Science in Christian Perspective
The Bases of Self-Esteem
CRAIG W. ELLISON
Department of Psychology
Westmont College
Santa Barbara, California
From: JASA 30 (June1978):
59-66.
Within the Christian community there has been a history of
ambivalence about the
appropriateness of feeling good about one's self. Various hymns have emphasized
the wretchedness of man ("Amazing grace"), and even the
subhuman quality
of man ("would He devote that Sacred Head for such a worm as
I?"). Countless
sermons have been delivered urging the renunciation or destruction of self as
a pre-requisite for God's approval and blessing. Recently there has
been a growing
dissatisfaction with this perspective and calls for reanalysis of
biblical perspectives
on the meanings of self, self-centeredness and self-esteem. In view of research
literature relating negative self-concepts with such things as
delinquency, antisocial
behavior, and both social and psychological maladjustment, such a
reanalysis seems
warranted.
Proper understanding of the nature of self-esteem requires an understanding of
both the biblical and social
This article is an adaptation of an introductory chapter in Self-Esteem, the first in the new Christian Perspectives on Counseling and the Behavorial Sciences series published by the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, 27000 Farsnington Road, Fannington Hills, Michigan. Used by permission.
psychological foundations of self-evaluation. In this article we
examine the basis
of selfesteem, the effects of sin, the relationship between self-esteem, pride,
and humility, the important role of the Christian community in supporting and
changing self-esteem, and familial and cultural influences on self-esteem.
Foundations of Positive Self-esteem
The biblical roots of positive self-regard may be traced initially to
the creation
account. In contrast to a view of man's origins which regards man as a chance
mutation or impersonally evolved, the Genesis account suggests that
from the beginning
man was both very special and highly regarded. God created man in His
own image,
gave him major responsibility, provided abundantly for his needs, and
considered
His creation very good.1 Hardly the picture of a despicable worm! This is the
picture of a being that the perfect judge has placed the highest
value upon. And
yet this is a picture of man before the Fall, still perfect and not yet God's
enemy. Is there a scriptural basis for positive sel-festeem after the Fall?
Quite clearly there is. Referring to God's creation considerably
after the fall,
the psalmist speaks with awe about both the Lord God and His creation. "What is man that thou
are mindful
of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou has made him
a little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and
honor."2 The tense
used with reference to God's evaluation implies a present, continuing act. Even
after the fall God continues to evaluate positively, or "crown
man with glory
and honor".
An even more convincing basis for human worth is found in the act of redemption.
God did not turn away from man in disgust and consider him worthless
once he had
sinned. Rather, he sacrificed His Son for us while we were still very much His
enemies!3 It might be argued that this simply reflects Cod's incredible mercy
because He loved us when we were worthless. Earlier in this same
passage of Scripture,
however, we are told that Christ died for the ungodly while we were
still helpless,
not worthless!
This points up an important distinction that perhaps has been misunderstood: to
be a sinner is to be helpless, not worthless. Cod's mercy is expressed both in
not destroying man and in providing help for the helpless, or those unable to
meet God's standard of perfection on their own. God distinguishes
between ungodliness
and worthwhileness, between sin and the placing of positive value
upon the human
personality or self. Bruce Narramore referred to this when he said:
The first thing I'd like to do is suggest that we need to understand
the biblical
meaning of the concept of self.
The Greek word ego means I, the total personality . . . . The ego is the whole
man, the total person.
The flesh theologically is the rebellious sin principle. We fail sometimes to
differentiate between the self and the flesh, or the self and the old
sin nature,
or the self and the old man . . . . They are distinctly different
aspects of the
human personality . . . . It's very clear that man has deeply fallen,
but we tend
to confuse righteousness and value. You see, according to Scripture we can be
of immense value and worth to God, and still be very, very sinful.
But sometimes
we say since we are totally depraved or totally sinful we are,
therefore, worthless.4
The underlying dynamic for man's self-esteem, or human worth, is the
unconditional
love of God, expressed in his redemptive act. "We love, because He first
loved us".5 We not only love God in reciprocation but we also
can love ourselves
because God validates our worth simply by loving His creation without
conditions
attached.
The establishing of our self-worth in God's unconditional love
suggests two additional
concepts important for a biblical understanding and personal
experience of self-esteem.
The first is that self-esteem is primarily shaped and sustained through social
reinforcements. It is developed in an interpersonal context.
Biblically, the interpersonal
nature of the self is originally implied in the initial creation act ("let
us make man in our image"),6 and in the creation of a helpmate ("It
is not good that man should be alone").7 It is basic to man's nature, then,
to require relationships for self-development. Evaluation
necessitates a judgejudged
relationship. Selfesteem is initially rooted in the evaluations of significant
others: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very
good";8 "By this we know love, that he laid down his life
for us".9
Eventually it becomes partially internalized so that self-judgments are made, as in the case of Adam and Eve
after their
sin, but it still continues largely as a function of feedback from others. In
contrast to the valuing process of our society which gives reinforcements, at
least for men, on the basis of achievements, i.e., conditionally, God's love is
unconditional. He continuously values us, so we can value ourselves.
The second implication of God's unconditional love is its unchanging nature. In
human relationships positive feedback from others, which is basic to positive
self-esteem, is not always consistent. We don't always achieve sufficiently to
win unbroken regard. Those who love us don't love perfectly. God's
love is steadfast,'°
and therefore provides a stable source of positive regard which
carries us through
the vagaries of human relationships, and allows us to stand somewhat
independent.
While God's love is unconditional and unchanging our experience of it
is not always
consistent. The major obstruction, biblically, in our experience of God's love
is sin. Likewise the conditional nature of human valuing processes and much of
the struggle to experience positive self-esteem may be traced to the effects of
sin.
The Effects of Sin
Our discussion to this point has emphasized the interpersonal nature
of self-esteem.
The Scriptures, as well as contemporary psychology, root
self-evaluation in relationships.
The original sin was fundamentally a violation of relationship. It was not only
a negating of God's authority and truthfulness, but it was also a negating of
his character. In the process of God-negation, man who was made in the image of
God negated himself. He could no longer look at himself with
unconditional self-regard.
In violating his relationship with God he cut off his central source
of self-esteem
and became self-centered.
Adam and Eve became knowledgeable, but knowing was painful. Their first act was
to hide. Ever since that act the human race has naturally tried to hide what is
bad from God, and from itself. Ego defenses are fundamentally attempts to guard
ourselves from negative truth. In the act of redemption and the
continuing process
of forgiveness, God's grace allows us to face the truth about
ourselves and restore
the relationship. Nevertheless, because we are fallen, even the redeemed employ
techniques designed to insulate themselves from truth and to hide from God at
times.
Intertwined with hiding came blaming and violence. "Passing the buck"
started with Adam and Eve." In an attempt to get out from under
the painful,
bright spotlight of negative self-knowledge and to escape
responsibility for breaking
the relationship with God, both Adam and Eve tried to place the blame
on someone
else. The attempt was both to escape judgment and to preserve
positive self-regard,
even if the preservation was self-delusional. In our day we characteristically
blame parents or circumstances which "determined" the way we are. The
irony is that those who rely most heavily on such ego-defenses are
characterized
by extremely low self-esteem or extremely active compensation in the
form of arrogance.
By blaming others and deluding themselves they block off the major sources of
self-esteem found in positive relationships with God and others.
Cain's murder of Abel exemplifies the lengths to which attempts at
self-justification
and preservation of self-regard can go. The biblical incident is particularly
fascinating in view of studies showing that low self-esteem is associated with
delinquency and anti-social behaviors! Apparently God had established standards
regarding offerings. Instead of accepting God's evaluation and
changing his offering,
Cain looked at Abel as the cause of his rejection. Perhaps his reasoning went
that if he could remove Abel God would accept his offering, or, at
the very least
he would be rid of the painful comparison. Because self-esteem is
based in interpersonal
feedback, it is customary for people to look for those who are similar to aid
in self-evaluation and to avoid or get rid of those who are not similar.12 Similarity
breeds attraction at least in part because it allows us to receive
feedback which
confirms our way of thinking, feeling and behaving. Making, or at
least choosing
others in our own image helps us to maintain that self-image.13
Another effect of sin is to create depression. (This is not an assertion that
all depression is due to sin). Ronald Rottschafer points out that self-esteem
and depression are interrelated.14 The psalmist suggests that the
lack of integrity
or covering up of sin results in depression, and by implication,
negative self-esteem.15
His body groaned, his soul (psyche) was cast down, and he was
overcome by guilt.
The New Testament reminds us that a double-minded man is unstable in
all his ways.16
The implication is that a person who has not clearly decided his loyalties or
who has not been purified of his sin but hides it, will be unstable
in his faith,
his behaviors, and his self-perception.
Indeed, the pervasive effects of sin are clearly presented in Romans 3:11 is where
we see that human understanding, motivation, relationships, behavior,
communication,
emotions, perceptions and relationship with God are twisted and negative due to
the power of sin. The way in which we feel about ourselves and go about trying
to establish our own self-esteem, as well as the way in which we
respond to others'
needs are all affected negatively by sin.
Self-esteem and Pride
Scripture indicates that pride is one of the sins most abhorred by God,17 and
was the root sin behind Lucifer's abortive coup attempt. For this
reason Christians
have been quick to suspect the notion of self-esteem as a cover-up
for arrogance.
We are told that there is no good in ourselves, and that we must be emptied of
self. There is a confusion about self as personality and self-centeredness as an
expression of the flesh or sin-principle.
In order to understand the relationship between self-esteem, pride and humility
properly we must look at the biblical pattern of God-man interaction,
the notions
of perfection and goodness, and the concepts of works and grace.
Pride is characterized by an exaggerated desire to win the notice or praise of
others, and the rigid taking of a superior position in which others' opinions
are virtually never regarded as good as one'.-; own. Humility is characterized
by accurate self-appraisal, responsiveness to the opinions of others,
and a willingness
to give
The underlying dynamic for man's self-esteem, or human worth, is the unconditional love of God, expressed in his redemptive act.
praise to others before claiming it for one's self. Biblically, pride
is expressed
in attempts to claim glory due to God for one's self and in the
attempt to justify
one's self in rejection of God's redemptive process.
From what we know of the components of positive self-esteem, humility
is the biblical
counterpart, not pride. The ability to face one's self and to assess and accept
both strengths and weaknesses accurately, while being responsive to,
but not overly
dependent upon, social approval are basic ingredients of
non-defensive self-esteem.
On the other hand, psychologists since Adler have associated both
pride and excessive self-disparagement, which some might regard as humility, as indications of basic
feelings of inferiority or low self-esteem.
The biblical position is not that we shouldn't feel good about ourselves, but
rather that we should love ourselves, '8 and accurately assess ourselves.18 The
critical distinction is between goodness and perfection. In his act of creating
us in His image, God gave us intrinsic capacities which can be
developed by human
effort, enjoyed, and felt good about. The problem comes when we don't
accept God's
evaluation or His plan and, in attempts to justify ourselves
spiritually and morally,
start thinking of ourselves as overly good, or capable of becoming
perfect. Pride,
then, is based on an unwillingness to accept God's moral judgment of
us as imperfect.
Its dynamic is rooted in feelings of rejection or inferiority and expressed in
over-compensation aimed at becoming so superior that one can delude
himself into
thinking he is perfect, without God. Pride may not be based on
conscious rejection
of God but may arise from a background of rejection and the failure
to be exposed
to and experience God's unconditional love.
Humility and positive self-esteem are not based upon self-negation or
the "emptying
of one's self". They are based upon affirmation of God's regard toward us
and a right relationship with Him in which imperfection, weaknesses
and strengths
can he accepted or confessed and changed as appropriate. The biblical history
of God-man interaction is not one of God manipulating "empty shells",
devoid of personality, in robot-like fashion. God doesn't act in place
of personality,
but through personality. Christ's incarnation and human development
are affirmations
of this. The pattern of interaction is one of mutual influence: God
acts and man
responds. This should not be too surprising if we take creation in God's image
and the Scriptures seriously; if the Old Testament left doubts about
God's personality
the incarnation removed those doubts. There is no doubt that Jesus
Christ regarded
himself positively. He could not have made the assertions he did if
that weren't
the case. On the other hand, he was marked by perfect humility. The
biblical injunctions
to "have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus"20 and to "be
imitators of God as beloved children"21 are directed at Christ's whole personality. We are to be marked by
humility based on accurate and
positive self-appraisal. For the Christian basking in God's perfect
love is able
to accept his imperfections more completely, acknowledge his sin, and
face himself
free from fear of rejection.22
Many Christians, it seems, hold to a form of humility associated with negative
self-esteem in contradiction to the biblical pattern. Bruce Narramore refers to
this as "neurotic humility". He says that "it's really
a reversed
form of pride. It's a pride in our omnipotent badness . . . . 'I am so bad that
God's goodness even can't control it'."23 Associated with this
negative selfregard
are depression and a sense of emotional unbelief or anxiety about
eternal salvation,
according to Narramore.
Whereas pride is inevitably connected with an achievement or power
basis of self-esteem,
humility frees man from the bondage of striving to gain approval by
always looking
superior in the eyes of others or one's self. The fundamental dynamic
behind humility
is Grace. The Scripture consistently emphasizes that neither
spiritual salvation
nor human value are rooted in works. Rather, they are founded upon
Grace. Fundamentally,
there are two ways in which one can gain and maintain self-esteem: the first is
through power or achievement; the second is through love and relationship. For
the most part our society socializes us into the former. Grace relieves us of
that pressure, and also of the temptation to pride.
An understanding of Grace is essential for humility within the
church. One suspects
that there is a lot of pride circulating in nonobvinus corridors of the church
at the same time that self is decried. For example, the use of spiritual gifts
seems to be an area where people who negate their self in other areas
subtly get
involved with pride. When one realizes that the spiritual gifts are not earned
but given through grace, the emphasis shifts from how spiritual I am to how I
can best use my gift. As a matter of fact, a close look at both the
gifts of the
Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit reveals that the gifts really
don't make any
sense, perhaps don't exist, unless they are seen as interpersonal. They are not
something privately possessable and conducive to pride, in the sense of a child
showing off his new toy which some other child doesn't have with a
tone of "I'm
better than you" in his voice.
Incarnation and Community
Although all of the preceding may be received as conceptually correct
and biblically
true, it is still possible for genuine Christians not to experience
positive self-esteem.
The biblical emphases upon incarnation and the caring community are critically
important for the emotional experience of positive self-regard.
The incarnation of Christ demonstrates God's love and valuing in
physical, practical
terms. He moved among the despised and rejected of society giving them hope and
a basis for believing they were worthwhile. He met people in their weaknesses
and gave strength. His judgments were aimed at hypocrisy or the covering over
of sin, the removal of which would result in new freedom and self-esteem. The
hypocrites crucified Christ because they did not understand the way
of Grace and
were unable to face themselves in honesty.
They were undoubtedly an insecure, achievement-oriented and depressed group who
had deluded themselves into thinking they were perfect. Comparison
with perfection
left not only their positions but their tenuously bated self-regard
in jeopardy.
Throughout the New Testament Paul emphasizes the importance of
incarnating Christ's
love. After urging the church at Ephesus to be imitators of God in Ephesians 5
he instructs them to walk among the believers with sacrificial love.
In Colossians
3:12-15 he urges the believers to be kind, meek, compassionate,
patient, forbearing,
and loving. Not only was this essential for corporate harmony but
these characteristics
are fundamental to individual self-esteem upon which corporate
conflict or harmony
pivots. In numerous places we are instructed to judge not, to forbear, and to
consider our own sins and weaknesses. Such an orientation is critical
if a church
community is to build and encourage positive self-esteem in its
members. I suspect
that the commandment to avoid judgment, or negative feedback that is
emotionally
charged, is given for the following reasons: (1) It fosters self-delusion. In
Romans 2, after describing a great deal of wickedness in the previous chapter,
Paul immediately warns the Roman believers not to get puffed up through social
comparison but to accurately reflect themselves in comparison with the perfect
standard. (2) It lowers the other person's self-esteem and results in
dysfunctioning
within the body. The cycle is definite; the principle on the human
level is reciprocation.
Judgment begets judgment and conflict; praise elevates esteem and
fosters harmony.
Judgment brings out natural ego-defenses that are emotionally employed unless
a person is sufficiently spiritually mature and of high enough self-esteem to
identify with Christ in his response rather than imitating the
judger. Unfortunately
most of us are not at that level of ego-strength or spiritual experience, and
so churches split.
The operating principle, then, for the Christian community is love
and forgiveness.
In the incarnation of Christ's life in the body people will be freed
from defensive
striving for self-regard, will not make the church a place of power struggle and
manipulation, and will be free to fully develop in the context of significant
and consistent positive relationships. The church must avoid becoming "a
museum for saints" in which caring relationships cannot be built because
people cannot be real and share their problems and needs for fear of
being judged.
Parent-Child Relationships
It is in the context of the parent-child relationship that social
feedback central
to self-esteem normally begins.
Results of several studies support the commonly held assertion that acceptance
of the child by his parents, as measured by parental warmth either in
early childhood
or more reflectively later on, is positively correlated with high self-esteem.25
Acceptance is communicated by parents in a variety of ways. For the
young infant
it involves gentleness in handling, time spent holding the child, time elapsed
in meeting expressed needs, appropriateness of the attempts to meet
needs, expressions
of delight and the amount of spontaneous, non-need-oriented interaction such as
in play.
For the older child it involves gentleness of responses to transgression and in
discipline, time spent encouraging and responding to the child's
ideas and positive
behavior, and use of praise and other language indicating delight and
acceptance.26
Language becomes a powerful tool in the shaping of a child's self-image as the
child applies his new language to himself as he experiences it being applied by
the most significant people in his world. The impact of parental
feedback is especially
critical during early childhood because parents are viewed as omniscient during
most of the formative years of the self-concept.
Several studies support the notion that self-esteem is at least partly due to
identification with the parent (usually the mother) 27 The results could also
be explained in terms of differences in the way that mothers relate
to and reinforce
their children. Regardless, the evidence is consistent that high
self-esteem mothers
tend to have high self-esteem children and vice versa. It seems that
the biblical
dictate to love one's neighbor as one's self applies doubly to the necessity of
loving one's self and one's closest neighbors!
There is also evidence that those who are higher
in sex role identification are higher in self-esteem ,28
as are those who mature earlier in adolescence, and that the sources
of self-esteem
as mediated through socialization agents are different for boys and girls.29
Among
white middle-class student males it appears that self-esteem may be based more
on what is accomplished and external sources of evaluation, while for females
social self-esteem may not only be more stable but appears also to be
less related
to approval needs in an academic achievement situation and more
centered in social
adequacy.'° These differences, of course, may be traced back to differences
in the way which parents may set standards and give positive feedback for boys
and girls. It is too early to tell what kind of effect current
attempts at unification
of socialization for the sexes during childhood will have upon the
bases of self-esteem,
though the stress on moving females more into male roles may lead to
women becoming
more achievement or power oriented.
The Stanford psychologist, Robert Sears found that high self-esteem
was significantly
related for both sexes with academic achievement, small family size,
early birth
position in the family and high warmth on the part of both parents. For boys,
high self-esteem was associated with low father dominance in the
marital relationship.
Stanley Coopersmith, author of a highly regarded book, Antecedents of
Self-Esteem,
found that high sell-esteem was related to close relationships between parents
and boys, as indicated by parental interest in the boys' welfare, concern about
companions, availability for discussion of problems and joint
activities. Parents
of high sell-esteem boys were also less permissive. They set high standards of
behavior, and were consistently firm in enforcement, though they were
less punitive
in style. They tended to use rewards and non-physical punishment for
discipline.
In addition, family governance for high self-esteem boys was more
democratic with
parents encouraging input from the boys and allowing dissent and
persuasion within
the context of well-defined guidelines for privilege and
responsibility. Finally,
a significantly greater propor-
The development of positive self-esteem is seen as critical to the most positive forms of human experience and interaction as understood biblically and psychologically.
tion of boys came from families marked by divorce or separation.
Both Sears and Coopersmith found that those with high self-esteem had
higher goals
and were more successful in achieving them. The parents of the boys
in the Coopersmith
study placed greater value on achievement than on adjustment or accommodation
to other persons. This reflects the sex-based differences indicated
in the Hollander
study, and is also consistent with Sears' finding that low
self-esteem was associated
with femininity, which, in turn, is not associated with achievement as a base
of self-esteem. The fact that a non-achievement base is associated with lower
selfesteem is undoubtedly a reflection of societal values, as well as possibly
due to the greater difficulty in discriminating evaluation that is
not contingent
upon specific responses. At least one study partially contradicts
these findings
and concludes that praise of the person rather than praise of task performance
is generally positively related to self-esteem.3' This is consistent
with another
study which suggests that privileged adolescents of parents intensively engaged
in academic work have lower self-esteem.32
Nevertheless, it certainly seems true that competence and confidence
are closely
interrelated, each fostering the other.33 In our society the
greatest reinforcements
come for competence in task achievements, at least for boys, though
at least minimal
levels of interpersonal competence must also be demonstrated for
positive feedback.
Community and Culture
Perhaps the most powerful influence shaping the valued
characteristics of Americans
is the media. Through the presentation of various "heroes"
and the selection
and reinforcement of certain behavior, standards and characteristics,
television
in particular feeds into and actually defines the "ideals"
which become
part of our ideal self. Most children watch television for 2-3 hours per day,
and 78% of America's families use the TV as a babysitter.34
There has, of course, been extensive debate as to whether TV
conditions responses
and creates socially undesirable responses, or allows for the cathartic release
of emotions and aids the society's adjustment. Beginning with early studies of
vicarious imitation35 and considering more recent conclusions, the results seem
reasonably conclusive: TV acts as a model and shaper of responses.
What kind of models or ideals are being presented? Liebert et. al,
indicate that
the single most characteristic value presented by TV is violence.36 It has been
estimated that in 1968 the average American child between 5 and 15
sees the violent
destruction of more than 13,000 persons on TV. Despite some promises
made by major
broadcasters in the early 1970's, things seem to be about the same, with the addition of increasingly explicit sex
and the presentation
of both romance and broken families as the norms! (ideals?) for life. Liebert
found that the most powerful group on TV was the white American male, usually
middle-class, unmarried and involved in violence as an aggressor.
Women are increasingly
portrayed with a kind of feminine machismo: slick, single,
aggressive, and power
hungry. Other misconceptions and consequently distorted values involve racial
and ethnic groups, occupational roles, normal family life, and the routine of
living.
In summary, contemporary American television tends to offer a distorted view of
real life and to place value, by virtue of characteristics portrayed
and rewarded
on the screen, on power and success, with manipulation of others the way to the
goal. Stable and mature love in the context of friendships, marriages
and family
life are grossly under-represented, and therefore undervalued. To the
extent that
television shapes our values and consequently our self-images, it leads us away
from the biblical basis of self-esteem and into a misleading search for esteem
that can be only unstable and negative in results.
A second major influence upon self-esteem is that represented by the
intertwining
of education and capitalism. It should be understood that capitalism,
or perhaps
more correctly, greed for money, also is a major determinant of what is shown
on television. At any rate, the American educational system strongly
rewards the
characteristic of achievement, as demonstrated in the 1950's by McClelland and
his colleagues. Human value comes to be measured in terms of how ouch
one produces.
We subtly come to judge ourselves comparatively in terms of salary
levels. Simple
decisions as to who should be treated first in the hospital, for example, come
down to perceived value as judged by evident material success or
economic class.
The result, of course, is that those who, for one reason or other can't achieve
adequately are surrounded with negative feedback and come to view
themselves negatively.
The problem is not only that an unstable basis for self-esteem is
created through
the emphasis on achievement, but that modern industrial production techniques
(factory or office) make it difficult for a sense of achievement even
to be experienced.
Work is fragmented, routinized and separated from end creation or is aimed at
such artificial ends that it becomes meaningless and also unable to
confer a sense
of accomplishment. Some find themselves so identified that they face continuous
obstacles in gaining the tools necessary to achieve or to reach
economically valued
positions, such as in the case of rejected minorities (the aged, poor, racial
minorities, and physically handicapped, for example). Unemployment rates among
Blacks in central cities are typically 3-4 times higher than for
comparable white
groups, among those looking for work!
The devaluing begins way back in the educational process when such individuals
begin to fail because they don't meet the middle-class standards of achievment.
In one classic study of teacher expectations it was shown that
teacher expectations
strongly and subtly influence the performance of children.37 Children
that teachers
expected greater intellectual gains from showed significant gains,
and were described
as having a better chance of being successful and happy
in later life. The children were randomly assigned to the experimental groups
so that intellectual promise at the outset was merely in the mind of
the teacher.
Furthermore, children whom the teachers perceived as "slow
track" were
not only rated negatively, but were rated even less favorably if they
showed unexpected
gains. It is exactly these kinds of expectations which tend to be
expressed toward
lower class and minority children, thus, beginning a vicious negative cycle in
which, for many, death becomes the only relief.
In addition to achievement, both the media and our educational system
highly value
physical beauty. Dobson points out the pernicious effects of this valuing upon
the self-esteem of countless people.38 Research evidence exists which indicates
that the mesomorphie or athletic body type is rated most favorably
and that heavy
children report less positive self concepts than their more athletic peers.39
Finally, the media in particular tends to foster an attitude of
disdain and rejection
toward those who are physically or functionally different, such as
the physically
handicapped or mentally retarded. At least these persons are met with anxiety
by those unsure how to relate, and at the most, they are actively scorned and
rejected with consequent effects upon their self-esteem.
Self-Esteem and Other Characteristics
Levels of self-esteem seem to be associated with a wide variety of
other personal
and interpersonal characteristics. Persons high in self-esteem are more active
and expressive in group discusssions, not particularly sensitive to criticism,
show little anxiety, and are much less afflicted with psychosomatic illnesses
than low self-esteem persons. Those with low selfesteem feel
isolated, unlovable,
too weak to overcome their deficiencies, and unable to defend
themselves, as well
as afraid of angering others or drawing attention to themselves in
any way.40
In addition, low self-esteem children have been found to have higher
anxiety levels,
and to receive generally more negative reactions from peers.41 Intelligence and
curiosity are positively associated with self-esteem,42 as are
self-disclosure43
(except for results from one conflicting study which shows highly neurotic and
cycloid individuals disclosing more personal information), field
independence,44 and lower vulnerability to delinquency.45 Finally, those with low self-esteem
are more likely to be submissive and dependent, more vulnerable in
interpersonal
relations, more concerned about what others think of them, and more likely to
have their feelings hurt .46 Self-esteem seems to operate at least partially as
a mediating variable 47 which interacts with significant stimulus
characteristics
in affecting such responses as trust.48
In summary, self-esteem affects a wide variety of characteristic
feeling, behavior
and motivational patterns. The development of positive self-esteem is seen as
critical to the most positive forms of human experience and
interaction as understood
biblically and psychologically.
Changing Self-Esteem
If positive self-esteem is so important for healthy psychological,
interpersonal
and spiritual functioning, it is critical that we identify some of the factors
or strategies which might be used to make one's self-esteem more positive.
Affirmation: The first strategy would be to increase the level of approval or
acceptance expressed toward an individual. This would have to be done
in relation
to realistic, objective assessment if it is approval of achievements
or performance,
and must be done genuinely and not too abruptly if it is the
expression of affection
and acceptance. Baron theorizes that large deviations in social reinforcement
from an individual's social self-concept, whether positive or
negative in direction,
result in negative feelings.49 The perception of substantial
discrepancies leads
initially to behaviors on the part of the individual to reduce the difference.
The behaviors may include such things as avoidance of the reinforcing
agent, attempts
to bring the agent under control, and increases or decreases in behaviors which
have typically brought reinforcement, depending upon the positive or negative
discrepancy currently being experienced. If the feedback received from others
continues to deviate substantially from the individual's social
self-concept over
a prolonged period, the person will change his self-concept. In addition, Baron
suggests that more moderate discrepancies in a positive direction will produce
positive feelings. Initial research results have tended to confirm
these predictions.
The implication is that the Christian community can have an important role in
changing self-concepts through the medium of acceptance, but that care must be
taken not to initially overwhelm, and to be genuine in one's use of
such reinforcement.
The Christian has a powerful change message that should speak to the millions
who feel negatively about themselves. The directional dynamic shifts
the primary
basis of positive esteem from the stresses and uncertainties of
seeking approval
from others to that of pleasing God and receiving His perfect
evaluation of well-done
as well as his non-contingent reinforcement of Grace. This is
certainly, in part
at least, the thrust of Colossians 3:11, 23-24, and the experience of Paul, who
experienced so much disapproval from others but centered his esteem
in God's approval,
as in II Timothy 4:7-8. Not only is the message that God unconditionally loves
and will make a new creature out of the person,50 with behavioral and
self-evaluational
effects, but the medium is that of a caring community which extends
specific positive
reinforcement over an extended period of time in the context of
caring interpersonal
relationships. 51
Alteration: Another strategy that can be used within the general
church community,
small groups or in one-to-one relationships is to change the basis of
evaluation.
As we have mentioned already, the values espoused by the society which are used
as content for self-concepts and the basis of evaluation are mainly
power or achievement
oriented. This is in radical opposition to the biblical standard of
self-esteem,
though the Bible certainly makes ample use of contingent reinforcement.52 The church
community ought to be a crosscultural reinforcement center, where individuals
are reinforced for shaping their ideals and self-images counter to the culture
if those values conflict with biblically understood values. If the church can
begin to reject some of the materialism and
success/achievement-orientation which
it seems to have quietly accepted during this century, it will become
both an
alternative for the culture at large and a dynamic supporting community for its
members. Such a position will inevitably lead to conflict with the
culture at-large,
and may lead to the effects of social comparison and change-attempt that Jesus
experienced when he tried to move the basis of acceptance from achievement to
love. Nevertheless, consistent with Scripture, individuals accepting
and supported
in such values will experientially verify the reality of God's love
and the benefits
of positive self-esteem based on stable sources.
On a more individual scale we can assist others by helping them to choose more
appropriate social comparison standards. People who think poorly of themselves
because they can't play sports like professional athletes will be helped, for
example, to change their evaluation standard to other
non-professionals of their
age, or to enjoyment of the activity and awareness of other more
effective means
than that to gain selfesteem. In addition to changing the social
comparison standard
we can help in the selection of more appropriate evaluation criteria. It is not
necessary, for example, to do everything perfectly in order to receive positive
reinforcement. The perfectionist must be aided in adopting a more
realistic criterion.
This may involve systematic social reinforcement for other than
perfection, conversation,
or even specific forms of therapy in the extreme.
Acquisition: Finally, on a practical level, we can concentrate on
helping individuals
acquire new skills or improve old ones. Through the process of
competency acquisition
confidence will increase, new efforts that will in turn bring
reinforcement will
be tried, and self esteem will be elevated. Within the church community older
members of the congregation could be very positive influences upon adolescents
in the acquisition of various occupational or professional skills, for example.
A given church or churches might sponsor adult education nights aimed
at the sharing
of practical skills for members, within the context of the caring
Christian community,
and without the usual negative correlates of education based on achievement and
evaluation stresses.
REFERENCES
1Genesis 1:26-28, 31; 5:1 (R.S.V. used throughout).
2Psalm 8:4-5. May be translated "angels"; Heb., Elohins.
311nmans 5:8, 10.
4Remarks made in his Presidential address for the Western Association
of Christians
for Psychological Studies, West-mont College, May 1975.
5Jolsn 4:19. Unconditional love does not mean that God has no
standards or requirements.
Redemption is conditioned upon repentance. Nevertheless, God continues to love
us even if we reject Him.
6Genesis 1:26.
7Genesis 2:18.
8Genesis 1:31.
91 John 3:16.
10Psalm 36:5-10.
11Genesis 3:11-13.
12Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 1954,
7, 117140,
13It is not clear that this holds for those with extremely negative
self-images.
In fact these individuals tend to interject blame and may look for others who
are more dominant and dissimilar to help them maintain their poor
self-image.
14Rottschafer, R. H. Self-esteem and depression. In section 4 of this hook.
15Psalm 32:1-5; Psalm 38.
16James 1:8; 4:8.
l7Proverbs 6:16-17; James 4:6-7.
18Mark 12:31; Ephesians 4:28-29.
19Romans 12:3; Calatians 6:3-4.
20Philippians 2:5.
21Ephesians 5:1.
227 John 4:18.
23Presidential address, Western Association of Christians for
Psychological Studies,
Westmont College, May 1975.
24Ephesians 1:15-16; Philippians 1:3-5; Colossians 1:3-5; I Thessalonians 1:7,
8. The difference between judgment and proper correction is that
judgment involves
a putting down of the other person while correction points out error but seeks
to provide ways to build the person op. There is a biblically
ordained place for
correction that is motivated by such love. It is important to realize that both
correction and judgment may make the recipient feel bad momentarily.
That is not
the test. The test is the extent to which the messenger is willing to
become involved,
to help.
25For example, Luck, P. W. Social determinants of self-esteem.
Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1969, 30, (2-A), 810; Sears, B. R. Relation of early
socialization
experiences to self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood.
Child Development,
1970, 41 (2), 267289; Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem.
San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman, 1967.
26It is important here to introduce the notion of non-contingent reinforcement,
or reinforcement that is given simply for who the child is and not in relation
to some set of behaviors. Praise might be regarded as contingent, or
performance
oriented reinforcement, while delight and acceptance refer to non-contingent.
Baron, R. M., Bass, A. B. and Vietze, P. M. Type and frequency of
praise as determinants
of favorability of self-image; an experiment in a field setting.
Journal of Personality,
1911, 39 (4), 493-511, found that praise of the person is generally
more effective
in enhancing self-concept than praise of task performance.
27Pederson, D. M. and Stanford, C. H. Personality correlates of children's self
esteem and parental identification. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25,
41-42; Tocco,
T. S. and Bridges, C. M., Jr. Mother-child self-concept transmission in Florida
Model Follow Through participants. Paper delivered at American
Educational Research
Meeting, New York, February 1971.
28Connell, D. M. and Johnson, J. E. Relationship between sex
role identification and self esteem in early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3, 268.
29Hollander, J. Sex differences in sources of social self-esteem.
Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1972, 38 (3), 343-347.
30Douvan, E. and Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. New York:
Wiley and Sons,
1966.
31Baron, B. M., Bass, A. R. and Vietze, P. M., op cit. (26).
32Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1965.
33White, R. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 1959, 66, 297-334.
34Liebert, B, M., Neale, J. M., and Davidson, E. S. The early
window: effects of television on children and youth. New York: Pergamon Press,
1973.
35 Bandura, A., Ross, S. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582.
36Liebert, R. M., et. al., op. cit. (34).
37Rosenthal, B. and Jacobson, L. F. Teacher expectations for
the disadvantaged. Scientific American, 218 (4), April
1968, 19-23.
38Dobson, J. Hide or Seek. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell
Co., 1974.
39Johnson, P.A. and Stafford, J. R. Stereotypic affective properties of personal names and somatotypes in children. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 176;
Felker, D. W. Relationship
between self-concept,
body build, and perception of father's interest in sports in boys.
Research Quarterly,
1968, 39, 513-517.
40Coopersmith, S. Studies in self-esteem. Scientific American,
1968, 218, 96-106.
41Felker, D. W. The relationship between anxiety, self ratings,
and ratings by others in fifth grade children. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 1969, 115, 81-86.
42Maw, W. H. and Maw, E. W. Self concepts of high and low curiosity boys. Child
Development, 1970, 41, 123-219; Ringness, T. A. Self-concept of
children of low,
average and high intelligence. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 65,
543-561.
43Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1964;
Vosen, L.
M. The relationship between self-disclosure and self-esteem.
Dissertation Abstracts,
1967, 27B (8B), 2882.
44Mossman, B. M. and Ziller, R. C. Self-esteem and consistency of social behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1968, 73 (4) 363-367.
45Reckless, W. C. and Dinitz, S. Pioneering with the self-concept
as a vulnerability factor in delinquency. Journal of Criminal Low, Criminology and Police Science, 1967, 58, 515523. It should be noted
that some studies such as Jensen, G. F. Delinquency and adolescent
self-conceptions:
a study of the personal relevance of infraction. Social Problems, Summer 1972,
84-102, contest the self-concept and delinquency relationship found by Reckless
and his colleagues in several studies. A host of other factors
including parent-child
and marital relationships support the self-concept notion indirectly,
though.
46Luch, P. W., op. cit.
47Ziller, R. C., Hagey, J., Smith, M. D. C., and Long, B. H.
Self-esteem: a self-social construct. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33 (1), 84-95.
48Ellisnn, C. W. and Firestone, I. J. Development of interpersonal trust as a
function of self[esteem, target status, and target style. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1974, 29 (5), 655-663.
49Baron, R. M. Social reinforcement effects as a function of social
reinforcement
history. Psychological Review, 1966, 6, 529-539. Also, Baron, R. M.
The SRS model
as a predictor of negro responsiveness to reinforcement. Journal of
Social Issues,
1970, 26 (2), 61-81.
50II Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:22-24, ff.
51Colossians 3:12-17; Ephesians 4:1-19.
52Ephesians 2:10; James 1:12.