RECIPROCAL EFFECTS OF SELF-CONCEPT

by

Herbert W. Marsh and Rhonda G. Craven

Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre

University of Western Sydney, Australia

In this report Marsh and Craven claim that academic self-concept and achievement are mutually reinforcing, each leading to gains in the other. Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger and Vohs have claimed that self-esteem has no benefits beyond seductive pleasure and may even be detrimental to subsequent performance. We make the distinction between a) older, unidimentional perspectives that focus on global self-esteem and underpin the Baumeister et al reports, and b) more recent, multidimensional perspectives that focus on specific components of self-concept.

Research based on the model developed by Valentine, DuBois and Cooper shows that prior academic self-concept (as opposed to self-esteem) and achievement each have positive effects on subsequent measures of the same constructs. Positive self-concept is valued as a desirable outcome in many disciplines of psychology such as education, developmental, sport/exercise, health, social, and personality psychology, as well as in a broad array of other social science disciplines. Methodologists are concerned with particular measurement and methodological issues inherent in the study of self-concept. Professionals, practicioners and policy makers in many areas of social services and welfare seek to improve the self-perpectives of their clients. Hence, self-concept is widely valued as a desirable outcome.

Self-concept is widely presumed to make a causal difference in addressing some of the key social issues of our time. The theme of this report is that the most powerful effects of self-concept are based on specific components of self-concept most logically related to specific outcomes considered in a particular study (a multimensional perspective) rather than on the global component of self-concept represented in global measures of self-esteem (a unidemensional perspective.)

Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger and others claim to have exploded the self-esteem myth that self-esteem has benefits. Although conceding that high self-esteem is clearly associated with higher levels of happiness, the authors conclude “that efforts to boost people’s self-esteem are of little value in fostering academic achievement or preventing undesirable behavior.”

Marsh and Craven claim that enhancing self-concept is a vital goal in and of itself and that self-concept is an important mediating variable that causally impacts on a variety of desirable outcomes including academic achievement. A reciprocal effects model (REM) was developed whereby the causal relation between academic self-concept and achievement is conceived as dynamic and reciprocal. The model is underpinned by the notion that people who perceive themselves to be more effective, more confident, and more competent, accomplish more than people with less positive self-perceptions.

Marsh and Craven and Baumeister et al thus seemingly draw contradictory conclusions about the role of self-constructs in making good things happen. How can such apparently discrepant views exist in an area where so much research has been done? The answer lies in the distinction between a multidimensional perspective of self-concept and the unidimensional perspective that considers only self-esteem—the global component of self-concept. Whereas Baumeister et al. recognize the existence of multiple dimensions of self-concept, their actual review focused almost exclusively on global measures of self-esteem and specifically excluded from consideration research that focused on domain-specific measures of self-concept that underpin the conclusions of Marsh and Craven.

Shavelson et al in 1976 stressed that self-concept is important both as an outcome and as a mediating variable that helps to explain other outcomes. Hence self-perceptions influence the way one acts, and these behaviors in turn influence one’s self-perceptions. Thus academic self-concept is both a cause and an effect of academic achievement, whereby academic self-concept influences subsequent achievement beyond the effects of prior achievement.

In the last two decades, researchers have developed self-concept instruments to measure specific facets of self-concept that are at least loosely based on explicit theoretical models such as that proposed by Shavelson et al and then have applied exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to support or refute these a priori facets. There is now clear support for the multifaceted structure of the self-concept construct and thus support our contention that self-concept cannot be adequately understood if its multidimensionality is ignored. Indeed, there appears to be no empirical support at all for a unidimensional perspective of self-concept. This conclusion poses a dilemma for many applied researchers who have focused primarily on a general or global component of self-concept, such as is predicated in the Rosenberg self-esteem instrument. There is clear support for a multidimensional model of self-concept in which there is a weak hierarchical ordering among factors that varies with age.

In a review of self-concept research, theory, and measurement the general self-concept is divided into academic and non-academic components of self-concept. The academic component is divided into self-concepts specific to general school subjects, and nonacademic self-concept is divided into physical, social, and emotional components, which are further divided into more specific components.  Measurement instruments were developed to assess these specific components of academic self-concept. We use the term “self-esteem” for the global component of self-concept and inferred from responses to a relatively unidimensional self-concept scale that refers to a separate, distinguishable facet comprised of characteristics such as self-confidence and self-competence.

Research studies have found that global self-esteem was nearly uncorrelated with each of nine academic outcomes consisting of standardized test scores, school grades, and coursework selection. However, when subject matter specific measures were used, a high correlation and relationship was found. For example, math self-concept has been found to be substantially and positively related to math school grades, math standardized test scores and taking advanced math courses. Thus, it has been demonstrated that academic outcomes are substantially correlated with academic self-concept but relatively uncorrelated with nonacademic components of self-concept and with global self-esteem. The results support the multidimensionality of self-concept in relation to external criteria and undermine support for unidimensional perspectives that focus solely on self-esteem. In educational settings, self-esteem and unidimensional perspectives of self-concept are not as useful as the multidimensional perspective to self-concept. This same conclusion also applies when assessing physical performance, mental health, personality factors, and well-being.

According to this multidimensional perspective of self-concept, interventions should impact upon participants in ways that map onto specific and relevant dimensions of the self-concept. Where single measures of self-esteem substantially undermine support for interventions, positive reciprocal relationships have been found when multidimensional measures and interventions related to specific domains have been used. Thus, prior self-concept affects subsequent achievement and prior achievement affects subsequent self-concept.

Unfortunately, the report by Baumeister et al was based on research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s before there was widespread development of multidimensional measures of self-concept. Hence, they focused almost exclusively on self-esteem as a global concept and excluded research that focused on domain-specific measure of self-concept.

Based on extensive research and intervention it is now argued that it is inappropriate to focus on interventions exclusively on enhancing self-concept or exclusively on enhancing performance. Rather, it is most appropriate to simultaneously enhance both self-concept and appropriate areas of skill development because they have been found to be mutually reinforcing. A positive self-concept is particularly beneficial following failure, disappointment or negative feedback in relation to anxiety, impaired motivation, subsequent performance, and subsequent self-concept. These results clearly demonstrate the pervasive significance of the self-concept model and affirm that it is indeed in the public interest to enhance self-concept to maximize human potential. Enhancing skills alone is not enough; people need also to hold positive self-concepts of their abilities in specific areas.

Many researchers have argued that there exists an extensive literature, spanning diverse disciplines and theoretical perspectives, suggesting that high self-esteem promotes goals, expectancies, coping mechanisms, and behaviors that facilitate productive achievement and work experiences, and impede mental and physical health problems, substance abuse, and antisocial behavior. For example, Trzesniewski et al reported that adolescents with low self-esteem subsequently (10 years later) had poorer mental and physical health, worse economic prospects, and higher levels of criminal behavior during adulthood, compared to adolescents with high self-esteem—even after controlling for adolescent depression, gender, socioeconomic status, IQ, and body mass index.  Others have demonstrated that high self-esteem provides a potentially important buffer against failure and rejection in relation to subsequent persistence, performance, and self-evaluation.

Teachers should encourage positive self-beliefs as a component of developing academic skills, and avoid strategies that are likely to undermine a positive self-concept. A constructive synergy between academic self-concept and achievement is most likely when students have constructive feedback and the judicious use of praise, opportunities for mastery experiences, choice and involvement in constructing learning materials, support in making appropriate attributions to success and failure experiences, and positive self-talk. Such proactive strategies should be integrated into normal classroom practice rather than constituting a separate “intervention”—one that is isolated from the setting where learning actually takes place.

NOTE: The full report is expected to be published by the American Psychological Association in their journal “Perspectives” in March, 2006.