Significant predictors of self-esteem during adolescence Gyöngyi Kökönyei, Ágnes Balogh

Self-esteem/definitions Dynamic and changing construct Global and domain-specific William 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-definition Interpersonal relatedness Family relationships (attachment, approval, loving) Teachers opinion and approval Social 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

Gender differences in 7-11 grade students **p<0.01

Two-way variance analyses Significant main effects and significant interaction (explained variance 4,3%)

Model Body Image Index Family variables: Care, Overprotection, Communication Monitoring Communication with friends (talking about bothering things) Classmates Teachers FAS Self-esteem Predictors Dependent variable

Model with indicators for girls (an example) Body image (beta i ) Body image_indicator (beta i1 ) Body image is significant, but the indicator is not There is no gender differences Body image and the indicator is significant as well Beta i shows the impact on boys’ self-esteem Sum of beta i and beta i1 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 significantVariable has no significant effect on self-esteem among boys and girls as well.

Model Body Image Index Body Image Index_D FamilyOverprotection Family Overprotection_D Family Communication Family Communication_D Communication with friends Communication with friends _D Classmates Classmates_D FAS FAS_D Self-esteem Predictors Dependent variable

Results /7th grade students Explained variance: 16,8% Unstandardized coefficient Standard beta t value BetaStd error constant18,721,3014,37 Family communication1,450,220,196,53 Body image index0,470,070,196,68 Family overprotection-0,190,05-0,11-3,84 Classmates0,230,050,144,96 Family overprotection_D-0.070, ,72 FAS0,190,070,082,84 Family overprotection for boys: Family overprotection for girls (-0,19+ -0,07): -0.26

Results /9th grade students Explained variance: 19,0% Unstandardized coefficient Standard beta t value BetaStd error constant15,651,1713,42 Family communication1,480,220,196,82 Body image index0,440,070,186,25 Family overprotection_D -0,210,03-0,34-8,05 FAS_D0,350,080,194,53 Classmates0,180,040,124,21 Communication with friends 0,710,230,093,08 Family overprotection and FAS have impact on self- esteem only among girls

Results /11th grade students Explained variance: 20,7% Unstandardized coefficient Stan- dard beta t value BetaStd error constant24,801,4816,70 Family overprotection_D0,210,080,312,57 Family communication1,110,210,145,07 Communication with friends1,080,240,124,47 Family overprotection-0,410,06-0,25-6,42 Body image index0,290,070,103,85 FAS0,220,070,093,35 Classmates_D0,200,060,323,26 Scale of classmates has impact on self-esteem only among girls Family overprotection for boys: -0,41 Family overprotection for girls: ( ): -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 well To compare value of betas for the same predictors in different grade (age) groups To develop path analyses

Thank you!