Psyrhologv in rhe Schools
Volume 31. April 1994
SELF-CONCEPT AND SELF-ESTEEM IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN
PAUL C. BURNETT
Queensland University of Technology,
Kelvin Grove, Australia
Confusion exists with regard to the empirical and substantive link between self-concept
and self-esteem in elementary school children and their relationship to self-description,
self-evaluation, and global beliefs and feelings about oneself as a person. This study
reports the results of investigating the relationships between these self-constructs using
957 elementary school children in Grades 3 to 7. The evidence suggests that self-concept
is comprised of both descriptive and evaluative beliefs that children hold about certain
characteristics, whereas self-esteem can be viewed as the global feelings and beliefs
that children have about themselves as people.
Even though the terms self-concept and self-esteem appear frequently in the personality, educational, and psychological literature, thorough reviews have highlighted
the lack of (a) definitional specificity regarding the constructs and (b) a clear delineation of the substantive link between the two self terms (Hattie, 1992; Hughes, 1984;
Wylie, 1979). The seminal work of Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) and Shavelson
and Bolus (1982) resulted in the development of a model that emphasized the multidimensional, hierarchical structure of self-concept. However, the model did not explicitly
address the issue of delineating self-esteem from self-concept. What Shavelson and
colleagues did address was the issue of the relationship between self-description and
self-evaluation, noting that the distinction between the two had not been clarified either
conceptually or empirically. Consequently, the position that self-description and selfevaluation are empirically the same has been outlined (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985;
Shavelson & Bolus, 1982; Shavelson et al., 1976).
Much of the literature that distinguishes between the two constructs equates selfconcept with self-description and self-esteem with self-evaluation. Watkins and Dhawan
(1989) distinguished the two constructs theoretically on the basis of this conceptualization. They noted that the items in the Self-Description Questionnaire 1 (SDQ1; Marsh,
1990). which was based on Shavelson et al.’s (1976) model, had self-descriptive items
(I enjoy sports and games) and self-evaluative items (I am good at sports) and therefore
measured both self-concept and self-esteem. Watkins and Dhawan (1989) argued that
self-concept and self-esteem can be distinguished and cited three studies whose findings
were suggestive of an empirical distinction between self-description (self-concept) and
self-evaluation (self-esteem). Of specific interest was the Bogan (1988) study of 162 college students, which found that 43% of subjects expressed significant differences between
corresponding descriptive and evaluative judgments across the six dimensions of self.
In summary, Shavelson et al. (1976) maintained that descriptive and evaluative
statements about one’s characteristics are indistinguishable and empirically related,
whereas Watkins and Dhawan (1989) argued that descriptive and evaluative perspectives (self-concept and self-esteem) can be differentiated, particularly from a cross-cultural
perspective.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Paul C. Burnett, School of Learning and
Development, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059,
Australia.
164
Self-concept and Self-Esteem
165
Self Concept and Self-Esteem: An Alternative Perspective
In contrast to the perspective outlined above, an alternative conceptualization has
been postulated (Campbell, 1990; Searcy, 1988). A distinction between self-concept and
self-esteem has been made, not on a descriptive/evaluative basis but on the basis that
self-concept focuses on the beliefs that people have about specific characteristics
associated with themselves whereas self-esteem relates to the global beliefs and feelings
that people have about themselves as people, for example, being satisfied with and liking oneself.
Self-concept, then, can be viewed as having a cognitive/thought orientation that
encompasses both descriptive and evaluative/comparative beliefs about one’s characteristics, whereas self-esteem has a global cognitive and affectivelfeeling orientation that
focuses on how an individual feels about him- or herself as a person. The notion that
self-esteem is a general or global construct is in keeping with the theoretical orientation
of Rosenberg (1965, 1979). Additionally, Rosenberg (1979) emphasized both feelings
and beliefs when he defined self-esteem as the “totality of the individual’s thoughts and
feelings having reference to him/herself as an object” (p. 7). Marsh, Smith, and Barnes
(1985) included eight general self-concept items based on Rosenberg’s work, but the wording of the items reflected global beliefs about oneself as a person (e.g., a lot of things
about me are good; I d o lots of important things; in general I like being the way I am)
rather than feelings about onself as a person. The relationship between global beliefs
and feelings about oneself as a person has yet to be investigated.
Aims of the Study
The first aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable psychometric instrument to investigate the alternative substantive position outlined above. The second aim
is to investigate the relationships and differences between elementary school children’s
descriptive and evaluative or comparative perspectives about specific personal characteristics. A further aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between the global
beliefs and feelings that children have about themselves as people. Finally, the study
investigates the relationship between descriptive and evaluative/comparative beliefs about
specific characteristics (self-concepts) and global beliefs and feelings about oneself as
a person (self-esteem).
METHOD
Sample
A sample of 957 predominately White, middle class, elementary school children
attending three religious private schools in a large metropolitan area in Australia completed the Self Scale. Girls constituted 57% of the sample, and the mean age of the
total sample was 9.8 years with a range from 7 to 13 years. Table 1 presents the
background demographics for the sample.
Procedure
Items that measured both descriptive (I like . . ., I enjoy , . .) and evaluative/comparative (I am good at . . ., I get good marks in . . ., I have lots of . . .) beliefs about
seven specific characteristics of the self were developed. The seven characteristics, which
were derived from the areas assessed by the SDQl (Marsh, 1990), are Physical Ap-
Burnett
166
Table 1
Background Demographics for the Sample
3
4
Grade
5
6
7
Boys
Girls
Age (years)
Boys
Girls
Age (years)
17
31
7.6
25
34
8.6
17
37
9.7
10
32
10.5
18
36
11.6
27
35
7.9
34
31
8.8
52
59
9.7
29
23
10.8
58
33
11.6
School 3
(N=319)
Boys
Girls
Age (years)
31
27
7.1
30
43
8.7
27
34
9.7
18
43
10.6
16
51
11.8
Total
Sample
Boys
Girls
Age (years)
75
92
7.7
89
108
8.7
93
130
9.7
98
10.6
School 1
(N= 257)
School 2
( N = 381)
57
92
120
11.7
pearance, Physical Ability, Peer Relations, Parent Relations, Reading, Mathematics,
and School. Two descriptive items and two evaluative items were written for each of
the seven areas, giving a total of 28 items. Six items that measure children's global feelings about themselves as a person (happy, proud, pleased, feel good, satisfied, and confident) and four items that measure global beliefs about oneself (e.g., I am a good kid,
I like myself) were written. The Self Scale was administered by class teachers following
standardized procedures.' The children were asked to respond to each of the 38 items
by selecting one of the five statements, presented in a Likert format, that best described
them.
RESULTS
Data Analysis
Factor analysis and alpha coefficients were computed to evaluate the scales' construct validity and internal consistency. Correlations and dependent t tests were used
to evaluate the relationships and differences between descriptive and evaluative selfconcept statements. Correlations were used to evaluate the degree of relationships between
the various self variables. The data were analysed using SPSS 4.1 on a VAX computer.
Factor Analysis
A maximum likelihood factor analysis using an oblique rotation was computed
because of the low to moderate correlations between the facets of self-concept, resulting
in eight factors with eigenvalues greater than I. The factor 1oadings.forthe oblique rotation are presented in Table 2. Items loaded on the substantively derived factors with
the following exceptions: (a) global feelings, global beliefs, and physical appearance
items all loaded on one factor, (b) the two descriptive school items and the two evaluative
school items loaded on separate factors, and (c) Item 3 did not load highly (0.4 or greater)
on the parental self-concept factor. These results suggest that the global thoughts and
'A copy of the Self Scale is available from the author on request.
Self-Concept and Self-Esteem
167
feelings items are homogeneous and closely related to the physical appearance items;
that descriptive and evaluative items seem to measure the same facets of self-concept
with the exception of school subjects; and that Item 3 is not a strong indicator of parental
self-concept.
Table 2
Oblique Factor Loadings
~
~~
~
Factor 1 : Cognitive Self-Esteem (CSE), Affective Self-Esteem (ASE), and Physical Appearance Self-concept
(PASC)
ASE
1 feel good about myself.
.77
ASE
I feel pleased with myself.
.76
CSE
In general I like myself.
.76
ASE
I feel happy with myself.
.74
PASC
1 like the way 1 look.
.72
PASC
1 am good-looking.
.71
ASE
I feel proud of myself.
.7 I
PASC
1 have a pleasant-looking face.
.66
CSE
I like being the way 1 am.
.59
ASE
I feel satisfied with myself.
.58
CSE
Overall I am a good kid.
.49
PASC
I like looking at myself in the mirror.
.43
ASE
I feel confident.
.41
CSE
Overall 1 am a nice person.
.41
Factor 2: Reading Self-Concept
RSC
I enjoy reading.
RSC
1 like reading.
RSC
I am good at reading.
RSC
I get good marks at reading.
.88
.86
.70
.58
Factor 3: Math Self-concept
MSC
I enjoy math.
MSC
I like math.
MSC
I am good at math.
MSC
I get good marks at math.
80
.79
.71
.70
Factor 4: Parental Relations Self-Concept
1 get on well with my parents.
PSC
PSC
1 have a good relationship with my parents.
PSC
1 like being with my parents.
PSC
1 like my parents.
.88
.79
.77
.76
Factor 5: Physical Ability Self-concept
PABSC I am good at sports and games.
PABSC I like sports and games.
PABSC I like running and playing.
PABSC I am good at running.
.77
.73
.61
.60
Factor 6: School Performance Self-concept
SPSC
I get good marks in all school subjects.
SPSC
I am good at all school subjects.
.56
.52
Factor 7: School Enjoyment Self-concept
I enjoy doing work in all school subjects.
SESC
SESC
1 like the subjects I do at school.
.73
.70
Factor 8: Peer Relations Self-Concept
I have lots of friends.
PRSC
PRSC
I am good at making friends.
PRSC
I like playing with my friends.
PRSC
1 like having friends around me.
.67
.53
.42
.36
Burnett
168
Reliability
The alpha reliability coefficients for each of the scales, as theoretically conceptualized, were computed and the results were as follows: Physical Appearance 0.78, Physical
Ability, 0.79, Peer Relations 0.67, Parent Relations 0.88, Reading 0.87, Mathematics,
0.84, School 0.81, Global Feelings 0.88, Global Beliefs 0.76, indicating moderate to
high reliability.
Descriptive vs. Evaluative Self-Concept Statements
The correlation matrix for the descriptive and evaluative self-concepts is presented
in Table 3. The results ranged from 0.36 to 0.83 with a mean correlation of 0.62, indicating in general a moderately high degree of correlation between the two perspectives, with the exception of Peer Relations. Dependent t tests were computed to assess
the differences between the descriptive and evaluative aspects of self-concept. The results
are presented in Table 4. The differences in most cases were small despite attaining
statistical significance, with the exception of physical ability, peer relations, and math
self-concepts.
Table 3
Pearson Correlations between the Descriptive Self-concept Scores and the Evaluative Self-concept
Scores
Characteristic
Physical Appearance
Physical Ability
Peer Relations
Parent Relations
Reading
Mathematics
School
Correlation between Descriptive
Score and Evaluative Score
0.65
0.62
0.36
0.73
0.83
0.58
0.53
For significance, r > .32, df = 955,p< ,001.
Cognitive vs. Aflective Self-Esteem Statements
The correlation between the cognitive self-esteem scales and the affective self-esteem
scales was 0.78. When this finding is considered in light of the results of the factor analysis
and a total reliability coefficient of 0.91 when the items are combined, it suggests that
the 10 cognitive and affective items are homogeneous and form a single scale measuring
global self-esteem.
The Relationships bet ween Self-concepts and Self-Esteem
The correlation matrix that relates global self-esteem to the two self-concept foci
is presented in Table 5 . The moderate correlations (range 0.25 to 0.70, mean 0.40) suggest that the descriptive and evaluative self-concepts are related to global self-esteem,
with evaluative statements being slightly higher than descriptive statements (difference
range 0.04 to 0.22, mean difference r = 0.09). The highest correlations were between selfesteem and physical appearance (0.70), school (0.57), and peer relations (0.45)
self-concepts.
Self-Concept and Self-Esteem
169
Table 4
Dependent t- Test Results Comparing Descriptive with Evaluative Self-concepts
Physical Appearance
Physical Ability
M
SD
M
SD
Peer Relations
M
SD
Parent Relations
M
Reading
Mathematics
SD
M
SD
M
(Good at)
3.41
.87
4.43
.73
4.50
.63
4.51
.75
3.87
3.49
.91
3.96
.90
3.96
.86
4.40
.80
3.96
.95
3.77
.91
3.66
.79
1 .oo
M
3.41
1.20
3.56
SD
.%
SD
School
(Like)
t
- 3.7
20.0
19.0
6.I
- 5.1
- 11.3
- 3.5
For significance, I >3.29,df = 956,p < .001.
Table 5
Pearson Correlations bet ween Descriptive, Evaluative, and Total Self-concept Scores with the
SelfEsteem Scores
Characteristic
Physical Appearance Descriptive
Physical Appearance Evaluative
Physical Appearance Total
Physical Ability Descriptive
Physical Ability Evaluative
Physical Ability Total
Peer Relations Descriptive
Peer Relations Evaluative
Peer Relations Total
Parent Relations Descriptive
Parent Relations Evaluative
Parent Relations Total
Reading Descriptive
Reading Evaluative
Reading Total
Math Descriptive
Math Evaluative
Math Total
School Descriptive
School Evaluative
School Total
For significance, r > .25,df=955, p < -01.
Correlation with Self-Esteem
0.58
0.70
0.70
0.29
0.35
0.36
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.32
0.39
0.38
0.31
0.35
0.34
0.28
0.35
0.35
0.48
0.52
0.57
170
Burnett
DISCUSSION
The first substantive aim of this study was to investigate the relationship and
differences between children’s descriptive and evaluative/comparative statements about
some of their characteristics. The finding of a mean correlation of 0.62 between the
two types of statements supports the perspective held by Shavelson et al. (1976) that
self-description and self-evaluation are empirically indistinguishable, with the possible
exception of School Self-concept where the results were conflicting. Although the factor
analysis results suggest that descriptive and evaluative statements about school are
separate constructs, the results of the reliability analysis indicate a relatively high degree
of homogeneity (0.81) among the items. Additionally, a modest correlation of 0.53 was
noted between descriptive and evaluative statements relating to school. These conflicting
findings need further investigation. The relatively low correlation between the descriptive and evaluative statements about peers should be interpreted cautiously given the
low factor loading for Item 3 and the low reliability for the scale as a whole.
The differences between the means for the descriptive and evaluative statements
were largest for physical ability, peer relations, and math. The results indicate that the
children liked physical activities more than they were good at them, liked playing with
their peers more than they reported having lots of friends and being good at making
friends, and liked math less than they reported being good at it.
Even though the results of the factor analysis and the reliability coefficients suggest
that the descriptive and evaluative items are homogeneous and can be combined to form
a single scale, the finding of large differences between the two types of statements for
physical appearance and math provides some limited justification for considering the
statements relating to these two characteristics separately. The peer relations findings
are problematic given the problems with Item 3.
The finding of a high correlation between cognitive and affective statements about
oneself as a person suggests that even though self-esteem can be defined theoretically
in terms of beliefs and feelings statements, empirically both types of items can be added
together to form a unitary global self-esteem scale. It is interesting to note that cognitive
and affective items loaded together on the factor analysis together with the four physical
appearance items, suggesting that global feelings and beliefs about oneself are highly
related to how much children like their appearance and how good-looking they perceive
they are. The factor analytic findings linking the esteem and appearance items are confirmed by the high correlation between global self-esteem and physical appearance selfconcept. It appears that children’s global perceptions of themselves as people are closely
related to how they perceive they look. Additionally, global self-esteem was related to
how well children perceive they do at school and t o a lesser extent to how well they
get on with their peers, although it should be remembered that there are some concerns
about the peer relations scale.
In summary, when the results of this study are considered collectively they suggest
that descriptive and evaluative statements about specific facets or characteristics of the
self are closely related and for the most part should not be treated as separate constructs,
unless a specific justification is provided and then only for school, physical ability, and
math self-concepts. Additionally, cognitive and affective items can be combined to form
a global self-esteem scale that is theoretically distinct from all the self-concept scales
and empirically distinct for all except physical appearance self-concept.
Self-concept and Self-Esteem
171
REFERENCES
BOGAN,J. (1988). The assessment of self-esteem: A cautionary note. Australian Psychologist, 23, 383-389.
CAMPBELL,
J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Sociul Psychology,
59, 538-549.
HATTIE,J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
HUGHES,H.(1984). Measures of self-concept and self-esteemfor children ages 3-12 years. Clinical Psychology
Review, 4, 657-692.
MARSH,H. W. (1990). Self-Description Questionnaire Manual I . Sydney: University of Western Sydney Press.
MARSH,H. W., a SHAVELSON,
R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-125.
MARSH,H. W., SMITH,I. D., &BARNES,
J. (1985). Multi-dimensional self-concepts: Relations with sex and
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 58 1-5%.
ROSENBERG,
M. (1%5). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ROSBNBERG,M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
S. (1988). Developing self-esteem. Academic Therapy, 23, 453-460.
SEARCY,
SWVELSON,
R. J., a BOLUS,
R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journalof Educational Psychology, 74, 3-17.
J. J., & STANTON,
G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interSHAVELSON,
R. J., HUBNER,
pretations. Review of Education Research, 46, 407-441.
WATKINS,
D., & DHAWAN,N. (1989). Do we need to distinguish the constructs of self-concept and selfesteem? Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 4 , 555-562.
W m , R. C. (1979). Theself-concept: Theory and research on selected ropics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.