Elvis Burlan
BSc Psychology
elvisburlan@hotmail.com
Abstract
The word sincerity has profound connections with both religion and philosophy, in which we can find the very essence of its meaning. The need for sincerity is the need to find the truth in people, facts and the world in general. It is the desire for illumination, which motivates human existence on an intellectual and spiritual level; even though sometime such a need is revealed unconsciously or, perhaps, in a peculiar manner.
Generally speaking we have access to world’s reality through our own limited senses. This reflection of the surrounding reality leads us only to obtain the observable facts, but it is not entirely sufficient for explaining why the world is seen this way and not another. This situation motivates us for the principle of causality. Finding the reasons for why the world exists the way that it does counts as the second and most important reflection of one’s image of the world. It would be a re-reflection, a process of question and conformation about what we know of the world.
Accordingly, human beings face inner tensions and conflicts that sometimes contradict the external world. They do so through manifestation of instincts, reflexes, needs, aspirations and self motivation. In such a context we find ourselves more often than desired, in the position where the so called “outside reality” is hard to accept. Now, because of the inner conflicts we face, the external reality is trimmed and adapted to our personal needs, according to our own beliefs and interests.
All these internal storms have an influence on the psychosocial behavior described, from a qualitative point of view, through – what I will call – sincerity behavior. The sincerity behavior should give an indication of how one relates with the world and how they cope with themselves.
Keywords: sincerity, sincerity behavior, sincerity tendency, sincerity dynamics, personal coping strategy, sincerity, need for sincerity.
S Questionnaire Online (Romanian and English)
Introduction
In facing inner conflicts and for an easier acceptance of reality, humans seem to develop personal coping strategies. These are personal cognitive schemas for solving emotional problems. Later, these schemas are adopted up to a level where they then become personality traits.
According to Moretti and Higgins (1990) who conducted research regarding the implications of the self-esteem level, those with low self-esteem develop a discrepancy between the real and the ideal self. Though a person with a low self esteem may not posses a negative opinion about themselves, they often do not see the positive aspects within themselves. Even if they appear to be more adaptable to others because of the higher conformity they convey, they feel a cognitive dissonance when coping with several of life’s situations especially those filled with emotional load.
For instance, those with a lower self-esteem do not expect success or positive appreciation from others towards them. In fact they cause a great deal of anxiety, because they do not expect to receive honest appreciations, even if they deserve so. Having difficulties to accept their own image, facing the conflict between the ideal (imaginary) self and the real (in action) self, they have a never-ending reason to be uncomfortable. Hence, they develop several strategies to cope with reality: humble attitude, avoidance, patience, describing themselves inadequate, makes complicated decisions but delay the action, risk avoidance, etc. (Lelord, 1999).
In order to unveil the tendency of such adaptive strategies described as sincerity behavior, I have developed a measuring instrument called “The S Questionnaire”. This instrument aims to investigate the way one perceives psycho-socio-cultural reality (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 – Coping strategies and sincerity behavior
The questionnaire aims to find answers to these two questions:
1) Are we able to accept the world for what it is, or do we bend reality in order to accept it?
2) Are we capable of self acceptance, or do we prefer to change in order to be accepted by others?
What is sincerity behavior?
The word sincerity has profound connections with both religion and philosophy, in which we can find the very essence of its meaning. The need for sincerity is the need to find the truth in people, facts and the world in general. It is the desire for illumination, which motivates human existence on an intellectual and spiritual level; even though sometime such a need is revealed unconsciously or, perhaps, in a peculiar manner.
Generally speaking we have access to world’s reality through our own limited senses. This reflection of the surrounding reality leads us only to obtain the observable facts, but it is not entirely sufficient for explaining why the world is seen this way and not another. This situation motivates us for the principle of causality. Finding the reasons for why the world exists the way that it does counts as the second and most important reflection of one’s image of the world. It would be a re-reflection, a process of question and conformation about what we know of the world.
Accordingly, human beings face inner tensions and conflicts that sometimes contradict the external world. They do so through manifestation of instincts, reflexes, needs, aspirations and self motivation. In such a context we find ourselves more often than desired, in the position where the so called “outside reality” is hard to accept. Now, because of the inner conflicts we face, the external reality is trimmed and adapted to our personal needs, according to our own beliefs and interests.
All these internal storms have an influence on our psychosocial behavior, described from a qualitative point of view as sincerity behavior (figure 2.2).
The sincerity behavior should give an indication of how one relates with the world and how it copes with himself.
Figure 2.2 – Sincerity behavior dynamics
One’s distortion of reality could be associated with immature personality, which is characterized by the simplicity of psychic structures, the lack of logical correlation between these structures, inefficient functionality, unpredictability and low adaptation to new situations (Zlate, 2000). To the contrary, Allport describes the mature personality through characteristics such: the extension of self, overcoming egocentrism, self-control, emotional balance, perception, thinking and acting according to the external reality, autonomy, philosophic harmony (apud Zlate, 2000).
Describing sincerity behavior
I have described sincerity behavior in a bi-dimensional manner, corresponding to the inner and outer forces one encounter.
The result of the action of external forces lies in attitudes such as:
Lack of sincerity Presence of sincerity
Conformism and obedience Critical and constructive attitude
Cognitive dissonance and confrontation avoidance Realist evaluation and acceptance of reality
Disharmony Optimal adaptation
Long lasting internal conflicts Small, solvable conflicts
Learn and refine the art of compromise Adopts moral and ethical principles
Contests others value Recognize and accepts other people’s value
The inner pressure (self-acceptance) leads to attitudes such:
Lack of sincerity Presence of sincerity
Discrepancies between real and ideal self Self acceptance
Personal under-evaluation and mediocrity Consciousness of the self-value
Upsetting Consciousness of needs and self-motivation
Refuge in dreaming Interest for personal development
Low tolerance on frustration Tolerance of frustration
Accepting long lasting conflicts Solving conflicts
Constructing ”S Questionnaire”
It is difficult to build items that can receive sincere answers and still capable of describing sincerity behavior. When questioned, subjects tend to present themselves in a favorable spotlight, to make a better impression. For this questionnaire I constructed simple questions or definitions for which subject’s answer would have to relate both, inner emotional life and social interactions. The inner life regards the way the subjects reflect reality, and the questions were related to particular situations in which the subjects have certain behavior due to the way they accept and process the information. Some other items aim to identify the cognitive schemas upon which subjects organizes their inner life. Items have been constructed in such a way that the subjects would be provoked to respond describing the way they behave in critical situations where they face higher emotional involvement.
I felt the need to keep count of these two aspects, because of the conscious part of behavior, which are the expression of a subject’s personal development, as well as the situational part of behavior, which could be also influenced by the first one. During personal development, people adhere in certain ways to socio-cultural and spiritual values and conventions. Moreover, people develop habits and have their own personal desires. All of these largely resemble the ones they have been in contact with during their personal development.
For instance, starting from a simple social convention I built a definition that places the subject in a sincerity behavior situation:
Instead of making others feel uncomfortable with my point of view, I’d rather be silent.
It is well known that people feel the need for acceptance, especially from those they deem as superior. The definition above places the subject in a conformity-anxiety situation, where both are accepted by individuals who prefer other’s acceptance instead of a possible conflict of ideas, which is uncomfortable. Such subjects face a lack of sincerity towards themselves, conforming to others instead of debating. Thus, they censor their own behavior in order to be accepted by others, while they suffer from anxiety and humiliation internally.
From another point of view, people build their own personal philosophy of life. They act in respect to their personal values, principles, beliefs and judgments. Some values and judgments are moral morally based which can also shape sincerity behavior. Such a principle is reflected by “what one does not know cannot hurt them”. People with respect for such a principle would deem information manipulation acceptable. They make a habit from hiding things from others who are entitled to know about it, thinking that they are doing justice by preventing the suffering of others if they knew the truth. Lying for the sake of protecting others is a moral dilemma. Some will chose to solve the dilemma by lying and others by telling the ‘ugly’ truth. Both cases are adaptable solutions to an anxious situation. Such principles are encoded in definitions like:
I speak what I feel.
I take responsibility for my actions.
Other items are built in such a way for the subject to see themselves through other people’s eyes (the reflected self):
I tend to let people believe things that are not entirely true because they make me look better.
Those who know me consider my deeds as just and honest.
Some items challenge subjects to unveil their level of personal aspiration and the means used to accomplish them:
Success should be gained by any means.
I tend to say what others want to hear.
In order to avoid looking foolish I keep some facts hidden.
Such items should unveil the sincerity tendencies through means that we are willing to use in order to accomplish our purposes, aspirations and needs. The means that are used to one’s personal advantage are not always honest. Moreover, we take advantage in projecting a false but clean personal image which hides some or many personal faults. This projected image is used like a fancy dress that gives us the passport to the desired society or companions. A reversed situation is defined by this item:
Sincerity helps me to easily make new friends.
The above statement is challenging and is usually not the case. Sometimes, it is easier to pick up friends using lies instead of speaking our mind and being honest.
Limitations
The answers to “S Questionnaire” should be interpreted somehow like the principle of uncertainty from physics (Werner Heisenberg, 1932) where a moving particle can only know either a position in space, or the velocity but never both (S. Hawking, 1988). Using this analogy, the “S Questionnaire” only unveils the tendency of the “sincerity vector” reflected by the strategy used to adjust behavior according to a particular situation. The presence or absence of sincerity revealed by the questionnaire’s score does not guarantee an absolute and precise descriptor for an individual and their strategy. The sincerity behavior should give an indication of how one relates to the world and how they cope with themselves.
Sampler
The subjects were selected at random from women and men twenty to forty – 56% being twenty to thirty, the rest being above thirty. Although the age span is quite vast, I consider it to be appropriate for intellectual and spiritual maturity. Most individuals pass through this life stage with consolidated values and principles. The testing sampler had 30 subjects – 51% men and 41% women – and well educated – 58% with university degree and 42% with a high-school diploma. As a limitation, the results should be relevant only for such a population.
About the Score
The answers to the item’s definitions have been closed in five options on a Likert scale:
A - Definitely not like me
B - little like me
C - Somehow like me
D - Pretty much like me
E - Definitely like me
The subjects must select the letter corresponding to the answer that is most appropriate for each respective item. Each answer is awarded from 1 to 5 in respect to the signification answer (Table 3.1 and 3.3 from Annex A). For certain items the points have been given backwards to avoid the habit of answering or suggesting the positive answer. The maximum score one can achieve is 90* and the minimum is 18. Lower scores suggest the person has difficulties with adaptation especially in social circumstances, and tend to be self-centered, instable and emotionally immature. Higher scores indicate more mature personalities, higher adaptation levels, responsible behavior, and adherent to moral and ethical values, with healthy principles of life. At the same time, extremely high scores should be seen with caution. Such people could be driven by an obsession for high moral and social standards up to the point where they could become hostile to the others in convincing to obey such moral and social values.
* At present moment, the S Questionnaire is slightly different. Although the items were not modified, each item has now only four answer options, to avoid central tendency error. The score span modifies as follows: minimum score=18, maximum score=72.
Pre-testing and Testing
The S Questionnaire was first pre-tested with 24 items on 30 subjects (Annex A, S Questionnaire – Pre-tested Version). Each item resulted a frequency distribution which is presented in Drawing 1 and the results are presented in table 3.2 from Annex A. Because Pierson’s variation coefficient was above 15% and for some items exceeded 30% I only accepted items that had a symmetrical frequency distribution of answers, but the items were slightly modified for the ongoing testing version. That was needed for better discrimination of the answers (items 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 20). Some other items were dropped off. Figure 2.3 presents the overall frequency distribution for the second tested version of the questionnaire. The final version was made on a different sample of subjects, to avoid any contamination from the previous pre-tested sample.
N = 30;
Mean = 57,26;
Standard deviation = 4,73
Figure 2.3 – Test frequency distribution
The remaining items prove themselves to be a diagnostic for what they are supposed to investigate and they were used further on.
Questionnaire’s validity
The questionnaire’s fidelity was determined through three different methods.
Split-Half Method
This method consists of dividing items into odds and evens and considers testing the same sample of subjects twice. This method used testing data that is presented in Table 3.6 from Annex A. Using Bravais-Pierson formula we get:
r = 0,45
This result has a signification level of .01 (p=0.01) leading us to conclude that the S Questionnaire reveals what it was supposed to.
Test-Retest Method
The second method used to determine questionnaire’s fidelity is to retest the sample of subject after a period of time (2 weeks) enough for them to forget the answers they gave when first tested. The results are presented in Table 3.7 from Annex A. Using the same Bravais-Pierson formula we get:
r = 0,35
This result has a signification level of .05 (p=0.05) leading us to conclude that the questionnaire’s fidelity is acceptable.
Consistency Coefficient Method
In order to determine how much of the result reveal what they were supposed to measure (tendency), I used Alfa Crombah Consistency Coefficient method of calculi attaining a coefficient of 0.51. Although a rigorous research method would consider a coefficient higher than 0.60 I accepted the one that I got from the data collected at this point for 2 reasons: First, the attained coefficient is close enough to the acceptable one and secondly, the questionnaire is still under development.
Conclusion
Following the statistical results, the S Questionnaire can be considered valid for the purpose it was designed which is to measure sincerity tendency, a good predictor for sincerity behavior. Sincerity behavior is to be interpreted as a qualitative aspect of social behavior as well as a reflection of the inner life climate. Sincerity behavior manifests in social interactions as a standing towards norms and values of which people adhere and later internalizes. It is also a position taken by individuals when facing situations that involve high emotional involvement, especially when personal success and self preservation is the goal.
Sincerity tendency should be interpreted as a concept that is to be shaped by cultural climate, family and social interaction during personal development. Later on, sincerity behavior blends with one’s personality and is only unveiled through personal coping strategies.
Sincerity behavior is part of one’s character, which suggests that it could be learned and later used as an instrument for adapting to the surrounding world as well as a strategy used to develop interpersonal relations.
About the Author
Elvis Burlan is a 35 years old psychologist, licensed at Ovidius University in Constanta, Romania. Currently he follows master courses in Cognitive Behavioral Therapies at Titu Maiorescu University in Bucharest, Romania. At the same time, he is conducting psycho-social researches in a private held company.
Contact details: Elvis Burlan, (elvisburlan(at)hotmail.com)
References
Argyle, M. (1968). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Allport, G. (1991). Structura si dezvoltarea personalitatii. Bucuresti: EDP.
Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson C.A., Smith E.E., Bem D.J. (2002). Intoducere in psihologie. Bucuresti: Ed. Tehnica.
Baron, R.; Byrne D. (1998). Exploring Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brook, Andrew (2001). Self-Reference and Self-Awareness. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cole, G.A. (1995). Organisational Behaviour. London: DP Publication Ltd.
Cooley, C. (1902). Human nature and the social order. NY: Charles Scribner Sons.
Corsini, R.J. (1994). Encyclopedia of Psychology. A.Wiley-Inrescience Publication.
Constantin, Enachescu (2003). Tratat de Psihosexologie. Ed. Polirom.
Constantin, Enachescu (2004). Tratat de Igiena Mintală. Ed. Polirom.
Constantin, Enachescu (2002). Tratat de Psihanaliză şi Psihoterapie. Ed. Polirom.
Dimbleby, R.;Burton G. (1998). More Than Words: Introduction to Communication. London and New York: Routledge.
Eysenk, H. (1999). Dimensions of Personality. London: Routledge.
Feldman, R.S. (1985). Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Feningstein, A., Scheier, M., Buss H. (1975). Private and public self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Franzoi, S.L. (2000). Social Psychology (ed.2). McGraw-Hill, USA.
Froming, W., Corley, B., Rinker, L. (1990). The influence of public self-consciousness and the audience characteristics on withdrawal from embarrassing situations. Journal of Psychology, 58, 603-622.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of the self in every day life. NY: Doubleday.
Golu, P. (2000). Fundamentele psihologiei sociale. Constanta: Ed. EXPONTO.
Goleman, D. (2001). Inteligenţa Emoţională. Bucuresti: Ed. Curtea Veche.
Higgins, E. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Iluţ, P. (2001). Sinele si cunoasterea lui. Iaşi: Ed. Polirom.
Iluţ, P. (2004). Valori, atitudini şi comportamente sociale. Teme actuale de psihosociologie. Iaşi: Ed. Polirom.
Internet: http ://www.ebrary.com (eBRARY – Biblioteca Virtuala Online, USA)
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. London and New York: Routlegde.
Jopling, David A. (2000). Self-Knowledge and the Self. London: Routledge.
Lelord, F.; Andre,C. (1999). Cum sa te iubesti pe tine pentru a te intelege mai bine cu ceilalti. Ed. Trei
Malle, F., Horowitz M. (1995). The puzzle of self-views : an exploration using the schema concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 211-214.
Maslow, H. (1970). Motivatonal Personality, NY: Harper and Row.
Miclea, M. (1999). Psihologie cognitivă. Iaşi: Ed. Polirom.
Myers, D.C. (1998). Psychology. Worth Publishers
Neculau, A. (1996). Psihologie sociala. Iasi: Ed. Polirom.
Pavelcu, V. (1982). Cunoasterea de sine si cunoasterea personalitatii. Bucuresti: EDP.
Radu, I. (1993). Metodologie psihologica si analiza datelor. Ed. Sincron
Riding, Richard J. (2001). Self Perception. Greenwood Publishing Group
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescence self-image. Princeton University Press
Hawking, Stephen (1988). Scurta istorie a timpului. NY: Bantam Books.
Schein, E.N., Steele, F.I., Berlew, D.E.. Interpersonal dynamics, Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
Zlate, M. (1999). Eul si personalitatea. Bucuresti: Ed. Trei.
Zlate, M. (2000). Fundamentele psihologiei.Bucuresti: Ed. Pro Humanitas.
Zlate, M. (2000). Introducere in psihologie. Iasi: Ed. Polirom.
Zlate, M. (2004). Leadership şi Management. Iasi: Ed. Polirom.