Journal of Abnormal Psychology

1968, Vol. 73, No. 4, 317-322

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND

ADJUSTMENT, REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION
AND SOCIAL COMPETENCE
CAROL Z. FEDER1
Adelphi University

Ss were 40 male patients hospitalized on a psychiatric ward and defined as

maladjusted and 40 male patients hospitalized on a medical-surgical ward and
defined as adjusted. The medical and psychiatric groups were each composed
of equal subgroups of low-competence repressers, low-competence sensitizers,
high-competence repressers, and high-competence sensitizers. All Ss completed a
social desirability minimized Q sort for "real self" and for "ideal self." Results
showed that self-acceptance as expressed in a self-ideal discrepancy score is
significantly related to the defensive-style continuum of repression-sensitization,
with repressers expressing significantly smaller self-ideal discrepancies than
sensitizers. No relationship was found between self-acceptance and the dimen-
sions of adjustment or social competence.

The self-concept and the concept of self-
acceptance have been the central focus of
much research in the last IS years (Wylie,
1961). Though it was the individual's present
self-concept which received major focus in
early theoretical work (Rogers, 19S1; Snygg
& Combs, 1949), the interest of later in-
vestigation has often focused on the relation-
ship between the individual's present self-
concept and his ideal self-concept. Rogers and
Dymond (1954) think that the degree of con-
gruence which an individual expresses be-
tween his present self-concept and his ideal
self-concept is indicative of the degree of
self-acceptance he experiences. This theoreti-
cal position generated a good deal of interest
in the concept of self-acceptance, and many
investigators have attempted to define its
relationship to other variables.
The variable which has received the most
consistent attention in relation to self-accept-
ance is adjustment. Rogers and Dymond
1
This paper is based on portions of a dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the PhD degree at Adelphi University, 1966. The
author wishes to express her gratitude to the mem-
bers of her committee, Harold Levine and Norman
Berk, for their encouragement and suggestions during
all phases of this research. Particular thanks are
extended to the chairman of the dissertation com-
mittee, George Strieker, for his unstinting guidance
and support, and to Bernard Locke, chief psycholo-
gist, and the staff of the Veterans Administration
Hospital, Manhattan, for their fullest cooperation
and support.
317
(1954) stated that the degree of self-accept-
ance an individual experiences is positively
related to his level of psychological adjust-
ment. Although Rogers and his associates
related adjustment positively and linearly to
the degree of self-acceptance an individual
experiences, research results have often been
contradictory. A number of studies have
found the postulated positive relationship be-
tween self-acceptance and adjustment (Bills,
1954; Calvin & Holtzman, 1953; Chase,
1957; Cowen, Heilizer, Axelrod, & Alexander,
1957; Hanlon, Hofstaetter, & O'Connor,
1954; Martire & Hornberger, 1957; Shlien,
Mosak, & Dreikurs, 1962; Turner & Vander-
lippe, 1958; Williams, 1962). Other studies,
however, have found either a negative or zero
correlation between self-acceptance and ad-
justment (Borislow, 1962; Kamano, 1961;
Zuckerman, Baer, & Monashkin, 1956;
Zuckerman & Monashkin, 1957), while still
other studies have found a curvilinear rela-
tionship between self-acceptance and adjust-
ment (Block & Thomas, 1955; Chodorkoff,
1954; Friedman, 1955; Hillson & Worchel,
1957). Thus, the nature of the relationship
between self-acceptance, as expressed in a
conscious self-report instrument, and adjust-
ment is still not clearly delineated.
Recently, in an attempt to understand self-
acceptance in a different light, self-acceptance
has been theoretically related to two other
variables: repression-sensitization (Altrocchi,
318 CAROL Z. FEDER

Parsons, & Dickoff, 1960) and social com- cantly larger self-ideal discrepancy scores,
petence (Achenbach & Zigler, 1963). indicating less self-acceptance, than did low-
The repression-sensitization dimension is a competence Ss. Achenbach and Zigler (1963)
bipolar categorization of defensive behaviors. feel that a large self-ideal discrepancy score,
Both repression and sensitization refer to
. . . is concomitant with the demonstrated capacity
groups of defensive behaviors which are un- to achieve in areas most valued in our society.
consciously determined and used by the indi- Rather than being ominous in nature, high self-
vidual in an attempt to cope with anxiety image disparity would invariably appear to accom-
and threat-laden situations. At the repression pany the attainment of higher levels of development,
end of the continuum, since the greater cognitive differentiation found at
such levels must invariably lead to a greater capacity
. . . are those responses which involve avoidance for self-derogation, guilt, and anxiety . . . . [Within
of the anxiety-arousing stimulus and its consequents. a developmental framework] the degree of self-image
Included here are repression, denial, and many types disparity would be expected to be low at low levels
of rationalization. At the sensitizing extreme of the of maturity [low-competence individuals] and high
continuum are behaviors which involve an attempt at high levels of maturity [high-competence indi-
to reduce anxiety by approaching or controlling viduals] [p. 204].
the stimulus and its consequents. The latter mecha-
nisms include intellectualization, obsessive-compulsive Achenbach and Zigler (1963) cited Al-
behaviors, and ruminative worrying [Byrne, 1964, trocchi et al.'s (1960) results relating self-
p. 169]. acceptance to a repression-sensitization con-
tinuum as confirmatory of their results by
Altrocchi et al. (1960) initially related self- assuming that repressors are at a lower de-
acceptance to the repression-sensitization di- velopmental level than sensitizers and would
mension. They found that repressers had be classified as low-competence individuals,
much smaller self-ideal discrepancies than while sensitizers would be classified as high-
sensitizers. Repressers thus appeared more competence individuals. Thus, these research-
self-accepting than sensitizers. Byrne (1961) ers have given a third interpretation to self-
also related the repression-sensitization di- ideal discrepancy scores.
mension to a self-report measure of self- The purpose of this present study was to
acceptance. In two independent investiga- investigate the joint relationships of these
tions, repression-sensitization correlated .62 three variables—adjustment - maladjustment,
(p<,.Ql) and .55 (p < .01) with self-ideal repression-sensitization, and social competence
discrepancy scores. The results with both —to self-acceptance as expressed through
samples indicated that sensitizers have signifi- self-ideal discrepancy scores. It was hoped
cantly larger self-ideal discrepancy scores that this would help clarify the meaning of
than repressors. an individual's self-acceptance, as expressed
The results of both the Altrocchi et al. in a conscious self-report measure.
study and the Byrne studies suggest that
congruence between self-concept and ideal METHOD
self-concept may be related to a defensive- Subjects
style continuum as well as to, or instead of,
The Ss consisted of 80 hospitalized male patients
an adjustment-maladjustment dimension. at the Veterans Administration Hospital, Manhattan,
Achenbach and Zigler (1963) related self- New York. Of this number, 40 were hospitalized on
acceptance to a social competence dimension. either the medical or surgical wards. Only those medi-
In theory, an individual's level of social com- cal and surgical patients were used who had no known
petence is a broad approximation of the previous history of psychiatric hospitalization, no
terminal illness, no illness which was deemed by the
developmental level of personal and social attending physician to have a major psychiatric
maturity he has attained. Achenbach and component, and no signs of organicity. All medical
Zigler used psychiatric and nonpsychiatric and surgical patients were also ambulatory to the
patients with each group containing equal extent that they could leave their bed and ward
for a few hours, even though they might be in a
numbers of high- and low-competence Ss. Re- wheelchair.
sults showed that high-comptence 5s (both Only those psychiatric patients were used who
psychiatric and nonpsychiatric) had signifi- had no signs of organicity, were judged to be
 SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND REPEESSION-SENSITIZATION
not actively hallucinating, and had not undergone
electric-shock treatment in the 6-wk. prior to being
tested.
The medical and psychiatric groups were each
composed of equal subgroups of low-competence re-
pressers, low-competence sensitizers, high-competence
sensitizers, and high-competence repressers. In order
to obtain 40 medical and 40 psychiatric patients with
this combination of characteristics, it was necessary
to test 104 medical patients and 103 psychiatric
patients.
Test Instruments
Self-acceptance. A Q sort developed by Cowen,
Budin, Wolitzky, and Stiller (1960) was used. It
consists of 44 adjectives chosen from a relatively neu-
tral range of the social desirability continuum. The
adjectives were arranged in alphabetical order below
an 11-point rectangular Q sort, following the sug-
gestion of Livson and Nichols (1956). The adjectives
were presented to each 5 twice, first to be sorted
according to the way S saw himself at present (self-
concept), and then to be sorted according to the
way he would ideally like to be (ideal self). The
discrepancy between the placements of each adjec-
tive on the two sorts was calculated. An S's total
discrepancy score was the sum of each of the 44
discrepancy scores without regard to the direction
of change, with a high score indicating a low degree
of self-acceptance.
Adjustment-maladjustment. For the purposes of
this study, the patients who resided on the medical
or surgical wards were classified as "adjusted," and
the patients who resided on the psychiatric wards
were classified as "maladjusted." After the elimina-
tion of surgical or medical patients with possible
psychiatric involvement as potential Ss, it was felt
that mere presence on the two different types of
wards—medical-surgical versus psychiatric—provided
prima facie evidence of the patients' adjustment
status.2
Repression-sensitization. The Ss were classified as
repressers or sensitizers on the basis of the rating
they obtained on the MMPI after it had been scored
according to Byrne's (1961) scoring system. In order
to obtain a cutoff point for repressers and sensitizers,
the repression-sensitization scores of all 161 psychi-
atric and medical patients who had been rated as
either high or low in social competence were placed
in a frequency distribution. Cutoff points were estab-
lished which classified 40% of the Ss as repressers
and 40% as sensitizers. In order to have 10 Ss in
each group for the statistical analysis, 1 high-com-
petence medical S and 6 low-competence psychiatric
Ss were taken from the middle range of the
repression-sensitization continuum.
2
Scores on the Cornell Index, Form N«, clearly
differentiated the psychiatric and medical-surgical
groups. The mean score obtained by psychiatric pa-
tients on the Cornell Index was 25.5, while the mean
score obtained by medical-surgical patients was 14.9.
This difference is statistically significant (F — 25,50,
d/=l/72).
319
Social competence. Each S was classified as to the
level of his social competence on the basis of mean
score attained on an adaptation of the Achenbach
and Zigler (1963) Social Competence Index.
Each individual's social competence was rated on
the following variables:
1. Intelligence—A total score on the Shipley-
Hartford scale equivalent to a Wechsler-Bellevue IQ
of 89 or below (0), 90-109 (1), 110 or above (2).
2. Education—None or some grades including un-
graded or special classes (0), finished grade school,
some high school, or finished high school (1), some
college or more (2).
3. Occupation—The Dictionary of Occupational
Titles (United States Government, Department of
Labor, 1949) was used to place each occupation into
the categories of unskilled or semiskilled (0), skilled
and service (1), clerical sales, professional, or mana-
gerial (2). If an individual had many occupations,
he was rated either on the occupation in which he
was presently employed or on the one in which he
worked most frequently.
4. Employment history—Usually unemployed (0),
seasonal, fluctuating, frequent shifts, or parttime em-
ployment (1), regularly employed (2).
5. Marital status—Single (0), separated, divorced,
remarried, or widowed (1), single continuous mar-
riage (2).
Information pertaining to these variables was ob-
tained from each S on a history sheet distributed at
the beginning of the testing session.
The Ss were designated as low competence if their
mean competence score was between .4 and 1.0. The
5s were designated as high competence if their mean
competence score fell between 1.4 and 2.0.
Procedure
Medical and psychiatric patients were tested sepa-
rately. The patients were tested in groups, usually
comprising not less than three nor more than six
patients. All of the patients took the following tests,
some for purposes of another study:
1. A questionnaire designed to elicit information
regarding social competence.
2. The Shipley-Hartford scale.
3. The Cornell Index.
4. A Q sort of 44 trait-descriptive adjectives to be
sorted first for real self and then for ideal self.
5. The 15-item Couch and Keniston Acquiescent
Response Set Scale, which was labeled Personal
Reaction Inventory I.
6. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale,
which was labeled Personal Reaction Inventory II.
7. The MMPI.
The questionnaire was always given first, and the
MMPI was always given last. The order of the
other tests was randomized. Testing was usually
split into two sessions, with the MMPI being given
in the second session.
320 CAROL Z. FEDKE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Differences in self-ideal discrepancy scores
among the eight experimental subgroups were
tested by means of a three-dimensional analy-
sis of variance, the results of which are pre-
sented in Table 1. The hypothesis that there
would be a relationship between an adjustment-
maladjustment dimension and self-acceptance
was not supported. The hypothesis that there
would be a relationship between the social
competence dimension and self-acceptance was
also not supported. However, the hypothesis
that there would be a relationship between
the repression-sensitization dimension and
self-acceptance was supported (p < .05). Re-
sults showed that repressers have significantly
smaller self-ideal discrepancy scores than
sensitizers and can therefore be considered
more self-accepting. There were no significant
interactions.
These findings strongly support the theo-
retical position of Altrocchi et al. (1960) and
Byrne (1961, 1964) who posit that self-
acceptance as expressed in a conscious self-
report instrument and operationally defined
by a self-ideal discrepancy score is related to
a repression-sensitization defensive-style con-
tinuum. The results clearly support the posi-
tion that repressers express significantly
smaller self-ideal discrepancies on a conscious
self-report instrument than sensitizers. Under-
lying this difference in consciously expressed
self-acceptance is an important difference in
the mode of defensive adaptation. Repressers,
who express small self-ideal discrepancies, and
are thereby felt to be more self-accepting, at
least at the conscious level, are also those
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS or VARIANCE as SELF-IDEAL
DISCREPANCY MEAN SCORES
Source df ' 55 MS F fenses at this time, as the need is felt to deny
Competence (A) 1 .88 .88 1.39
Repression-Sensitization (B) 1 3.70 3.70 5.87*
Psychiatric-Medical (C) 1 .01 .01 .01
AXB 1 .95 .95 1.50
AXC 1 .11 .11 .17
BXC 1 .61 .61 .96
AXBX C 1 .04 .04 .06
Within cells 72 45.82 .63
Total 79 52.12
* P < .05.
individuals who use avoidance, denial, and
other repressive modes in the face of threat
or anxiety-evoking stimuli. Thus, the small
self-ideal discrepancy scores obtained by re-
pressers can best be viewed as a reflection of
their defensive style, of another instance
where any feelings of self-discontent which
might be present are not available to con-
scious awareness. On the other hand, sensi-
tizers, who express large self-ideal discrepan-
cies, are those individuals who deal with
anxiety-evoking situations by intellectualiza-
tion, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and
ruminative worrying. The larger self-ideal
discrepancy scores obtained by sensitizers can
thus also be viewed as a reflection of their
defensive style, as they attempt to master
anxiety aroused by discontent with their pres-
ent self-concept with an open admission of
this discontent.
The hypothesis that self-acceptance as ex-
pressed in a conscious self-report instrument
is related to an adjustment-maladjustment di-
mension was not supported. In view of the
relationship obtained in this study between
self-acceptance and the defensive-style con-
tinuum of repression-sensitization, it is possi-
ble that some of the positive relationships
previously obtained between self-acceptance
and adjustment were really reflections of a
defensive dimension. This hypothesis is sup-
ported by Zuckerman and Monashkin (19S7)
and Block and Thomas (19SS) who found
that Ss who scored high on measures of self-
acceptance also obtained high scores on the K
scale of the MMPI, often considered a mea-
sure of defensiveness. It is also possible that
some of the high correlations obtained be-
tween self-acceptance and adjustment at the
termination of a course of psychotherapy are
not reflections of an adjustive dimension, but
rather of an increased use of repressive de-
any feelings of dissatisfaction and anxiety
which may exist so as to "look good," both for
oneself and for one's therapist. However,
though no relationship was found in this study
between self-acceptance and adjustment, it is
possible that this was due to the forced divi-
sion of the psychiatric and nonpsychiatric
groups into equal numbers of repressors and
sensitizers for purposes of the statistical
 SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND REPEESSION-SENSITIZATION
analysis. When this division is not forced, it
has been found that psychiatric or more
poorly adjusted populations tend to contain a
preponderance of sensitizers, whereas non-
psychiatric or better-adjusted populations
tend to contain a preponderance of repressors
(Byrne, Golightly, & Sheffield, 196S; Feder,
1966; Ullmann, 1962). In view of this fact, it
seems wisest to view an individual's conscious
level of self-acceptance as a reflection of both
his defensive style and of his adjustment
status.
The hypothesis which evolved from Achen-
bach and Zigler's (1963) study, that self-
acceptance would be related to a social compe-
tence dimension, was also not supported. The
question can be raised as to whether the fail-
ure to find a relationship between the social
competence dimension and self-acceptance
may be due to the unreliability of the method
of classification along the social competence
dimension. However, since classification along
this dimension was based primarily on ob-
jective behavioral indexes (e.g., education,
employment history), it is unlikely that this
explanation would account for the lack of
relationship found between these two varia-
bles. The results of this study also argue
against the assumption made by Achenbach
and Zigler (1963) that the repressors and
sensitizers described by Altrocchi etal. (1960)
correspond, respectively, to low- and high-
competence individuals, with the sensitizers
being at a higher, and repressors at a lower,
developmental level and, therefore, that the
results of the Altrocchi et al. (1960) study
somehow confirm their own. A chi-square test
was performed to investigate the relationship
between social competence and the repression-
sensitization dimension. As can be seen in
Table 2, no consistent relationship was found
(x»=1.34,#>.05).
The foregoing, then, are the results ob-
tained with this particular self-acceptance in-
strument. A main difficulty in comparing
these results with those obtained in other
studies is the fact that different self-accept-
ance instruments have been used and may not
be comparable (Crowne & Stephans, 1961;
Wylie, 1961). The self-acceptance measure
employed in this study, which used the
Cowen et al. (1960) trait-descriptive adjec-
321
TABLE 2
RELATIONSHIP or SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND
REPRESSION-SENSITIZATION STATUS
High Low
competence competence
Repressors 42 (41)" 22 (23) 64
Sensitizers 40 (41) 24 (23) 64
Total 82 46 128
Note.—x» = .134, df = 1, p > .05.
' Expected frequencies appear in parentheses.
tives minimized for social desirability in a
(?-sort format, may be getting at quite a
different aspect of a self-acceptance dimen-
sion than other instruments. However, to the
degree that the perceivability of item social
desirability has been reduced by this instru-
ment, the results of this study were less con-
founded by the social desirability variable. In
light of this, it is particularly impressive that
the repression-sensitization dimension, which
is significantly correlated with social desira-
bility (Byrne, 1964; Siber & Grebstein, 1964),
still provided the only significant source of
variance among the scores.
REFERENCES
ACHENBACH, T., & ZIGLER, E. Social competence and
self-image disparity in psychiatric and nonpsychi-
atric patients. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, 67, 197-205.
AITROCCHI, J., PARSONS, 0. A., & DICKOFF, H.
Changes in self and ideal discrepancy in repressors
and sensitizers. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1960, 61, 67-72.
BILLS, R. E. Self-concept and Rorschach signs of de-
pression. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954,
18, 135-137.
BLOCK, J., & THOMAS, H. Is satisfaction with self a
measure of adjustment? Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 254-259.
BORISIOW, B. Self-evaluation and academic achieve-
ment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9,
246-253.
BYRNE, D. The Repression-Sensitization scale: Ra-
tionale, reliability, and validity. Journal of Person-
ality, 1961, 29, 334-349.
BYRNE, D. Repression-sensitization as a dimension of
personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in
experimental personality research. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1964.
BYRNE, D., GOLIOHTLY, C., & SHEFFIELD, J. The Re-
pression-Sensitization scale as a measure of ad-
justment: Relationship with the CPI. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 586-589.
322 CAROL Z. FEDEE
CALVIN, A. D., & HOLTZMAN, W. H. Adjustment and
the discrepancy between self-concept and inferred
self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17,
39-43.
CHASE, P. H. Self concepts in adjusted and malad-
justed hospital patients. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1957, 21, 495-497.
CHODORKOIT, B. Adjustment and the discrepancy be-
tween the perceived and ideal self. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1954, 10, 266-268.
COWEN, E., BUDIN, W., WOLITZKY, D. L., & STILLER,
A. The social desirability of trait descriptive terms:
A factor in the prediction of Q sort. Journal of
Personality, 1960, 28, 530-544.
COWEN, E. L., HEIMZER, F., AXELROD, H. S., & ALEX-
ANDER, S. The correlates of manifest anxiety in
perceptual reactivity, rigidity, and self-concept.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 405-
411.
CROWNE, D. P., & STEPHANS, M. W. Self-acceptance
and self-evaluating behavior: A critique of meth-
odology. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58, 104-121.
FEDER, C. Z. The relationship between self-acceptance
and adjustment, repression-sensitization, and so-
cial competence in hospitalized male veterans.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Adelphi Uni-
versity, 1966.
FRIEDMAN, I. Phenomenal, ideal and projected con-
ceptions of self. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1955, 51, 611-615.
HANLON, T. E., HOESTAETTER, P. R., & O'CONNER, J.
P. Congruence of self and ideal self in relation to
personality adjustment. Journal of Consulting Psy-
chology, 1954, 18, 215-217.
HmsoN, J. S., & WORCHEL, P. Self-concept and de-
fensive behavior in the maladjusted. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 83-88.
KAMANO, D. K. Self-satisfaction and psychological
adjustment in schizophrenics. Journal of Consult-
ing Psychology, 1961, 25, 492-496.
LTVSON, N. H., & NICHOLS, T. F. Discrimination and
reliability in Q-sort personality descriptions. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52,
159-165.
MARTIRE, J. G., & HORNBERGER, R. H. Self-congru-
ence, by sex and between the sexes, in a "normal"
population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1957,
13, 188-291.
ROGERS, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1951.
ROGERS, C. R., & DYMOND, R. Psychotherapy and
Personality change. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1954.
SHLIEN, J. M., MOSAK, H. H., & DREIKURS, R. Effect
of tune limits in a comparison of two psycho-
therapies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962,
9, 31-34.
SILBER, L. D., & GREBSTEIN, L. C. Repression-sensi-
tization and social desirability responding. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 559.
SNYGG, D., & COMBS, A. Individual behavior. New
York: Harper, 1949.
TURNER, R. H., & VANDERLIPPE, R. H. Self-ideal
congruence as an index of adjustment. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 57, 202-
206.
ULLMANN, L. P. An empirically derived MMPI scale
which measures facilitation-inhibition of recogni-
tion of threatening stimuli. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1962, 18, 127-132.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
The dictionary of occupational titles. Vol. 2. (2nd
ed.) Washington, D. C.: United States Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1949.
WILLIAMS, J. E. Changes in self and other percep-
tions following brief educational-vocational coun-
seling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9,
18-30.
WYLIE, R. C. The self-concept. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press, 1961.
ZUCKERMAN, M., BAER, M., & MONASHKIN, I. Ac-
ceptance of self, parents, and people in patients
and normals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1956,
12, 327-332.
ZUCKERMAN, M., & MONASHKDJ, I. Self-acceptance
and psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psy-
chology, 1957, 21, 145-148.
(Received November 18, 1966)