2.4 Development of the Self
2.4.2 Need for Positive Regard
25
26
and B.F. Skinner applied this principle to the conditioning of animals. Many of the inferences made through animal studies were similarly applied to humans as Skinner defined personality as simply a collection of behaviours facilitated by the environment, therefore all organisms could have a “personality” (Friedman & Schustack, 2012:193). This position along with Skinners radically deterministic view is in stark contrast to Rogers’ person-centred approach.
Therefore, it becomes necessary when considering perspectives on reinforcement to include Albert Bandura’s perspective on this idea, as there are a number of similar assumptions present.
Classified as a social learning theory, Bandura explains three pathways through which appropriate behaviour is learned. Direct, vicarious and self reinforcement are the three methods purported by Bandura through which individuals learn how to behave. This perspective views individuals as active participants in the learning process with the ability to choose and differentiate between what is internalised and what is not (Friedman & Schustack, 2012:193; Meyer et al., 1997:337). This approach to the role of the individual is in accordance with Rogers as it acknowledges the active, rather than simply passive role of individuals in their development. The direct and vicarious learning processes relate to the concept of positive regard as they refer to the process of gaining knowledge about socially acceptable behaviour through receiving, or witnessing someone else receive some form of reinforcement from an external source respectively. Self-reinforcement on the other hand can be linked to self-regard or self-esteem as it relates to the rewarding or punishment of the self, by the self after a personal evaluation of certain behaviour (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:467;
Meyer et al., 1997:337).
Another perspective that utilises the social learning process in its explanation of problematic behaviour is Cloward and Ohlins differential opportunity theory. This theory contains elements of both Merton’s anomie theory (see 2.3) and Sutherland’s differential association perspective (see 2.4.2.3) around crime and deviance. However, these theorists added that in addition to the legitimate means of achieving socially accepted goals, illegitimate means are often also present. Similar to the legitimate means, this perspective purports that the illegitimate means are equally as limited and require involvement in deviant social groups to gain access (Williams & McShane, 2010:95). The social learning aspect of this theory thereby comes into play by considering the “apprenticeship” phase of many young individuals who watch and learn from the older individuals in the criminal subgroups and
27
may even get involved to a small degree. This perspective does however require an integrated society where both criminal and noncriminal entities share social spaces and goals but where the means to achieving those goals differ. These societies are characterised by low levels of intergroup violence and the offending behaviour is based around economic gains (Williams &
McShane, 2010:96).
Therefore, as an example of the abovementioned perspectives, a child who grows up in a rural area, whose parents are attempting to earn an honest living may at times go without food and experience average to poor living conditions, observes a group of individuals who live in the same neighbourhood and who are known offenders. These individuals will be perceived to be in a comparatively better financial and social standing and may even command a substantial amount of respect in their neighbourhood. The comparison between the consistently poor conditions provided by the child’s honest parents and the comparatively lavish life lived by the offenders may motivate the child to pursue a life of criminality due to its perceived positive outcome both socially and personally. Therefore, all three forms of reinforcement presented by Bandura allow the individual to gain an understanding about socially appealing behaviour that will elicit a positive response from others. This understanding, according to Rogers, will have a significant influence as a behavioural motivator.
Due to the importance of this need for positive regard it stands to reason that Rogers considers this a strong behavioural motivator as it has the capacity to influence individuals to behave in a manner they deem necessary to attain that positive regard (Rogers, 1951:499).
This need for positive regard also has the ability to create a potentially damaging scenario whereby the values of others are internalised in replacement of one’s own resulting in a maladjusted sense of self. A similar perspective can be seen in Jung’s explanation of the
“public self” which he refers to as the “persona”. Also known as the masks of Jung, the persona is the part of the personality that develops from what individuals perceive their expected role in society to be and is therefore not a reflection of the real self but rather an interpretation of societal expectations in various situations. According to Jung, neurosis and pathology is therefore as a result of individuals identifying too strongly with their persona, thereby becoming estranged from their true selves (Cervone & Pervin, 2008:139; Meyer et al., 1997:108).
28
Furthermore it is theorised that positive self-regard is often dependent on the positive regard of others, hence individuals are more likely to view themselves in a positive light if they are viewed that way by their significant others (Meyer et al., 1997:469). If however the significant group is characterised by deviance and anti-societal ideologies, the individual becomes at risk of developing what Erikson termed a “negative identity” which refers to the adoption of norms and values that are in direct opposition to those of conventional society (Peacock, 2006:42). This perspective also bears similarities to the subculture perspectives of criminality discussed later in the chapter (see 2.4.3.2). Rogers terms the criteria used by individuals to make value judgements about others, conditions of worth and explains how it can play an integral role in the development of the self-concept.
2.4.2.1 Unconditional Positive Regard
There are two specific types of positive regard that may play an important role in the development of the self-concept, namely unconditional positive regard and conditional positive regard (Meyer et al., 1997:476). Unconditional positive regard refers to the acceptance of the individual by the significant others without the inclusion of prerequisites.
Individuals are free to behave in a manner that will allow for the expression of their full potential. The environment in which unconditional positive regard is present is not necessarily defined by complete, boundary-less freedom but rather by healthy appreciation for all experiences (Meyer et al., 1997:476). This openness to experience allows the individual to acknowledge a wider variety of circumstances in their phenomenal field without the potentially limiting judgements. However, this does not mean that the individual should be allowed to behave in a destructive manner and any behaviour that deviates dangerously from the acceptable norms should be addressed. In an ideal situation, the individual must be made aware, especially in the earlier years of development, that it is the behaviour that is being disapproved of and not the person. This, according to Rogers will allow for the individual to continue on the path to actualisation with their feelings of worth intact.
However, it must be noted that the effect on the self-concept will be linked to the individuals’
perception of the response and not necessarily, the response itself as reality, in accordance to this theory, is a subjective experience (Maddi, 1980:100; Meyer et al., 1997:476). In the case of repeat offenders who have spent a large portion of their lives in correctional centres, the opportunity to experience a wide variety of circumstances becomes a difficult, if not impossible task due to the restrictive nature of the prison system. The conditions of the
29
prisons and the punitive orientation of the prison officials together with the lack of regard for human dignity can be seen to exacerbate the negative impacts of a deprivation of unconditional positive regard (see 1.4.3).
2.4.2.2 Conditional Positive Regard
On the other hand conditional positive regard seems to reflect the reality of most individuals’
environments more accurately as it states that people do not tend to accept others unless they have adhered to or fulfilled certain criteria or conditions of worth, a common criteria for acceptance into both street and prison gang structures (Meyer et al., 1997:477). The focus on conditional positive regard which, may increase ones level of self-esteem, can prevent the individual from fulfilling their actualising potential. This is due to the incorporation of the conditions of worth of others at the expense of one’s own true needs and potentialities, leaving the individual in a state of incongruity which then necessitates the use of psychological defences (see 2.4.4). These defences can then manifest behaviourally in numerous ways, such as substance abuse, risk taking behaviour or aggression. All of which are characteristic of what Rogers would consider to be a maladjusted individual (Maddi, 1980:99; Meyer et al., 1997:482).
Erikson similarly refers to the use of information received from others, by individuals to recognise how they are perceived and thus, will behave in a manner consistent with the perceptions of others. It is also required, for the development of a strong ego identity that the individual experience positive and consistent feedback for behaviour that is positively valued.
Therefore, it is assumed that this process of reflection and observation has sustained behavioural implications, as individuals who partake in criminal behaviour may feel obliged to continue due to negative societal expectations (Muuss, Velder, & Porton, 1996:43;
Peacock, 2006:27).
Similar tenets can be found in the perspectives of the labeling theory. Though this theory may not explain the initial criminal event it may provide an accurate explanation behind the possible motivations for repeat offending. Labeling theory is said to have its foundation in the ideas of the symbolic interactionist perspectives of sociologists Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead that emphasised the role of society as a reference point for how individuals view themselves (Brown et al., 1998:345; Haralambos & Holborn, 2004:962). In
30
the criminological literature, the crux of labeling theory can be traced back to the work of Frank Tannenbaum where the “dramatization of evil” is used to refer to the process through which society places certain labels on individuals found to be involved in deviant behaviour.
Society is thus seen to treat these individuals not according to their natural or inherent qualities but in accordance with the label that they have been assigned (Williams &
McShane, 2010:111). In the case of deviant or problematic acts, a label could be assigned to an individual after only behaving in such a manner on a single occasion. This label then has the ability to evoke certain stereotypical reactions from members of the society. After repeated exposure to evaluations based on the label the individual may internalise the label and the accompanying characteristics as a part of their own self-concept thereby altering their behaviour (Williams & McShane, 2010:113).
In reference to repeated offending behaviour, Edwin Lemert’s perspective of secondary deviation can be considered. Lemert purports that labeling does not happen after just one single instance of deviance but is rather the result of a continuous interplay between deviant behaviour and societal response. Secondary deviance is described in a process of eight actions and reactions (Brown et al., 1998:348). First, there is the primary deviant act followed by a negative social reaction. Thereafter the deviant behaviour continues resulting in stronger reactions from society. This may lead to feelings of resentment towards those responsible for the continued punishment but not a cessation in deviant behaviour. This continuous interplay between deviant behaviour and negative social reaction eventually results in the internalising of deviant stigmas and acceptance of the associated label as a core identity (Brown et al., 1998:348; Williams & McShane, 2010:115).
The similarity can be seen in the role of societal perception as an influencing factor of behaviour. Labeling theory maintains that the individual will begin to behave in a manner that is in accordance with the label that society had branded them with, whereas Rogers’
theory purports that it is because of a need to be accepted by society that behaviour is altered.
Though different in their motivations for behaviour, both theories have the same perspective on the total acceptance of societies’ evaluations as personal perceptions.
31