

Fivecompetencedomains:scho

lastic,

Scoresforeachdomainandfor


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


Questionnaire(1984)

math,reading,physical,peer,p

arent.

summedseparately

.Global

performanceandp

erception

Generalself-worth

scoreissumofdom

ainscores.

ofothersopinions


17/43


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,


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:


19/43


(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


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.


21/43


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.


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


23/43


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


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


25/43


FIG. 1. Proposed models for interaction of cognition, affect, and behavior of self-respect and self-esteem.


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.


27/43


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,


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.


29/43


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.


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

self-respect. a neglected concept

Documents