The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem J. Thonnissen (B.Psych), Perth, Western Australia November 2004 ABSTRACT Researchers suggest that the active protection and promotion of self-esteem is critical to improve mental and physical health. As it influences aspirations, personal goals and interactions with others, self-esteem is of crucial importance to mental and social well being and plays an important role as a protective and non specific risk factor in physical and mental health. Youth problems such as poor academic achievement, risky sexual behavior, insolence, drug and alcohol abuse, psychological distress and delinquency to name only a few have been associated with low self-esteem. Considering the possible consequences, many programs have been designed to increase self-esteem in children. However, few have so far been assessed on their merits. Thus, a study consisting of 98 participants aged 8-15 years was conducted at Interactive Adventures camps in Western Australia to investigate whether a specialized self-esteem building program facilitated in a camp environment had the desired effects. Based on theories underlying the development and maintenance of self-esteem, the program is primarily concerned with the establishment of personalized goal or task settings and their consequent achievement, as a method by which to increase perceived self-esteem in participants. Results based on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, applied at pre-test and post-test, showed significant increases of ‘Global’ self-esteem over time (measured between commencement and conclusion of camp), most significantly in the dimensions of ‘Academic’-, ‘Social’- and ‘General’ Self- esteem. In addition, a sub group of 54 participants provided data 3 weeks after the conclusion of camp. This indicates persistent effects of the camp intervention on ‘Global’ self-esteem, most significantly in the dimensions of ‘Academic’-, ‘Social’- and ‘Home’ self-esteem. There appeared to be no age or gender differences in the main effects, however, age-related differences were observed in the dimension of ‘Social’ self-esteem.
29
Embed
persistent - Interactive Adventures · --Stanley Coopersmith, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventories Manual A relationship between self-esteem and accomplishment has been identified
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem
J. Thonnissen (B.Psych),Perth, Western Australia
November 2004
ABSTRACT
Researchers suggest that the active protection and promotion of self-esteem is
critical to improve mental and physical health. As it influences aspirations,
personal goals and interactions with others, self-esteem is of crucial importance to
mental and social well being and plays an important role as a protective and non
specific risk factor in physical and mental health. Youth problems such as poor
academic achievement, risky sexual behavior, insolence, drug and alcohol abuse,
psychological distress and delinquency to name only a few have been associated
with low self-esteem. Considering the possible consequences, many programs
have been designed to increase self-esteem in children. However, few have so far
been assessed on their merits. Thus, a study consisting of 98 participants aged 8-15
years was conducted at Interactive Adventures camps in Western Australia to
investigate whether a specialized self-esteem building program facilitated in a
camp environment had the desired effects. Based on theories underlying the
development and maintenance of self-esteem, the program is primarily concerned
with the establishment of personalized goal or task settings and their consequent
achievement, as a method by which to increase perceived self-esteem in
participants. Results based on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, applied at
pre-test and post-test, showed significant increases of ‘Global’ self-esteem over
time (measured between commencement and conclusion of camp), most
significantly in the dimensions of ‘Academic’-, ‘Social’- and ‘General’ Self-
esteem. In addition, a sub group of 54 participants provided data 3 weeks after the
conclusion of camp. This indicates persistent effects of the camp intervention on
‘Global’ self-esteem, most significantly in the dimensions of ‘Academic’-,
‘Social’- and ‘Home’ self-esteem. There appeared to be no age or gender
differences in the main effects, however, age-related differences were observed in
the dimension of ‘Social’ self-esteem.
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 2
INTRODUCTION
This study aims to identify issues relating to the formation and maintenance of self-esteem in
children by investigating the effects of a specialized camp based self-esteem building program.
Therefore, for the purpose of introducing the topic appropriately, a brief overview of the possible
consequences of low self-esteem is addressed. Following this, the intricacies of the construct of ‘self-
esteem’, as well as a brief overview of how self-esteem in children develops, is increased, and
consequently maintained, will be reviewed. Finally, programs designed to increase self-esteem are
addressed. On the basis of this background information, the study’s methodology, a statement of
achieved results, and a discussion on the findings, will be provided.
To compare oneself favorably to others, to appreciate and evaluate oneself
highly, to have a positive attitude, the conviction in ones ability,
competence and the belief to be in ‘control’ of ones life are all associated
with levels of ‘high’ self-esteem. On the other hand, powerlessness,
depression, self depreciation and helplessness are considered feelings of
Analysis of ‘Global’ Self-Esteem between Participants (N = 98)
having completed, and not completed the Third Measure
In order to assess whether significant differences in ‘Global’ self-esteem existed between
those participants who completed the third measure, and those who have not, multivariate analysis of
variance was employed. As the F-Ratios in Table 10 show, results were not significant. However,
mean difference scores were observed to be higher by 5.33 points at base-line and by 6.71 points at
post-test, when comparing mean scores between participants attending the reunion, and consequently
completing the third measure (yes), with those who have not (no) attended (see Table 9). However,
results of a consequently performed pairwise comparison between groups and self-esteem dimensions,
showed that a significant difference between groups existed in Home self-esteem at base-line
F(2,96)=4.225, p<.05 (M=5.55, SD=2.12 for participants attending; M=4.67, SD=2.07 for participants
not attending) as well as post-test F(2,96)=8.652, p<.05 (M=5.92, SD=2.25 for participants attending;
M=4.67, SD=2.07 for participants not attending).
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Self-Esteem scores for Participants who have completed (yes) and not completed (no) the Third Measure
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
BASELINE yes 54 70.22 15.44 2.10 66.01 74.44
no 44 64.89 15.89 2.40 60.06 69.72
Total 98 67.83 15.79 1.59 64.66 70.99
POSTTEST yes 54 73.92 16.23 2.21 69.49 78.36
no 44 67.21 20.01 3.02 61.13 73.30
Total 98 70.91 18.24 1.84 67.25 74.57
Table 10. Analysis of Differences in Global Self-Esteem between Groups having completed and not completed the Third Measure
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Result
BASELINE Between Groups 690.286 1 690.286 2.822 .096 F(1,96)= .2.822,p>.05
Within Groups 23485.765 96 244.643
Total 24176.051 97
POSTTEST Between Groups 1092.728 1 1092.728 3.363 .070 F(1,96)=3.363,p>.05
Within Groups 31193.159 96 324.929
Total 32285.887 97
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 21
DISCUSSION
From an overall perspective, and based on the data collection of the ‘main’ sample group, it
becomes evident that Global self-esteem in participants has been significantly increased following
program intervention. Likewise, results achieved by the ‘subgroup’ also confirm significant increases
between base-line and post-test. Results for the ‘main’-, as well as ‘sub’-group, are therefore overall
confirmatory of the assumption that the camp intervention is successful in increasing participants
‘Global’ self-esteem . As for the question whether the intervention had long term effects, the
assessment of the follow-up questionnaire completed three weeks after camp, revealed a slight increase
of .82 points between post-test and follow-up. In other words, despite participants having returned to
their respective environments where support conditions such as those extended by facilitators, support
staff, and peers, as well the unique ‘holiday like’ camp setting, no longer existed; where they had many
opportunities to test their new self-esteem strategies and have possibly faced a number of challenges to
their camp induced accomplishments, they were nonetheless able to maintain self-esteem at increased
levels. Yet, insofar as these levels can be maintained beyond the three week period, or whether these
effects are likely to have been caused by other influences, needs to be the subject of further
investigation.
Analyzing each dimension’s effectiveness, ‘Social’ self esteem was found to be the most
significant and therefore effective contributor to the construct of ‘Global’ self-esteem. This applied for
the immediate effect of main and sub group alike. The ‘Social’ self-esteem dimension has also shown
to maintain the increased effect three weeks after camp completion. In context of the camp experience,
these results can be seen in support of the camp programs endorsement of positive peer relations
between participants. In other words, training in problem solving skills facilitated by trust games,
conflict resolution, and leadership skills, appears to have generally improved the individual’s
relationship with other participants on camp, as well as provided the necessary tools to maintain these
abilities over time. Therefore it can be inferred that camp facilitators succeeded in creating an
environment of trust and friendship enabling participants to show vulnerability and their ‘true’ feelings,
a basic requirement to understand the reasons behind participants’ perceived level of self-esteem.
Hence, seeing individual participants ‘opening up’ in such manner, would have had the effect of
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 22
producing similar responses and likewise behaviors in other camp participants/peers, consequently
creating feelings of inclusiveness and belonging. These effects are in line with the recommendations
made by the Park (2003) who outlined ‘inclusiveness’ as one of the major requirements for self-esteem
programs to function appropriately. It is also in support of observations made by Owens (1994), as well
as Grayson (2001), who identified that individuals identify themselves with the personality and
behavior of their associations, and that positive peer influence is related to self-esteem.
The dimension of ‘General’ self-esteem on the other hand, proves to be more ambiguous to
analyze. For example, main group results have shown a significant immediate effect, however, sub
group results indicate neither an immediate nor longer term effect, although mean results have been
consistently increased over time. These results are in line with Coopersmith’s (1981) observation that
individuals are likely to be affected in their general perception of self-esteem by specific incidents and
environmental changes, however, soon after the event individuals are unwilling to accept evidence that
they are better or worse than they themselves have decided, and therefore generally resolve any
dissonance between the evidence and their judgment in favor of their customary judgment.
Results in the dimension of ‘Home’ self-esteem on the other hand, have shown to be not
significant for main and subgroup respectively, when measured between base-line and post-test.
However, a significant increase in self-esteem became evident between base-line and follow-up
measurement. This result is perhaps not surprising, as the assessment of this dimension is related to the
perception of the individual’s self-esteem in relation to their parents. Therefore, it could be argued that
while on camp, participants had no opportunity to implement their newly accomplished skills and
attributes as neither their home environment, nor their parents were present, and therefore an
insignificant result in the comparison between base-line and post-test should be expected. However,
upon returning home, and having spent some time with their respective parents/guardians, participants
were able to exercise and nurture their achieved accomplishments, something that may have become
evident in the significant difference scores in the base-line with follow-up comparison. Taking this
perspective, it can be assumed that the camp program affects participants’ relationship with their
parents for an extended period of time. Considering that good support from parents is an adequate
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 23
predictor for mental health and self-esteem in children the program’s positive results in this dimension
are particularly encouraging.
Likewise, results in the dimension of Academic self-esteem have taken a similar course.
Considering that the immediate effect between base-line and post-test does not indicate significant
increases in self esteem, yet a persistent effect between base-line and follow-up is apparent, it can be
inferred that the full benefit of the camp program only became evident after completion of the event. In
other words, participants may have not had an opportunity to apply the newly accomplished esteem
building strategy while on camp, and thus were unaware of its effects at the time when the post-test
was administered. More specifically however, significant longer term results in the Academic domain
indicate that the ‘learning how to learn’ method (reading, listening and study skills) as taught by
educators and support staff on camp has shown to be valuable to the construction of participants self-
esteem. This can be seen in support of a study by Grayson (2001) who found that camp programs are
well suited to increase self-esteem and academic performance.
Further, Coopersmith’s (1981) and DuBois et al’s (1999) suggestions that self-esteem varies
across gender could not be statistically substantiated in our sample of camp participants. Nonetheless, a
consistently lower mean score was generally observed for female participant’s ‘Global’ self-esteem
across all tests (base-line, post-test and follow-up for ‘main’ and ‘sub’ group) when compared to males.
This may have been attributable to factors such as in the literature often reported greater concern for
body image issues in females, which are believed to lead to body size concerns and poorer perceived
appearance and ultimately to lower ratings of self-esteem when compared to males. Reasons for such
differences in body image can be found in the way females are dis-proportionally affected by media
influences such as beauty magazines, etc. Evidence that girls perceive themselves as academically less
capable as observed by Kokenes (1978) was also not evident within our sample.
Similarly, with the exception of the dimension of Social self-esteem, the result of our study
was unable to support the assumption pre-empted by Coopersmith (1981) that older children would
show greater distinction in the different dimensions of self-esteem when compared to children of a
younger age-group. In other words, older and younger children responded equally to the camp
intervention from the perspective of Global self-esteem, as well as the dimensions of Academic,
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 24
General, and Home self-esteem. On the other hand, the significant difference in Social self-esteem
results between participants of the oldest age-group (age 14-15) and youngest age group (8-10) at base-
line, post-test and follow-up, may be related to the older children’s greater length in time of exposure
to social issues, as well as a greater level of maturity present at the time of testing. Thus, it is not
difficult to imagine that these factors could have contributed to the evidently greater self-esteem scores
in older children.
Equally, the belief that younger children would show a greater effect than older children in
their response to self-esteem building measures as expressed by Marsh (1999), were also not
substantiated. In fact, our data indicates the opposite to hold true when it comes to age groups and
demonstrated effectiveness of the program. In other words, effectiveness of the camp program in
building self-esteem is greater for older rather than younger children.
As for the question whether a difference in self-esteem existed between those participants who
chose to attend, and those who chose not to attend a reunion 3 weeks after completion of camp, the
answer is that with exception of the dimension of Home self-esteem, no statistically significant results
were apparent. However, it is noticeable that mean score differences were higher across all dimensions
for those who chose to be part of the reunion and consequently completed the third measure (follow-
up). These results could be seen as an indication that participants attending the reunion had better
relations with their parents/ guardians and thus were likely to have benefited from greater parental
support. This in turn could be inferred as supportive of Coopersmith’s (1981) statement that a good
parent/child relationship and support is crucial in the development and maintenance of children’s self-
esteem. On the other hand, numerous other variables could have prevented participants from attending
the reunion such as a lack of transportation, recreational commitments, etc.
Taking all main, and sub group dimensional results into consideration, a picture emerges which allows
for the assumption that the camp programs focus on teaching participants strategies of how to set goals
and consequently achieve them, had a number of specific successes. Considering that the immediate,
as well as persistent or longer term effects occurred in the dimension of social self-esteem, with longer
term effects being evident in home and academic self-esteem, a number of general inferences about the
results could be made. For example it is plausible to infer that an individual attending the program can
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 25
expect to learn how to become socially more confident by interacting with participants on camp, and
thus will probably also find that his/her social interactions after camp will be improving. Further, the
participants’ confidence in interacting with their parents or guardians is also likely to improve in the
period after camp. Equally, participants can expect to experience increased levels of confidence when
interacting with teachers and class mates in an academic setting after camp completion. However,
participants’ general appraisal of self worth, although increasing in the immediacy, is likely to revert
back to its pre-camp customary level.
The overall success of the camp intervention in not only creating, but also maintaining a
consistently higher perception of self-esteem in participants over time, regardless of age or gender, can
be seen in support of the notion that the setting of personalized goals and their consequent achievement
are related to increases in self-esteem. In other words, it is the setting of goals that are within a person’s
‘reach’, and which are ultimately identified and determined by the individual him/herself that will lead
to the individuals perception of success. It also lends credibility to Owens et al’s (1996) observation
that achievement is only of consequence to increases in self-esteem if it has been ‘self determined’ or
‘self directed’. Therefore, the camp’s program of implementing the setting of ‘realistic’ goals appears
to have had a striking effect. Or, better defined, one could say that participant’s ‘individualized’
successes, achieved under the guidance of educators and support staff, assisting participants in
identifying ‘achievable’ goals as well as encouraging them to take ‘small’ steps in the achievement
process, appeared to be very effective in increasing ‘Global’ self-esteem across it’s dimensions. By
providing such guidance, the by Millicent (1997) described danger of participants setting unrealistic
goals that cannot be achieved, have been actively avoided and thus, possible performance failures
which could have negatively affected an individual’s willingness to be persistent in his/her pursuit of
goals or targets, have been eliminated. Conversely, how far the camp program’s music therapy showed
effectiveness in raising participants self-esteem, is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, one will have to
assume that the persistent esteem building effect of the camp program could be, at least in part,
accounted for by the musical program component.
Consequently, it appears from the study, that the most important aspect to increasing self-
esteem in individuals is based on their ability to set goals that can consequently be achieved. This in
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 26
turn, will lead to a gradual increase in a person’s confidence and thus enable the individual to set goals
in line with increasing confidence levels. This whole process is instigated by a participants belief in
external factors (i.e. mentors and leaders/support staff/peers), thus confirming the research by DeWit &
Offord, 2003; DuBois & Burk-Braxton, 2002; Mann et al, 2004 who found teacher/mentor and peer
support to be of invaluable importance to increase self-esteem in children and adolescents. In other
words, the process of increasing self-esteem is, at least in the initial phases, an act of faith on behalf of
the participant for which teachers/mentors/peers function as external catalysts allowing participants to
discover their ability to succeed in a self responsible manner. Therefore, the camp programs emphasis
on developing and promoting autonomy granting behaviors in participants appears to be successful in
increasing self-esteem, a view shared by Nielsen & Metha (2002). This is also in line with Kavussanu
& Harnisch’s (2000) observations that success is consistent with achievement goal theory which
stipulates that achievement, or, in other words, an individual’s perceived success or failure is ultimately
nothing more than a subjective state of mind that can be altered for the better, given the right attention.
Limitations
However, in light of objectivity, a number of limitations to the study need to be considered.
For instance, the generalizability of the finding was in doubt as the representativeness of the sample in
terms of sozio-economic status, demographics, and cultural identity could not be determined. In
addition, the impetus of parents or legal guardians to send their children to camp could have been
motivated by concerns that their children generally lacked self –esteem. For example, when comparing
mean results of our sample with the normative mean and standard deviation of the CSEI (M=64.80,
SD=14.70 for males, M=63.50, SD= 15.00 for females) it became evident that our sample group
scored significantly above the norm (M=70.33, SD=13.87 for males, M=65.62, SD=17.14 for
females). In addition, the study did not include a control group due to time and resource constraints,
and given these circumstances, it is likely that regression to the mean may have operated. Therefore,
ongoing future testing is needed to provide more accurate data of population demographics, sample
size and test-retest reliability, as well as should feature the inclusion of a control group. Also, as the
construct of self-esteem is rather difficult to define, Coopersmith (1981) suggests that the CSEI should
be used with other supplementary measures to get a more accurate result when assessing self-esteem in
individuals, a suggestion that should be taken into consideration in the future planning of self-esteem
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 27
research. Further, the self-report nature of this study may have also compromised the provided
information and introduced some bias. In fact Coopersmith (1981) warns that some participants will be
incorrect in their views of themselves, as well as that individual’s from a particular ethnic, cultural or
religious sub group may have values and perceptions significantly different from those presented in the
CSEI statements.
Implications of the Findings
As this study has more or less only provided a broad overview of the multitude of effects the
camp intervention had on the perceived self-esteem of participants, future research should have a
greater focus on the intricacies of the camp program in order to specify how exactly these outcomes
have been determined. These findings may then be able to provide information that will help with the
development of methods that can be applied in a classroom setting for example, and therefore becomes
accessible to more people. Based on the current findings, however, parents and teachers should bear in
mind that low self-esteem appears to be associated with performance failure, which in turn affects a
child’s willingness to be persistent in his/her pursuit of future goals or targets. Therefore, each time a
child experiences failure, a lowering of expectations in his/her ability is the likely consequence. In
other words, self-esteem will be in systematic decline. On the other hand, feelings of success will lead
to the willingness to ‘raise the bar’ each time a task has been completed. Therefore, when dealing with
self-esteem issues, parents, teachers, or mentors are encouraged to support their children by providing
an environment that nurtures the development and maintenance of their self-esteem.
Moreover, other camp operations that have not yet added a self enhancing component to their
program can utilize the conducted research and enhance their outcomes by adopting operational
philosophies that address self-development. Camp operations that add the focus of self-enhancement
are then in a better position to participate in community strategies that are designed to address youth
development needs. Further, in light of the rapid change in society, the social desirability of self-
enhancement, and the identified development needs of youth, the programming and philosophies may
also find applications in classrooms or in after-school programs.
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 28
ReferencesAlves-Martins, M ., Peixoto, F., Gouveia-Pereira, M. & Amaral, V.,(2002). Self-esteem and academicachievement among adolescents. Educational Psychology : 22, 51-62
Axelsson, L. & Ejlertosson G. (2002). Self-reported health, self-esteem and social support amongyoung unemployed people: A population-based study. International Journal of Social Welfare 11
Baldwin, S. & Hoffmann, P. (2002). The dynamics of self-esteem: A growth-curve analysis. Journalof Youth and Adolescence New York, 31, 101-114
Berger, K. S. (2000), The developing person through the life span. New York: Worth Publishers.
Branden, N. (1995), The six pillars of self-esteem. NY: Bantam Books.
Brown, J.D., Dutton, K. A. & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: self-esteem and self evaluation.Cognition And Emotion, 15, 615-631
Coopersmith, S. (1981) The antecedents of self-esteem. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.(Original work published 1967).
DeWit, D. J., Offord, D. R., (2000). The effect of school culture on adolescent behavioral problems:self-esteem, attachment to learning, and peer approval of deviance as mediating mechanisms.Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 16, 15-38
DuBois, D. L. & Hirsch , B. J. (2000). Self-esteem in early adolescence: from stock character tomarquee attraction. Journal of Early Adolescence , 20, 5-11
DuBois, D. L., Burk-Braxton, C. (2002). Getting by with a little help from self and others: self-esteemand social support as resources during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology , 38, 822-839
DuBois, D. L., Felner, D.F., Brand, S., George, G. (1999). Profiles of self-esteem in early adolescence:identification and investigation of adaptive correlates. American Journal of Community Psychology ,27, 899-932
Furnham, A, Badmin, N., Sneade, I. (2002). Body image dissatisfaction: Gender differences in eatingattitudes, self-esteem, and reasons for exercise. The Journal Of Psychology, 36, 581-596
Grayson, R. (2001). Summer camp as an intervention for at-risk youth. dissertation abstractsinternational: section B: The Sciences & Engineering , 62, 25-35
James, W. (1890), Principles of Psychology, NY: Henry Holt
Kavussanu, M. & Harnisch D. L. (2000). Self-esteem in children: do goal orientations matter? BritishJournal of Educational Psychology , 70, 229-242
Kokenes, B. (1978). A factor analytic study of the Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory. Adolescence13, 149–155
Kokenes, B. (1974). Grade-level differences in factors of self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 10,954-958.
Lawrence, D., (1996) Enhancing Self-esteem in the classroom, validity studies of the CoppersmithSelf-esteem Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 32 - 45.
Mann, M., Hosman, M. H., Schaalma, H. P., DeVries. N.K. (2004). Self-esteem in a broad-spectrumapproach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research. 19, 357
The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 29
Marsh, P. E. (1999). Does camping enhance self-esteem? Camping Magazine, American CampingAssociation, accessed online at www.acacamps.org/campmag/9911enhance.htm 26/10/2004 McGee, R. & Williams, S. (2000). Does low self-esteem predict health compromising behaviors amongadolescents? Journal of Adolescence ,23, 569-582.
Mecca, Smelser & Vasconcellos (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley,CA:University of California Press
Medvedova, L. (2000). Relationships of family dimensions with self-esteem in early adolescence. Studia Psychologica, 42, 249-254.
Millicent, H. A. (1997). The role of self-esteem in typical and atypical changes in expectations. Journalof General Psychology
Mullis, R. L. & Chapman P. (2000). Age, gender, and self-esteem differences in adolescent copingstyles. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 539-541
Nielsen, D. M, Metha, A. (1994). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem in clinical andnonclinical samples. Adolescence , 29, 525
Neill, J.T. (2003). Reviewing and benchmarking adventure therapy outcomes; Application of meta-analysis. Journal of Experiential Eductation, 25, 316-321
Owens, T. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: reciprocal effects of positive self-worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems. American Sociological Review, 59, 391
Owens, T., Mortimer, J., Finch, M. (1996). Self-determination as a source of self-esteem inadolescence. Social Forces, 74, 1377
Park, J. (2003). Adolescent self-concept and health into adulthood. Supplement to Health Reports,Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-003
Phyllis, L., McGuigan, A. (2000). Early predictors of adolescent violence. American Journal OfHealth. 90, 566-572
Polce-Lynch, M., Myers, B. J. (2001). Adolescent self-esteem and gender: Exploring relations tosexual harrassment, body image, media influence, and emotional expression. Journal of Youth &Adolescence , 30, 225-244
Robins, R., Tracy, J., Trzesniewski, K. (2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal ofResearch in Personality 35, 463-482.
Romin, W. T. & Carolyn V. (1997). Two-dimensional self-esteem and reactions to success and failure.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,626
Rubenstein, R. (1977). Changes in self-esteem and anxiety in competitive and noncompetitive camps.Journal of Social Psychology ,102, 55-57
Tafarodi, R. W., Vu, C. (1997).Two-dimensional self-esteem and reaction to success and failure.Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 626-635
Vermeiren R., Bogaerts J., Ruchkin V., Deboutte D., Schwab-Stone M. (2004). Subtypes of self-esteem and self-concept in adolescent violent and property offenders. Journal Of Child PsychologyAnd Psychiatry, 45, 405-411
Williams, J. M. & Currie, C. (2000). Self-esteem and physical development in early adolescence:pubertal timing and body image. Journal of Early Adolescence , 20, 129-149