Significant predictors of self-esteem during adolescence Gyöngyi Kökönyei, Ágnes Balogh
Dec 23, 2015
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!