THE RELATION BETWEEN EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF SELF
AND EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS1
EMANUEL M. BERGER
Student Counseling Bureau, University o] Minnesota
OTING a study in which Sheerer (5)
N found a correlation between attitudes
of acceptance of the self and accept-
ance of others, Rogers (4) has suggested that
such a relationship would be of significance
to social psychology. Such a relationship
would imply that self-rejection may be a
factor in individual hostility toward groups or
toward other individuals. Fromm (2), for
instance, sees the disproportionate hostility
expressed against Jews in Germany as being
related to a kind of cultural self-rejection
which, in turn, derived from an authoritarian
tradition of upbringing that tended to sup-
press spontaneity. It appears that such a
relationship might supply social psychology
with a principle which would be helpful in
understanding and explaining problems of
social conflict and hostility. However, before
it can be used in explanation, there is a
need to test whether or not the generalization
can be made with confidence. The existing
evidence is limited.
For the most part, observations of a rela-
tionship between feelings toward the self and
feelings toward others have been based on
clinical experience alone, and only very re-
cently have there been any attempts to study
this relationship systematically. Alfred Ad-
ler (i) was probably among the first to make
such an observation when he contended that
"a tendency to disparage" arose out of feel-
ings of inferiority as an overcompensation.
More recently, Horney (3) has stated that the
person who does not believe himself lovable
is unable to love others. According to Fromm
(2) we should love ourselves, for self-love and
the love of others go hand in hand. More-
over, he proposes that a failure to love the
self is accompanied by a basic hostility
toward others which arises out of the sup-
pression of the individual's spontaneity or of
his "real" self. Other evidence regarding the
paper was presented at Amer. Psychol. Ass.,
Chicago, 1951, and was abstracted from a doctoral thesis
completed in 1950 at the Univer. o£ Pittsburgh.
778
relationship of attitude toward the self and at-
titude toward others has come out of studies
done at the University of Chicago under the
influence of Carl R. Rogers. Rather than
being generalizations from clinical experi-
ence, these studies have been attempts, to
measure, by the use of rating scales, the atti-
tudes of individuals toward themselves and
others. The data have been statements made
by individuals in recorded counseling ses-
sions. Using the method described above,
Sheerer (5) found a "definite and substantial
correlation between attitudes of acceptance
and respect for the self and attitudes of ac-
ceptance and respect for others." Part of
a study by Stock (6) confirmed the results
obtained by Sheerer. It should be noted,
however, that seven of the same counseling
cases were used in both studies.
It appeared to us that there was a need
to test this relationship with larger numbers
of cases and more varied samples than had
thus far been studied. The problem was thus
twofold:
1. To develop a group instrument for the
measurement of self-acceptance and the ac-
ceptance of others.
2. To test the relationship between these
variables in a variety of groups, using the
developed instruments.
METHOD
Construction of Scales
Definition of the variables. The following defi-
nitions are essentially those used by Sheerer (5), ex-
cept that they have been abridged and slightly modi-
fied.
The self-accepting person:
1. Relies primarily upon internalized values and
standards rather than on external pressure as a guide
for his behavior.
2. Has faith in his capacity to cope with life.
3. Assumes responsibility for and accepts the con-
sequences of his own behavior.
4. Accepts praise or criticism from others ob-
jectively.
5. Does not attempt to deny or distort any feel-
ings, motives, limitations, abilities or favorable quali-
 ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS
ties which he sees in himself, but rather accepts all
without self-condemnation.
6. Considers himself a person of worth on an
equal plane with other persons.
7. Does not expect others to reject him whether
he gives them any reason to reject him or not.
8. Does not regard himself as totally different
from others, "queer," or generally abnormal in his
reactions.
9. Is not shy or self-conscious.
The person who is accepting of others:
1. Does not reject, hate, or pass judgment against
other persons when their behavior or standards seem
to him to be contradictory to his own.
2. Does not attempt to dominate others.
3. Does not attempt to assume responsibility for
others.
4. Does not deny the worth of others or their
equality as persons with him. This does not imply
equality in regard to specific achievements. He feels
neither above nor below the people he meets.
5. Shows a desire to serve others.
6. Takes an active interest in others and shows
a desire to create mutually satisfactory relations with
them.
7. In attempting to advance his own welfare, he
is careful not to infringe on the rights of others.
Selection of Items
Using the various elements that made up the defi-
nitions as a guide, statements about the self and
others were selected2 or constructed so that they
conformed to these elements.
It was decided that four items would be required
for each element. This would be desirable in order
to have the number of items usually necessary to
give satisfactory reliability. Also, it permitted the
matching of two halves of the scale for the pur-
pose of obtaining matched-half reliability.
The Preliminary Scales
The preliminary scales consisted of 47 statements
on self-acceptance, 40 on acceptance of others. The
statements were modified where necessary so that
strong agreement with them sometimes received a
high score, sometimes a low score. Items from both
scales were mixed together on the same form.
The two scales together may be considered a
"form." At the top of each form were the directions
which briefly stated the purpose of the test in a
general fashion, told the subject (S) how to mark
the I.B.M. answer sheet when responding to the
scales, and emphasized that S need not put down
his name, thereby encouraging him to answer as
honestly as possible.
Regarding the directions for marking the answer
sheet, S was directed to blacken space one following
an item number, if the statement on the test form
was "not at all true of himself," space five if it
was "true of himself." The intervening spaces rep-
2
A total o£ 30 items was selected for the preliminary
scales from a list of self-references collected for study
by Margaret Hartley at the Univer. of Chicago.
779
resented intermediate degrees to which the state-
ment was true for the individual.
The scales are essentially self-administering since
all the directions needed to respond to them are
on each form. Each S had as much time as he
wished to respond to the scales.
Scores for any item ranged from one to five. If
a response "true of myself" (space five) indicated
high acceptance of self or others, then that response
received a score of five. The response "mostly true
of myself" (space four) received a score of four for
that item, with three, two, and one representing
lesser degrees of acceptance of self or others. When
the response "true of myself" indicated low accept-
ance of self or others, that response received a score
of one, with spaces four, three, two and one receiv-
ing higher scores. The definitions were the basis for
determining which response indicated high or low
acceptance of self or others.
The answer sheets were scored by I.B.M. machine,
using keys prepared for the purpose of giving half
scores on each scale.
An individual's score on a scale was his total score
for all items on that scale.
Item Analysis
The preliminary scales were administered and
scored for 200 5s who were students in first-year
sociology or psychology. Such classes are usually
made up of students with widely different socio-
economic backgrounds and vocational interests.
Their ages ranged from 17 to 45. However, about
90 per cent of them were in the 17 to 30 age
group.
In doing the item analysis, those 5s whose total
scores were in the top 25 per cent were compared
on each item with those whose total scores were
in the bottom 25 per cent. Thus there were 50 in
each criterion group. The difference between the
mean scores of the criterion groups was computed
for each item. This difference was used as an index
of the discriminating power of the item. The
standard error of the difference of the quartile
means did not exceed .30 for any item. All items
used in the final form of the scales except three had
critical ratios of 3.00 or more. The three had critical
ratios close to 2.00.
The Final Form of the Scales
The final selection of items was made on the basis
of the appropriateness of the items to the element of
the definition and discriminating ability. Thirty-
six items were selected for the self-acceptance scale,
28 for the acceptance of others scale.
Each scale of the test was divided into two
matched halves. Items of both scales were then
mixed together on each half in a random manner.
Reliability
Matched-half reliabilities were computed for the
groups named in Table i except for the two small
groups of speech rehabilitation cases and counselees.
The Spearman-Brown formula was then used to
estimate whole-test reliability. These estimates of
;8o EMANUEL M. BERGER
whole-test reliability were all .894 or greater for the
self-acceptance scale, except for one group for which
it was .746. For the acceptance of others scale the
estimated whole-test reliabilities ranged from .776
to .884.
Validity
One approach to the validity of the scales con-
sisted in having one group of 5s (N=io) write
freely about their attitudes toward themselves, and
a second group (W=ao) write freely about their
attitudes toward others. Both groups used the ele-
ments of the definitions as a guide. No names
were recorded, but 5s were instructed to write the
same five-digit number on both the essay book and
the answer sheet which they had previously used
to respond to the scales. The paragraphs were then
rated by four judges and the mean ratings for each
individual were correlated with his scores on the
corresponding scale. The Pearson product-moment
TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS
SELF-ACCEPTANCE
GROUP
N MEAN
Day-Session College Students 183
Evening-Session College Students 33
Prisoners 33
Stutterers 38
Speech Problems at Univer. of Pittsburgh 7 116.43
Adult Class at Y.M.C.A. 18
Counselees 3 102.00
correlation between scores and ratings was .897 for
self-acceptance, and .727 for acceptance of others.
Both of these correlations were significantly greater
than zero. These measures were considered to be
one means of testing whether or not the scales
actually measured the conscious, expressed attitudes
of the individuals.
The average of the intercorrelations among judges'
ratings was .869 for self-acceptance, .769 for accept-
ance of others.
The second approach to validity involved com-
parisons between different groups. The group of
stutterers was expected on both an a priori and an
empirical basis to score lower on self-acceptance.
Although their average score was higher than that
of the large group of students, when they were
matched for age and sex widi a group of non-
stutterers, their mean was lower, the obtained t
being 1.97. This was .06 lower than that required
for the .05 level of significance. This suggests that
age may be positively correlated with expressed self-
acceptance.
A comparison was made of the mean scores on
acceptance of others by prisoners and by a group
of college students matched for age, sex, and race.
A priori considerations and also some empirical evi-
dence had led to the expectation that prisoners
would score lower on this variable. They did, the
difference being significant at about the .02 level.
Empirical evidence from other studies also suggested
that prisoners could be expected to score lower on
self-acceptance as well. The difference between the
groups on this variable was significant at better than
the .01 level.
The small group of speech problem cases and the
three counselees scored very low on self-acceptance
when compared with college students of the same
age, sex, and race. This difference, too, was in the
direction expected on an a priori basis.
The mean scores and standard deviations for the
various groups are shown in Table i.
A third kind of data obtained in order to get
evidence of validity was that of a comparison of the
average ranking of the members of the speech re-
habilitation group (2V=7) by clinical assistants, and
the scores of this group on the scale. This was
done for self-acceptance only, the assistants using
ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS
SD MEAN SD
I35-50 22,36 105.15 14.38
142.63 13-43 106.39 14.87
128.45 23.09 101.30 12.89
141.36 27.70 111.45 10.79
11.30 98.00 10.90
128.77 26.57 112.38 11.83
10.71 100.33 7-45
the definitions as a guide for their rankings. A
rho of .59 was obtained. This was not significantly
higher than might have been obtained by chance.
This test, then, did not support the other evidence
of validity.
RESULTS
For the purposes of this investigation, an
individual's acceptance of self was represented
by his score on the scale for self-acceptance
and his acceptance of others was represented
by his score on the scale for acceptance of
others.
The Ss included 183 day-session college stu-
dents, 33 evening-session college students, 33
prisoners, 38 stutterers, 18 adults in a class at
the Y.M.C.A., 7 speech problem cases in a
rehabilitation program, and 3 counselees.
The procedure was simply to have the
various 5s respond to the two scales. Data on
the prisoners were obtained by the prison
psychologist. Data on the stutterers at Iowa
and Purdue were gathered by clinical as-
 ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS 78r

sistants there with the permission of the clin-
ical director. All other data were obtained
by the writer.
The Pearson product-moment correlations
between expressed acceptance of self and ex-
pressed acceptance of others is shown for the
various groups in Table 2.
All of the correlations are significantly
greater than zero at better than the .01 level
of confidence (p= .006 or less), with one ex-
ception. That for the "Y" group just misses
significance at the .05 level of confidence
(p= .06).
These results permit us to hold with greater
confidence the generalization that expressed
acceptance of self is positively correlated with
and this serves to support and strengthen the
theoretical considerations of Fromm (2),
Horney (3), et al. to the effect that acceptance
of self is positively related to acceptance of
others.
A consideration of factors which might
lower the correlations seems to be in order.
For one thing, the variables measured are
"expressed" attitudes toward self and others.
Thus they are subject to such distortions as
we know take place in individuals with re-
spect to both their perceptions of themselves
and their perceptions of their own acceptance
of others.
Also, it appears that as a group, girls tend
to score higher on acceptance of others for

TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OP SELF AND EXPRESSED ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS
FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS

z
GROUP N rw» s P
ax

Day Students 183 .356 • 377 5-057 .00006

Evening Students 33 •653 • 775 4.244 .00006
Prisoners 33 .556 • 633 3-466 .0006
Stutterers 38 .695 .848 5.016 .00006
Y.M.C.A. Class 18 •453 .485 1.878 .06

* ^^self-acceptance; y=acceptance of others.

expressed acceptance of others, thus answer- a given score on self-acceptance. Probably

ing the question with which this research this has a cultural basis, but in any event
began. it seems likely that the correlations would
What can be said of the results as a con- have been higher if the sexes had been sep-
tribution to psychological theory? Correla- arated and the sex differences taken into
tions cannot tell us about causation, but on account.
the basis of theoretical considerations dis-
cussed at the beginning of this paper, self- SUMMARY
acceptance can logically be assumed to be This study was undertaken to determine
the more basic variable in the relationship. whether or not the evidence for a positive re-
With correlations for the different groups lationship between acceptance of self and ac-
ranging from .36 to .69, residual variances ceptance of others would be strengthened by
(i—r2) would range from 52 to 87 per cent. an approach using larger groups and more
In other words, variation in expressed self- varied samples than had previously been
acceptance accounts for a relatively small por- studied. In order to do this, scales were
tion of the variation in expressed acceptance constructed to measure expressed acceptance
of others. It follows from this that the rela-
of self and expressed acceptance of others.
tionship is not so invariable or of such a
high degree that individual predictions can The scales were found to have satisfactory
be made with accuracy, and we do not have a matched-half reliability and considerable evi-
"law" in this sense. dence was found in favor of the scales' valid-
The results do, however, indicate a good ity. The scales were administered to a variety
degree of association between the variables of groups and correlations between accept-
782 EMANUEL M. BERGER
ance of self and acceptance of others were
determined. These were all very significantly
positive, with one exception (p= .06). It
was concluded that evidence for a positive
correlation between acceptance of self and
acceptance of others was definitely supported
and strengthened by the results of this study.
REFERENCES
1. ADLER, A. The neurotic constitution. New York:
Moffat, Yard, 1921.
2. FROMM, E. Selfishness and self-love. Psychiatry,
1939, 2, 507-523.
3. HORNBY, KAREN. The neurotic personality of our
time. New York: Norton, 1937.
4. ROGERS, C. R. A coordinated research in psycho-
therapy: A non-objective introduction. /. consult.
Psychol., 1949, 13, 149-153.
5. SHEERER, ELIZABETH. An analysis of the relationship
between acceptance of and respect for the self and
acceptance of and respect for others in ten coun-
seling cases. /. consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 169-
175-
6. STOCK, DOROTHY. An investigation into the inter-
relations between the self-concept and feelings
directed toward other persons and groups. /.
consult. Psychol., 1949, 13, 176-180.
Received November 19, 1951.