Significant predictors of self-esteem during adolescence

Gyöngyi Kökönyei,

Ágnes Balogh

Self-esteem/definitions

Dynamic and changing constructGlobal and domain-specificWilliam James (1883) viewed self-esteem as the ratio of one’s successes to one’s pretensions.Rosenberg (1979, p. 31) referred to self-esteem as a “positive or negative evaluation of the self.”

Self-concept during adolescence

Main task: to establish identity (Erikson, 1962) and to restructure self-concept

The source of self-esteem

Essential component of mental health

Sources of self-esteem

Self-definitionInterpersonal relatedness

Family relationships (attachment, approval, loving)Teachers opinion and approvalSocial acceptance by peer (classmates and friends)

Physical attractiveness

These processes develop synergistically

Changes in self-esteem by sex

Baldwin and Hoffmann, 2002

Gender differences in self-schemas

Women/girls

Collectivist

Ensembled

Connected

Men/boys

Individualist

Independent

Autonomous

Do women and men have different self-concept?

Do women and men (girls and boys) have different origins of self-esteem?

Sources of self-esteem

Family relationships (approval, loving)

Teachers opinion and approval

Physical attractiveness

Social acceptance by peer

Do the sources have higher impact on girls’ self-esteem?

Method

Sample: Hungarian national sample of Health-Behaviour in School-aged Children study 2001/02 (age: 13-17, N=4539, male: 45%).

Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Cronbach-alpha=0.83)

Gender and grade differences (t test and (M)ANOVA

Step-wise linear regression with dummy variables

28,60(4,57)

28,58(4,57)

29,23(4,95)

27,47 (4,73)

26,58(4,50)

26,85(4,54)

25,00

25,50

26,00

26,50

27,00

27,50

28,00

28,50

29,00

29,50

7. grade 9. grade 11. grade

mea

n (

SD

)

boys girls

t=4,497** t=7,693** t=9,693**

Gender differences in 7-11 grade students

**p<0.01

Two-way variance analyses

28,60 28,58

29,23

27,47

26,58

26,85

25,00

25,50

26,00

26,50

27,00

27,50

28,00

28,50

29,00

29,50

7. grade 9. grade 11. grade

mea

n

boys girls

Significant main effects and significant interaction

(explained variance 4,3%)

Model

Body Image IndexFamily variables:

Care, Overprotection,Communication

Monitoring Communication with friends (talking about bothering things)ClassmatesTeachersFAS

Self-esteem

Predictors Dependent variable

Model with indicators for girls (an example)

Body image (betai)

Body image_indicator (betai1)

Body image is significant, but the indicator is not

There is no gender differences

Body image and the indicator is significant as well

Betai shows the impact on boys’ self-esteem

Sum of betai and betai1 shows the impact on girls’self-esteem

Body image is not significant, but the indicator is

Among boys variable (body image) has no effect on self-esteem, only among girls

Neither of them is significant Variable has no significant effect on self-esteem among boys and girls as well.

Model

Body Image IndexBody Image Index_DFamilyOverprotectionFamily Overprotection_DFamily Communication Family Communication_D Communication with friendsCommunication with friends _DClassmatesClassmates_DFASFAS_D

Self-esteem

Predictors Dependent variable

Results /7th grade students

Explained variance: 16,8%

Unstandardized coefficient

Standard beta

t value

Beta Std error

constant 18,72 1,30 14,37

Family communication 1,45 0,22 0,19 6,53

Body image index 0,47 0,07 0,19 6,68

Family overprotection -0,19 0,05 -0,11 -3,84

Classmates 0,23 0,05 0,14 4,96

Family overprotection_D -0.07 0,02 -0.11 -3,72

FAS 0,19 0,07 0,08 2,84

Family overprotection for boys: -0.19

Family overprotection for girls (-0,19+ -0,07): -0.26

Results /9th grade students Explained variance: 19,0%

Unstandardized coefficient

Standard beta

t value

Beta Std error

constant 15,65 1,17 13,42

Family communication 1,48 0,22 0,19 6,82

Body image index 0,44 0,07 0,18 6,25

Family overprotection_D

-0,21 0,03 -0,34 -8,05

FAS_D 0,35 0,08 0,19 4,53

Classmates 0,18 0,04 0,12 4,21

Communication with friends

0,71 0,23 0,09 3,08

Family overprotection and FAS have impact on self-esteem only among girls

Results /11th grade studentsExplained variance: 20,7%

Unstandardized coefficient

Stan-dard beta

t value

Beta Std error

constant 24,80 1,48 16,70

Family overprotection_D 0,21 0,08 0,31 2,57

Family communication 1,11 0,21 0,14 5,07

Communication with friends 1,08 0,24 0,12 4,47

Family overprotection -0,41 0,06 -0,25 -6,42

Body image index 0,29 0,07 0,10 3,85

FAS 0,22 0,07 0,09 3,35

Classmates_D 0,20 0,06 0,32 3,26

Scale of classmates has impact on self-esteem only among girls

Family overprotection for boys: -0,41

Family overprotection for girls: (-0.41+0.21): -0.20

Discussion I.

Body Image is as strong predictor among girls as among boys. Results do not support the hypothetical difference.

Communication with family member seems to be one of the most robust predictors independently of sex and age (grade)

Discussion II.Gender differences

The most robust result suggests that family overprotection has higher negative impact among girls in 7th and 9th grade, but in 11th grade its negative impact is higher among boys.

Overprotection means physical and psychological restriction

autonomy restriction (?)

Lack of social skills (?)

Discussion III.Gender differences

Influence of classmates’ acceptance has higher only among 11th grade girls

Future direction

To develop factors including parental monitoring and attachment (care) as well. To include teachers’ scale and school items as wellTo compare value of betas for the same predictors in different grade (age) groups To develop path analyses

Thank you!