faty
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF
With reference to differentiation of self Bowen’s (1978, as cited in Skowron & Friedlander, 2006, p. 235) definition is described as the degree to which an individual is able to balance emotional and intellectual functioning, and intimacy and autonomy of the self in relationships. Differentiation of self on intra-psychic and interpersonal levels respectively, refers to a person’s ability to distinguish thoughts from feelings and the ability to experience intimacy with comfort in close relationships. Greater differentiation of self enables an individual to choose whether one would like to be guided by one’s emotions or by one’s intellect (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998, p. 235). Individuals with a welldifferentiated sense of self refrain from engaging in fusion or emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff in coping with their feelings of insecurity and anxiety. Individuals who tend to be emotionally reactive in their behavioural encounters with others find it difficult to remain calm in response to the emotionality of others (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998, p. 235). Greater fusion in interpersonal relationships is associated with attachment insecurity (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003, pp. 209-210). The ability to take a strong and stable I-position in relationships is demonstrated by a clearly defined sense of self that enables one to adhere to personal convictions, even when pressurised by others to do otherwise (Bowen, 1978, as cited in Skowron & Friedlander, 1998, p. 235). Fusion with others can be described as an “overinvolvement with significant others in decision making” (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003, p. 210). People using fusion in regulating their emotions find it difficult to express their own opinions independently of significant others and also refrain from making decisions on the basis of their own values, beliefs and convictions.
The nature of Emotional cutoff is characterised by a tendency to become emotionally isolated from others, particularly denying the importance of parents and other family members and also pretends to be independent from others (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998, p. 236). However, the emotionally cut off individual, as well as the fused individual are both poorly differentiated, displaying a self-esteem that is largely dependent on others for approval and generally conforming to views and convictions of others (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998, p. 236). The ability to balance the forces of togetherness and autonomy in emotionally committed relationships as expressed by the concept of self-differentiation seems to contribute to greater psychological well-being and adjustment, greater emotional health, as well as greater emotional and intellectual self-control (Skowron & Dendy, 2004, p. 337; Skowron et al., 2003, p. 124; Skowron & Friedlander, 1998, p. 235).
PROTECTION FROM HARM AND RISK
Although it was not foreseen that participation in the study would have any significant negative effects on the students the researcher acknowledged the fact that studies involving humans run the risk of harming or affecting subjects in some way, regardless of whether they volunteer to participate or not. The questionnaire that was administered in the proposed study might have expose participants to questions that could inevitably impact on their emotional life, especially in terms of their self-esteem. They were confronted with questions that could evoke unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Participants were also expected to reveal personal characteristics, attitudes, opinions and behaviours that could be potentially demeaning or by revealing such information could make them feel slightly uncomfortable. It was possible that a fragile self-esteem could be harmed or negatively affected by some probing questions, e.g., revealing personal information that could be embarrassing to participants or some questions could force them to face aspects of themselves that they did not normally consider. Another possible source of harm to participants was embedded in the strategies for the analysis, reporting and dissemination of data (Babbie, 2005, pp. 63-64; Mertens, 2010c, pp. 338-339; Punch, 2009c, p. 50).
To counter any adverse effects as far as possible the researcher was sensitive to the issue of participant protection and therefore every effort was made to constitute a relationship with the participants based on honesty, trust and respect (Punch, 2009c, p. 50). The researcher made sure that students considering participation would have a clear understanding of the possible risks involved (Babbie, 2005, p. 64; Mertens, 2010c, pp. 338-339; Punch, 2009c, p. 50). Prospective participants were invited to ask questions in person or if there was uncertainty or doubt about the risk issue, they were encouraged to contact the researcher via telephone or e-mail. Debriefing sessions were offered to participants with the view to clear up any misconceptions or to work through unpleasant experiences that might occur during the survey process. In addition, the protection of participants was further safeguarded by the evaluative and monitoring function of the supervisor and the Faculty of Education’s Ethics Committee in accordance with the ethical policy of this particular university.
The relationship between commitment and its self-differentiation and pride correlates
Significant negative correlations between self-differentiation and quality of alternatives, emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff were indicated in the results of the present study (Table 4.27). The negative correlations between self-differentiation and quality of alternatives ; were significant, but very weak. The performance of the DSI-R scale in the present study was disappointing, particularly in respect of the I-position subscale. It is suspected that students might have answered the questions in the opposite direction, since most of the questions were supposed to be answered in the reverse order and therefore the results could probably be confounded. I therefore believe that the results in respect of the associations between self-differentiation variables and other subscale variables of the present study should be interpreted with caution. This could also be the case with regard to the weak level of associations found between for example, I-position and meaningfulness , as well as between I-position and satisfaction However, the correlations between authentic pride and the commitment subscales yield promising results. Authentic pride correlated moderately with meaningfulness and satisfaction Moderate correlations were also found between authentic pride and investment , whereas the correlation between authentic pride and commitment level was lower Meaningfulness and satisfaction as identity-related constructs revealed strong and significant positive correlations with each other , and they also positively correlated with authentic pride and respectively). Furthermore, authentic pride, meaningfulness and satisfaction were significantly positively related to commitment level Authentic pride, meaningfulness and satisfaction are constructs that are strongly related to the self or identity. Based on these findings it may be concluded that authentic pride, meaningfulness and satisfaction as identity-related constructs shared a significant association with high identity-level self-regulation (commitment) and therefore most probably be strongly related to a solid and stable I-position. It must also be noted that quality of alternatives is significantly, negatively correlated with authentic pride, meaningfulness, investment and commitment level In addition, the fact that a significant correlation was recorded between I-position and authentic pride seems to be of importance, indicating that a stable I-position is highly and positively related to identity-level self-regulation. I thus take the significant positive correlations between authentic pride and the commitment subscales, with the exception of alternatives, as initial evidence that a stable, strong I-position is positively related to academic commitment. It can thus also be assumed that alternatives will also be negatively associated with the I-position.
In view of the aforementioned assumptions it can be accepted that the results of the study under discussion support findings of available literature arguing that low levels of selfdifferentiation can be associated with maladaptive behaviours, whereas high differentiated behaviours may be associated with psychological well adjustment and well-being. For example, Skowron and Friedlander (1998) argue that emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff are unique characteristics of a maladjusted sense of self (false/pseudo self as opposed to a healthy, solid self). Skowron and Friedlander (1998) are of the opinion that low differentiated individuals will most probably experience difficulties in handling stress and anxiety and therefore may be more susceptible to alternative options. Skowron and Dendy, (2004) argue that a firm and solid sense of identity possesses the capacity to mediate psychological symptoms and academic stress in female and male students. The results of the present study are consistent with scholars such as Skowron et al. (2004) and Patrick et al. (2007) who posited that a firm I-position enables students to regulate and control emotional reactive responses. However, they are still able to stay socially connected to significant others, while maintaining their sense of autonomy in emotional and intellectual involvement with others. My findings also correspond with those of Skowron and Dendy (2004) arguing that low levels of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff (high differentiation) generally enable students to exercise intellectual, effortful control over their emotions, particularly in respect of anxiety and behaviour without becoming disengaged from their study responsibilities. Furthermore, findings are also consistent with Murdock and Gore (2004) who have found that perceived stress in interaction with low levels of self-differentiation is regarded as significant predictors of psychological distress and dysfunction in university students. The pattern of findings may also suggest that high differentiation can be associated with reflective coping, whereas reactive and suppressive coping strategies may be associated with lower levels of differentiation in university students (Murdock & Gore, 2004). In sum, the present study seems to demonstrate that students who are highly differentiated tend to persist with their studies and therefore less prone to seek alternatives and to become disengaged. The findings may as such be regarded as an extension on the current literature on commitment.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH DESIGN, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RATIONALE
1.4 AIM OF THE STUDY
1.5 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION
1.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.7 PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVE
1.8 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
1.9 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.10 DATA COLLECTION
1.11 DATA ANALYSIS
1.12 POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
1.13 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.14 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.15 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2 INTRAPERSONAL CORRELATES OF COMMITMENT: SELF-DIFFERENTIATION AND PRIDE – CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.3 SELF-DIFFERENTIATION
2.4 PRIDE
2.5 COMMITMENT
2.6 SELF-DIFFERENTIATION, PRIDE AND COMMITMENT
2.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND PILOT STUDY RESULTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 SCALE ADAPTATION
3.3 DATA COLLECTION
3.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSES
3.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 MAIN STUDY RESULTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 MAIN STUDY DATA COLLECTION METHODS
4.3 ACADEMIC COMMITMENT SCALE (ACS)
4.4 DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF – REVISED (DSI-R)
4.5 AUTHENTIC AND HUBRISTIC PRIDE SCALES (AHP)
4.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SCALE SCORES
4.7 CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS
4.8 SUBGROUP ANALYSES
4.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONTRIBUTION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
5.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
5.3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.4 CONTRIBUTION OF THE PRESENT STUDY
5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
5.7 CONCLUSION
