Levels of aspiration; stability of self-worth

From Stefan Balke (960513.1500 CET)

Bill Powers (960509.0940 MDT)

But I take your point: some truths are about the state of the
system itself.

And here the door is open for the problem how to distinguish between an ex
post rationalization (which is mostly a selfworth defending invention) and
"going up a level" and "looking down".

Yes, I would agree with that, and with your translation into PCT. In
fact, isn't this true of all criteria? A perception pertaining to an
external or internal state of affairs is just a report on what is being
experienced. There's nothing in such a report to indicate the preferred
level or kind of experience. Perceptions have no value except in
comparison with an internal reference standard.

I agree completly.

This tells you something but not everything about what the participants
perceive as "success." As you found out, the _desired_ amount of success
was not a fixed score; it depended on previous performance. So you were
starting to look at a higher level of control, which adjusted the target
score defining success in order to control some higher-level perception.
It would be interesting to find out what that higher level of perception
is.

I the view of Ferdinand Hoppe (1931, Erfolg und Misserfolg, Psychologische
Forschung, 14, 1-62) the higher level is the so called Ich-Niveau, which
could be translated as self-worth or self concept of ability. I think that
he was quite right. A success at a difficult task leads to an increase in
the self-concept of ability (at the level of principles) and a failure will
lead to a decrease in self-concept of ability. The self-worth seems to be at
a still higher level (level of system concepts). There are some remarkable
results about the stability of the self-worth in a long term study of
Bachman, O'Maley and Johnston (1978, Youth in transition; vol. 6. Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute for Social Research). They reported stability coefficients
(kind of test-retest correlations) for the self-worth ratings (using the
Rosenberg self-esteem scale) of 1628 young adults of about s=.82 upto s=.91
for the period of 8 years. This means that the self-worth or self-esteem
seems to be a controlled variable for many persons.

Perhaps "desired score" and "success" are not at the same level. If a
person says "I want a score of X," and then makes a score considerably
below that level, simply having failed to make the desired score,
whatever it is, is a sign of failure. However, if the person makes a
much higher score than stated, again this is a failure (of a different
kind) because the person did not correctly estimate his actual score.

Of course, this are to different cases, but the last one will not lead to an
decrease in self-worth, because the ability to perform well is obviously
higher than expected and this will be a win for the self-worth.

So at one level, the person tries to achieve a "level of aspiration"
relative to a chosen score and reports success in terms of whether the
actual score is below or above the current level of aspiration. At
another level, the person is trying to adjust the level of aspiration
for a score so that there will be success at the lower level, but not a
great deal more success than predicted. At the second level, the "level
of aspiration" has to do with accurate prediction, not with making any
particular score. Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. This is exactly the idea that Julian Rotter (1942) used
for his studies with the level of aspiration board.

Best, Stefan

[From Bruce Gregory (960513.1120 EDT)]

(Stefan Balke 960513.1500 CET)

to (Bill Powers 960509.0940 MDT)

  In the view of Ferdinand Hoppe (1931, Erfolg und Misserfolg, Psychologische
  Forschung, 14, 1-62) the higher level is the so called Ich-Niveau, which
  could be translated as self-worth or self concept of ability. I think that
  he was quite right. A success at a difficult task leads to an increase in
  the self-concept of ability (at the level of principles) and a failure will
  lead to a decrease in self-concept of ability.

If this is true, might we not conclude that the person is _not_
controlling for self-worth?

  The self-worth seems to be at
  a still higher level (level of system concepts). There are some remarkable
  results about the stability of the self-worth in a long term study of
  Bachman, O'Maley and Johnston (1978, Youth in transition; vol. 6. Ann Arbor,
  MI: Institute for Social Research). They reported stability coefficients
  (kind of test-retest correlations) for the self-worth ratings (using the
  Rosenberg self-esteem scale) of 1628 young adults of about s=.82 upto s=.91
  for the period of 8 years. This means that the self-worth or self-esteem
  seems to be a controlled variable for many persons.

Here self-worth seems constant despite what must likely have amounted to
numerous challenges. This suggests a constancy of reference level
and, as you say, a controlled variable.

When you recognize that you are controlling for your perception of
self-worth, there seem to be (at least) two possible results. (1)
You acknowledge this, but seem helpless to "do anything" about it.
You remain stuck at this level. (2) You are empowered not to allow
some failure or success to effect your perception of self-worth.
Perhaps you have "moved up a level" to where you can reset the
reference level for self-worth.

Regards,

Bruce G.

From Stefan Balke (960514.1130 CET)

Bruce Gregory (960513.1320 EDT) --

(Stefan Balke 960513.1500 CET)
In the view of Ferdinand Hoppe (1931, Erfolg und Misserfolg, Psychologische
Forschung, 14, 1-62) the higher level is the so called Ich-Niveau, which
could be translated as self-worth or self concept of ability. I think that
he was quite right. A success at a difficult task leads to an increase in
the self-concept of ability (at the level of principles) and a failure will
lead to a decrease in self-concept of ability.

If this is true, might we not conclude that the person is _not_
controlling for self-worth?

Maybe this is an misunderstanding, because the terms self-concept of ability
and self-worth are mixed up and because I didn't spell out the whole
contents. According to Hoppe there are some relations between action, level
of aspiration (loa), success or failure and self-worth. 1.) People do not
choose easy loa just to get many successes. Instead they tend to choose a
loa as high as possible to achieve a success at a hard task, because that
informs you about your level of ability. The self-concept of ability
represents your experiences with familiar tasks. This self-concept refers to
numerous abilities and some of the are relevant for the self-worth, those
self-concepts of abilities are controlled variables. As William James (1890,
The principles of psychology, vol.I, p.310) stated:

"I, who for the time have staked my all on being a psychologist, am
mortified if others know much more psychology than I. But I am contented to
wallow in the grossest ignorance of Greek. My deficiencies there give me no
sense of personal humiliation at all. Had I 'pretensions' to be a linguist,
it would have been just the reverse. So we have the paradox of a man shamed
to death because he is only the second pugilist or the second oarsman in the
world. That he is able to beat the whole population of the globe minus one
is nothing; he has 'pitted' himself to beat that one and as long as he
doesn't do that nothing else counts."

The self-worth seems to be the controlled variable at the highest level.
This means if you fail (you achieve less than you expected) than you will
use an excuse (rationalization), like low effort, unexpected disturbance or
low importance of the task. But if you succeed, this will be a confirmation
of your self-worth and a reason to rais it.

When you recognize that you are controlling for your perception of
self-worth, there seem to be (at least) two possible results. (1)
You acknowledge this, but seem helpless to "do anything" about it.
You remain stuck at this level. (2) You are empowered not to allow
some failure or success to effect your perception of self-worth.

There is a large body of social psychological research supporting the
hypothesis, that there is a tendency to defense and reframe self-worth
threatening informations. Did you ever fill out an IQ-test :slight_smile: (I never did,
because they are all wrong :-))

Perhaps you have "moved up a level" to where you can reset the
reference level for self-worth.

What is the level above the level of the self-worth? I don't know? Do you?

Best, Stefan

[From Bruce Gregory 960514.1145 EDT)]

(Stefan Balke 960514.1130 CET)

  As William James (1890, The principles of psychology, vol.I, p.310) stated:

  "I, who for the time have staked my all on being a psychologist, am
  mortified if others know much more psychology than I. But I am contented to
  wallow in the grossest ignorance of Greek. My deficiencies there give me no
  sense of personal humiliation at all. Had I 'pretensions' to be a linguist,
  it would have been just the reverse. So we have the paradox of a man shamed
  to death because he is only the second pugilist or the second oarsman in the
  world. That he is able to beat the whole population of the globe minus one
  is nothing; he has 'pitted' himself to beat that one and as long as he
  doesn't do that nothing else counts."

Very nice example. Thanks for making the distinction clear.

  The self-worth seems to be the controlled variable at the highest level.
  This means if you fail (you achieve less than you expected) than you will
  use an excuse (rationalization), like low effort, unexpected disturbance or
  low importance of the task. But if you succeed, this will be a confirmation
  of your self-worth and a reason to raise it.

  There is a large body of social psychological research supporting the
  hypothesis, that there is a tendency to defense and reframe self-worth
  threatening informations.

The reason that I question that self-worth is a controlled variable
at the highest level is simply that once we discover that our
self-worth has become identified with some goal (being the best oarsman
in the world) we are capable of de-identifying with that
goal(deciding it is more important that we attend our daughter's
piano recital than compete in a rowing event). By this I do not mean
defensively or by re-framing, both of which seem to work at the same
level in the hierarchy as self-worth. I mean by observing the
mechanism of self-worth from "outside" the hierarchy. After you have
achieved this perspective as observer, you can reset the goal.
Possibly from a higher level whose name I, like you, do not know.

Bruce G.