Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond Brooke Van Zanden, Herbert W Marsh, Marjorie Seaton, and Philip Parker, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield NSW, Australia Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract Self-concept is one of the oldest and most important constructs in the social sciences. It is also at the heart of the positive psychology revolution focusing on how healthy, normal, and exceptional individuals can get the most from life. We begin by distinguishing between an historical unidimensional perspective that focuses on self-esteem and a more recent multidimensional, hierarchical perspective that distinguishes between specific facets of self (e.g., academic, social, physical, and emotional). In this article we review developmental, educational, and personality perspectives of self-concept, gender differences, theoretical models, and empirical research on the reciprocal effects relating self-concept and performance, frame of reference effects based on social and dimensional comparisons that influence the formation of self-concept, and the juxtaposition between multidimensional perspectives of personality and self-concept.

Self-Concept: History and Significance Self-concept is one of the oldest and most significant constructs in the social sciences. Highlighted by William James (1890/ 1963), self-concept today is viewed as a multidimensional, hierarchical construct with highly differentiated components such as emotional, physical, social, and academic selfconcepts. Research has continually shown self-concept to be a critical construct in the attainment of academic achievement (Chen et al., 2013; Marsh and Craven, 2006; Pinxten et al., 2010), social and personal adjustment in children and adolescents (Harter, 1990), elite athlete success (Marsh and Perry, 2005), parent–adolescent relations (Barber et al., 2003), bullying (Marsh et al., 2004), approaches to learning (Burnett et al., 2003), and emotional adjustment and socialization (Donahue et al., 1993). As such, enhancing self-concept is a major goal in many domains, including health, education, and the social services. According to Shavelson et al. (1976), self-concept is best thought of as a person’s self-perceptions that are formed through experience and interpretations of one’s environment, and incorporates feelings of self-worth, self-confidence, ability, and competence. Notably, self-concept is particularly susceptible to evaluations of significant others, reinforcements, and attributions for one’s own behavior (Marsh, 2007). Additionally, not only is self-concept important as an outcome, but is also an important mediating factor that facilitates the attainment of other desirable outcomes (Shavelson et al., 1976). The construct of self-concept has had a long and illustrious history, dating back to Socrates and Plato and to Bandura and Rogers in the present day (see Hattie, 1992). However, it can be argued that the current understanding of self-concept as a multidimensional construct can be traced back to William James (1890/1963). In his seminal work, The Principles of Psychology, James proposed the self as both multifaceted and hierarchical, “with the bodily self at the bottom, the spiritual self at the top, and the extracorporeal material selves and the various social selves between” (p. 313). This assertion, along with James’ distinction between the self-as-knower (the I)

460

and the self-as-known (the Me), played an important role in developing self-concept theory. However, after the promising start by James, advances in self-concept theory, research, and measurement were slow and wrought with conceptual and methodological problems. Marsh (2007) proposed that the root of these problems may have been that terms such as self-concept were already so entrenched in the psychological vernacular and so widely used in everyday conversation that there was already an assumption that the paradigm was understood. Consequently, researchers may not have been motivated to explore theoretical definitions of the construct or to develop a systematic evaluation of self-concept measures (Marsh et al., 1988). This is reflected in the criticisms of pre-1980 self-concept research, which notes the dearth of sound measurement instruments, inherent methodological problems, and a pervasive inconsistency in reported results (e.g., Shavelson et al., 1976; Wylie, 1979).

Self-Concept: A Unidimensional or Multidimensional Construct? Although James originally conceived self-concept as a multidimensional construct, there has been much debate on the value of unidimensional perspectives that emphasize a single, global domain of self-concept, often referred to as self-esteem, versus multidimensional perspectives based on multiple distinct components of self-concept (Marsh and Craven, 2006). Early self-concept research was generally dominated by a unidimensional perspective, where self-concept was represented by a single, general self-esteem score. However, this approach was criticized on the basis that a unidimensional perspective of self-concept does not allow researchers to capture the richness or specific insight that the various components of selfconcept have to offer (Rosenberg et al., 1995). It was not until Shavelson et al.’s (1976) seminal work that a multidimensional perspective again came to the forefront of self-concept research. After conducting an extensive review of

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25089-7

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

the self-concept literature, Shavelson et al. formed their own model of self-concept that was both multidimensional and hierarchical. Shavelson et al. posited a general self-concept encompassing all aspects of the self, which was then divided into academic and nonacademic self-concepts. At the next level, these self-concepts were further divided. For example, academic self-concept was further divided into self-concepts in specific subject areas (e.g., mathematics and English). However, continued research suggested there were some weaknesses in Shavelson et al.’ (1976) proposed model (see Byrne and Shavelson, 1996). This led Marsh and Shavelson (1985) to revise the model that provided a more highly differentiated view of self-concept than previous conceptions. For example, this model proposed higher-order academic factors of academic self-concept (e.g., mathematics and verbal) to explain self-concepts in specific school subjects, rather than the single dimension of academic self-concept initially proposed by Shavelson et al. Both the Shavelson et al. model and the Marsh–Shavelson revision are important, as they paved the way for the development of today’s multidimensional selfconcept instruments, which arguably formed the basis for considerable advances in the theoretical and methodological quality of self-concept research, as well as providing for stronger interventions (Craven et al., 1991; Marsh and Craven, 1997; Marsh and Shavelson, 1985). The multidimensional perspective of self-concept has now been applied to a variety of settings, especially in the areas of education (Marsh, 1993) and sport (Fox and Corbin, 1989; Marsh, 2002). Importantly, the findings of all these studies have demonstrated the value of a multidimensional perspective over a global measure of self-esteem, especially in terms of predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity (Marsh, 2007). In addition, more recent research using a multidimensional perspective has proved valuable in the areas of bullying (Marsh et al., 2001b) and obesity and body image (Marsh et al., 2007).

Developmental Perspectives Self-concept has been posited as a critical aspect of the social and emotional development of children by a number of researchers (Marsh et al., 2005a, 2002a). Thus, the issue of self-concept is a central concern to developmental psychologists. Researchers have been particularly interested in charting how self-concept develops with age. However, while it is clear that self-concept plays an important role in childhood development, there is less clarity regarding the age that children become able to report their self-concepts. Marsh et al. (2005a) argued that this has largely been due to a lack of appropriate instruments to adequately measure the self-concepts of young children. The development of self-concept scales designed especially for young children have shed some light on how self-concept is experienced in early childhood. Using a version of the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) adapted for young children, Marsh et al. (2002a) demonstrated that preschoolaged children are able to distinguish between multiple dimensions of self-concept at a younger age than suggested by previous research. However, measures of verbal and

461

mathematics self-concepts were highly correlated (0.73) in comparison to the typical small correlations between mathematics and verbal self-concepts evidenced in older children (Marsh, 1986; Marsh and Hau, 2004; Möller et al., 2009). These results suggest that very young children do not make the same clear differentiations between self-concepts that older children do. The aforementioned findings give rise to the question of whether self-concept becomes increasingly multidimensional with age. Indeed, Shavelson et al. (1976) hypothesized that the multidimensional aspect of self-concept would increase with age. In other words, it was argued that as people get older, they become better able, and more likely, to distinguish their self-evaluations in different contexts. However, Marsh and Ayotte (2003) critiqued previous tests of this hypothesis, and found that increasing differentiation did not explain all results. Instead, Marsh and Ayotte proposed a differential distinctiveness hypothesis, which argued that with increasing age and cognitive development, there are counterbalancing processes of self-concept integration and differentiation. According to Marsh and Ayotte, integration occurs when closely related areas of selfconcept (cognitive and affective components of mathematics self-concept) become amalgamated; differentiation refers to the increasing differentiation of disparate areas of selfconcept (mathematics and verbal). Marsh and Ayotte supported their theoretical claims with data from young French–Canadian schoolchildren, which showed that with age dissimilar domains became more differentiated, while similar domains became more integrated, providing strong support for the differential distinctiveness hypothesis. Researchers have also investigated how self-concept varies with age. Marsh (1989) described a curvilinear relationship between age and self-concept, whereby self-concept declines during preadolescence and early adolescence, and then levels out in middle adolescence, before increasing in late adolescence through to early adulthood. This curvilinear relationship was demonstrated by Cole et al. (2001). However, Cole et al.’s study also uncovered further complexity to the curvilinear relationship between selfconcept and age. For instance, Cole and colleagues found that from middle to late childhood there were increases in academic, social, and sports competence, but an overall decrease in self-concept of behavioral conduct, and a femaleonly decrease in physical self-concept. At the onset of early adolescence, academic and sports self-concepts decreased significantly. Furthermore, following the transition from middle school, academic and social self-concepts recovered. Meanwhile, sports, behavior, and appearance self-concepts remained the same. Finally, the transition to high school was associated with increased self-perceived academic competence and increases in social self-concept for males and physical appearance self-concept for females. However, sports and behavioral self-concepts decreased for females at the same time. According to Cole et al., the period after the transition from high school is characterized by a plateau in self-concept scores across all five domains. This research supports Marsh’s (1989) assertion that the transition from middle to high school presents the most turbulent time for self-conceptions. In addition, this time also displays more

462

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

discrepancies between male and female self-concepts than at any other time. There are a host of theories that aim to explain the changes in self-concept that occur across the lifespan. According to Marsh and Craven (1997), children’s self-concept decreases with age, as a result of increased exposure to situations that challenge high childhood self-concepts. Other researchers argue that the tumultuous transitions during puberty lead to radical decreases in self-perceptions (see Harter, 1998). Furthermore, others have posited that improved social skills, autonomy, and maturity may lead to increased self-concept (Hart et al., 1993). More research regarding the relationships between domain-specific self-concepts and age is needed to better understand the issue.

Gender Differences Research focusing on the role of gender in self-concept has provided further support to the necessity of espousing a multidimensional model to describe self-concept. Speculation that global measures of the self are inadequate in explaining gender differences were first expressed by Wylie (1979), who argued that it was likely that gender differences in specific self-concept domains were masked by global scores of self-esteem. Instead, researchers (e.g., Dusek and Flaherty, 1981; Wylie, 1979) claimed that small differences in general self-esteem were actually reflective of counterbalancing gender differences in domain-specific self-concepts that were consistent with traditional sex stereotypes. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to support this argument. For example, in a review of gender differences in self-concept, Crain (1996) found that there was evidence of differences in domain-specific self-concepts for girls and boys that appeared to be gender stereotypic. Other studies have further supported the notion that gender differences in self-perceptions vary across domain-specific self-concepts. Marsh’s (1989) analysis of archive responses to the multidimensional SDQ instruments indicated that boys had distinctly more favorable global measures of selfconcepts than their female counterparts. However, small but statistically significant, gender differences in most SDQ scales revealed that domain-specific self-concept scores typically followed sex stereotypes. For example, males had higher self-concepts in mathematics, while females fared better in measures of verbal self-concept. This finding has been demonstrated in other studies. For example, Marsh and Ayotte (2003) replicated these findings using a French–Canadian version of the SDQ. Additionally, Lent et al. (1997) found that males exhibited higher mathematics self-concepts and higher general academic selfconcepts than females. Finally, Feingold and Mazzella (1998) provided evidence for this trend in nonacademic domains of self-concepts, with the finding that male selfconcepts relating to physical appearance were more positive than for their female counterparts. In summary, these studies that have analyzed gender and self-concept in a multidimensional framework are important as they provide further insight into the role gender plays in the formation of self-perceptions.

Causal Ordering of Self-Concept and Achievement: The Reciprocal Effects Model Numerous studies have demonstrated a substantial positive correlation between academic self-concept and achievement (e.g., Marsh et al., 2006b,e). However, until recently, the causal ordering of this relation was less certain. However, this relation leaves unanswered the question of whether prior ratings of self-concept affect academic achievement, or whether academic achievement contributes to self-concept. This question is particularly important due to the theoretical and practical implications of the causal direction between these two variables. Essentially, knowing the causal ordering of self-concept and achievement is critical in determining the teaching practices that are most effective in enhancing student educational outcomes. Furthermore, answering the issue of causality is theoretically important in that much of the interest shown in self-concept stems from the belief that academic self-concept has motivational properties that contribute to achievement (Byrne, 1984). Calysn and Kenny (1997) highlighted two opposing models relating to the causal ordering of self-concept and achievement: the self-enhancement and skill development models. The self-enhancement model posits that self-concept is a primary determinant of academic achievement and argues that interventions aiming to improve self-concept are critical in the attainment of academic success. In contrast, the skill development model argues that academic self-concept forms as a result of previous academic achievement. Thus, improving academic skills is seen as central to the enhancement of self-concept. Until recent advances in statistical analyses, clarifying the issue of causal ordering between self-concept and academic achievement was problematic. However, the introduction of structural equation modeling into self-concept research reduced previous limitations, allowing researchers to investigate models that were theoretically and statistically more complex than the either–or arguments presented by self-enhancement and skill development models (see Marsh, 1990a; Marsh et al., 1999; Marsh and Martin, 2011). As a result of these advances, Marsh (1990a) proposed the reciprocal effects model (REM; see Figure 1) of academic self-concept. This model argued that the causal ordering of self-concept and achievement was not unidirectional. Instead, Marsh’s model hypothesized a reciprocal relation between increases in self-concept and improvements in performance. To test this model, Marsh (1990a) analyzed the large, nationally representative, US Youth in Transition Study. By analyzing the latent constructs of academic ability, academic self-concept, and school grades across a series of time waves, Marsh found support for a model where self-concept and achievement were reciprocally related. Marsh’s study was important as it was one of the first studies that provided methodologically strong evidence for an REM, by demonstrating statistically significant pathways from prior self-concept to later achievement, and vice versa. Cross-cultural research can inform us whether or not theories can be universally applied (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990). Hence, the REM has been further bolstered by studies

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

463

Challenges to the REM

Figure 1 Prototype causal-ordering model for testing selfenhancement, skill development, and REM. In this full-forward, multiwave, multivariable model, multiple indicators of academic self-concept (ASC) and achievement (ACH) are collected in three successive waves (T1, T2, and T3). Each latent construct (represented by oval shape) has paths leading to all latent constructs in subsequent waves. Within each wave, academic self-concept and achievement are assumed to be correlated; in the first wave, this correlation is a covariance between two latent constructs, and in subsequent waves, it is a covariance between residual factors. Curved lines at the top and bottom of the figure reflect correlated uniquenesses between responses to the same measured variable (represented by boxes) collected on different occasions. Paths connecting the same variable on multiple occasions reflect stability (the solid gray paths), but these coefficients typically differ from the corresponding test–retest correlations (which do not include the effects of other variables). Dashed lines reflect effects of prior achievement on subsequent self-concept, whereas solid black lines reflect the effects of prior self-concept on subsequent achievement. Adapted with permission from Marsh, H.W., 2007. Self-concept Theory, Measurement and Research into Practice: The Role of Selfconcept in Educational Psychology. British Psychological Society, Leicester, UK.

demonstrating good cross-cultural generalizability. Support for the REM in studies has come from different countries, for example, Hong Kong (Marsh et al., 2002b), Belgium (Pinxten et al., 2014), Germany (Marsh et al., 2001a, 2005b), and Canada (Guay et al., 2003). Further strengthening the claims of the REM, evidence for reciprocal relations between self-concept and performance has been found outside the classroom. Marsh et al. (2006c) demonstrated the REM in a study investigating the causal ordering of physical self-concept and exercise behavior. Furthermore, Marsh et al. (2006a) tested the reciprocal effects, self-enhancement, and skill development models in relation to the physical self-concept and performance of gymnasts, and again found support for an REM of selfconcept and performance. These findings are further supported by Marsh and Perry’s (2005) study of self-concept and performance in a sample of elite swimmers in which prior self-concept was a significant positive predictor of subsequent championship performance.

The REM provides evidence for the positive psychology movement. At the core of this movement is the belief that positive conceptions of the self are associated with enhanced life outcomes. Baumeister et al. (2003) challenged this premise in an influential review commissioned for Psychological Science in the Public Interest, arguing “that efforts to boost people’s self-esteem are of little value in fostering academic achievement or preventing undesirable behavior” (p. 84). However, in the context of recent advances in methodological and theoretical understandings of self-concept, Baumeister et al.’s (2003) conclusions are problematic. In particular, Baumeister et al. relied on a unidimensional perspective that emphasized self-esteem, largely ignoring research based on a multidimensional perspective reviewed here that focused on academic self-concept. From a multidimensional perspective it is reasonable that esteem has little or no relation with academic achievement even though academic self-concept and achievement are reciprocally related (Marsh and Craven, 2006). Marsh and O’Mara (2008) subsequently provided clear support for this theoretical claim, juxtaposing the negligible effects of self-esteem with the substantial effects of academic self-concept in a reanalysis of the classic Youth in Transition study highlighted by Baumeister et al. (in relation to self-esteem) and by Marsh and Craven (in relation to academic self-concept). This conclusion is also consistent with the meta-analytic research which found consistent support for a reciprocal relation between academic selfconcept and achievement, but little to no reciprocal effect between achievement and self-esteem (Valentine and DuBois, 2005; Valentine et al., 2004). In summary, the REM has been a critical development in selfconcept theory. Firstly, the model established that positive self-concept and achievement are mutually reinforcing. Secondly, this finding supports the notion that positive selfconcept is an integral part of success and achievement. Finally, these findings have important implications for educators. That is, since self-concept and achievement are mutually reinforcing and reciprocally related, interventions aimed at improving performance should not only strive to promote skill development, but also seek to simultaneously enhance self-concept to encourage achievement.

Frames of Reference Models Since William James (1890), psychologists have stressed that self-concept cannot be understood without recognizing the role that comparative processes play in perceptions of the self. Essentially, while people may share the same objective characteristics or accomplishments, differing frames of references or standards of comparisons can lead to disparate self-concepts among individuals.

Social Comparison and the Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect Integrating research based on a variety of theoretical models and empirical studies (e.g., Davis, 1966; Festinger, 1954), Marsh (1984; also see Marsh et al., 2008) proposed the

464

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

big-fish–little-pond effect (BFLPE; see Figure 2) that is specific to educational settings. According to the BFLPE, students compare their own academic abilities with the abilities of their classmates, and use this social comparison as the basis of their academic self-concept. In the BFLPE, students who attend highability classes and schools tend to have lower academic selfconcepts than equally able students who attend mixed- or low-ability classes and schools. Thus, the BFLPE explains how students with equal ability can have differing academic selfconcepts as a result of the educational settings they attend. Since the initial BFLPE study (Marsh and Parker, 1984), there has been a wealth of support for BFLPE predictions based on studies that use differing experimental and analytical approaches (Marsh, 1987; Marsh and Craven, 1994, 1997; see review by Marsh et al., 2008). Furthermore, Marsh (1991) demonstrated that students attending higher-ability high schools were likely to not only suffer from depleted academic self-concepts, but were also likely to have lower GPAs, lower educational aspirations, lower occupational aspirations, lower standardized test scores, and were also more likely to select less demanding coursework than their equally abled peers attending schools with lower average abilities. These findings are significant as they have important implications for parents, teachers, and policy makers, as they dispute the common held belief that it is advantageous to send students to schools with stellar academic reputations. Instead, Marsh argues that the findings of BFLPE indicate that many students attending high-average schools are not reaching their full academic potential. Further support for the BFLPE was also found in the quasiexperimental setting that occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall (Marsh et al., 2001a). Essentially, the fall provided researchers the opportunity to compare the effects of attending school systems that differed in the extent that they segregated students by ability. While West German students had previously attended academically differentiated schools, East German students had not been exposed to an academically differentiated school system. Results of the study supported the BFLPE predictions. The BFLPE was significantly larger for West German students at the start of

Positive effects of achievement on academic self-concept Individual Individual student student self-concept achievement

School-average student achievement

Negative effects of school-average achievement on academic selfconcept (BFLPE)

Figure 2 Big-fish–little-pond effect. Reproduced from Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., 2003. Big-fish–little-pond effect on academic self-concept: a cross-cultural (26 country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364.

reunification of the schooling systems. Importantly, as time passed the difference in the size of the effect between East and German students was reduced, and eventually disappeared after the East German students had been exposed to the West German schooling system for a year. According to Marsh, Kӧller, et al. these findings are a testament to how national educational policy differences impact upon the academic self-concepts of individual students. In research reviewed by Marsh et al. (2008), there is consistent cross-cultural support for the BFLPE based on studies from many different countries. Demonstrating that the BFLPE is one of psychology’s most cross-culturally universal phenomenon, three successive Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data collections (Marsh and Hau, 2003; 103 558 students from 26 countries; Seaton et al., 2009, 2010; 265 180 students from 41 countries; Nagengast and Marsh, 2012; 397 500 students from 57 countries) showed that the effect of school-average ACH on ASC was negative in all but one of the 123 samples and significantly so in 114 samples. Seaton et al. (2010) evaluated whether the BFLPE was moderated by 17 individual student characteristics (student background, learning styles, and the perceived learning environment) based on the large PISA 2003 database. However, they concluded “that the BFLPE was an extremely robust effect” (p. 390). Jonkmann et al. (2012) evaluated whether the BFLPE was moderated by personality factors (big-five traits and narcissism). They found that students high in narcissism had exaggerated academic self-concept and smaller BFLPEs. In contrast, students high in neuroticism experienced more negative BFLPEs. However, these moderation effects were modest in that they did not change the direct of the BFLPE, again supporting the robustness of the BFLPE. While most BFLPE studies use high school student samples, the effect has been demonstrated in primary school’ gifted and talented classes (Marsh et al., 1995). Therefore, the assumed benefits of gifted and talented programs are also called into question by the BFLPE. In addition to this, the BFLPE has found support among academically disadvantaged students placed in mainstream classes (Tracey et al., 2003; Marsh et al., 2006d). The findings of these studies were in contrast to labeling theory, which predicts that placement of academically disadvantaged children in special classes will lead to lower self-concepts and stigmatization. Instead, results indicated that academically disadvantaged students placed in regular classes in fact had lower self-concepts than their equally able peers who were grouped in classes with other students of similar abilities. These findings are important as they indicate that the very policies aiming to include students are at the same time having detrimental effects on students’ academic self-concept.

Dimensional Comparisons and the I/E Model Researchers have also brought attention to the role that internal comparisons play in shaping self-concept. For example, Albert (1977) proposed that individuals also undertake temporal comparisons in order to form self-evaluations. Temporal comparisons are performed within an internal frame of reference, whereby individuals compare themselves across time. Furthermore, Möller and Marsh (2013) described another internal comparative process known as dimensional

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

comparison, whereby individuals compare their own abilities in one area to another. For example, a student may ask, “How good am I in mathematics compared to English?” These dimensional comparisons are the focus of the ‘Classic’ Internal/External Frame of Reference (I/E) model, which investigates the association between academic self-concept and achievement. In accordance with the hierarchical aspect of self-concept, correlations between mathematics and verbal self-concepts are typically weak or even negative (Marsh, 1986; see Figure 3). Furthermore, Marsh demonstrated that pathways between domain-specific achievement and the corresponding self-concept were substantial and positive. In contrast, paths from mathematics achievement to verbal selfconcept and vice versa were significant and negative. Essentially, people tend to see themselves as either a mathematics or a verbal person, but rarely both. What makes this finding interesting is that although mathematics and verbal self-concepts are uncorrelated, objective measures of academic performance indicate that mathematics and verbal abilities are usually similar (Marsh, 1986). Therefore, there is a paradoxical relationship that exists between academic self-concepts and their corresponding measures of academic performance. The I/E model was developed to explain the aforementioned paradoxical relationship between subject-specific self-concepts and achievement (Marsh, 1986). Marsh argues that academic self-concepts in particular school subjects are formed through, not only external references, but also internal references such as dimensional comparisons. These occur when students compare their own performance in one subject to their own performance in another school subject. According to the model, good verbal skills lead to lower mathematics self-concept as a result of these dimensional comparison processes, and vice versa. The I/E model has been widely supported across a number of studies differing in sample nationality, age, and in the uses of self-concept and measures of achievement (see Marsh, 1990b; Marsh and Craven, 1997). Meta-analyses have demonstrated further support for the model, again showing

Figure 3 The ‘Classic’ Internal/External Frame of Reference (I/E) Model relating verbal and mathematical achievement to verbal and mathematical self-concepts. According to predictions from the I/E model, the horizontal paths from achievement to self-concept in the matching domain (content area) are predicted to be substantial and positive (þþ), whereas the cross paths from achievement in one domain area to self-concept in a non-matching domain (shaded in gray above) are predicted to be negative ().

465

generalizability across age, gender, and nationality (Möller et al., 2009; Marsh and Hau, 2004). There has also been experimental research that has enabled confirmation of the causal hypotheses of the I/E model (Möller and Köller, 2001). In this study Mӧller and Kӧller were able to demonstrate that manipulation of feedback on achievement in one subject area had an inverse effect on self-concept in the subject at the opposite end of the verbal–mathematics continuum. Furthermore, diary studies have also confirmed that students spontaneously undertake dimensional comparisons on a day-to-day basis. Importantly, these dimensional comparisons have been shown to predict postschool education and career pathways (Parker et al., 2012; Parker et al., in pressa,b). The I/E model has been an important development in selfconcept theory as it highlighted the hierarchical aspect of selfconcept, leading to the Marsh/Shavelson revision of the original Shavelson model of self-concept. This theoretical development has been important in the practice of educational psychology, as it has highlighted the fact that even academic self-concept is highly domain specific. This means that psychologists should take careful consideration of the way they choose to measure academic self-concept to ensure that the level of specificity is appropriate to research aims and intervention goals.

Personality and Self-Concept Personality researchers make a distinction between core personality traits such as the Big Five (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness) and selfconcept, which they perceive to be a more malleable personality characteristic. Although both self-concept and personality researchers agree that their constructs should be viewed from a multidimensional perspective, Marsh et al. (2006e; see also Marsh, 2008) noted that personality researchers have relied heavily on global self-esteem measures rather than on multidimensional self-concept measures that are more commonly used by self-concept researchers. Moreover, these authors noted that there is a paucity of research combining personality and self-concept from a multidimensional perspective. Research that has examined personality and global selfesteem has shown that the latter to be negatively related to neuroticism (Judge et al., 1998; also see Francis and James, 1996; Furr and Funder, 1998; Watson et al., 2002) and somewhat less positively related to extraversion (e.g., Francis and James, 1996; Furr and Funder, 1998; Watson et al., 2002). The few studies that have examined relations between self-esteem and the complete set of Big Five factors have found positive correlations between self-esteem and conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness (see Watson et al., 2002). In response to the limited amount of studies relating multidimensional personality factors with multidimensional selfconcept factors, Marsh et al. (2006e) evaluated relations between 17 clearly defined self-concept factors (extended SDQIII), personality (Big Five), well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction), and academic outcomes

466

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

(school grades, test scores, and coursework selection) in young adult students (17–19 years). They found that substantial amounts of variance in each of the Big Five and well-being factors could be explained by specific self-concept factors, varying between 23% and 60% (M ¼ 39%) for the Big Five factors and between 14% and 19% (M ¼ 17%) for the wellbeing factors. Quite the reverse was found for self-esteem; almost none of the variance in any of the Big Five or the well-being factors could be uniquely explained by selfesteem. That the pattern of relations between self-concept and personality factors was so highly differentiated and multivariate suggests that personality researchers should consider using multidimensional self-concept measures in place of the commonly used unidimensional ones. Marsh et al. (2006e) found support for convergent validity (self-concept and personality factors that were logically related were substantially correlated) and divergent validity (selfconcept and personality factors that were not logically related were not substantially related), most especially in seven higher-order factors encompassing both self-concept and personality factors. Moreover, personality was confirmed as a multidimensional construct, as each Big Five personality factor loaded primarily on one and only one of the seven higher-order factors. Furthermore, specific self-concept components and Big Five personality factors that one would logically associate with each other loaded on the same higherorder factor. Moreover, two higher-order factors (reflecting the quantitative-academic components of self-concept and religious self-concept) were relatively unrelated to all personality factors. Self-esteem relations confirmed the multidimensional nature of self-concept. Not only did selfesteem load on just one of the seven higher-order factors, but also was not even the highest loading of all the self-concept factors. Further demonstrating the multidimensional perspective of self-concept, the association between selfesteem and each of the nine nonacademic outcome measures was modest (rs varied from 0.03 to 0.05). Conversely, the relations between academic outcomes and the academic components of self-concept were highly differentiated and substantial. It is interesting to note that there was only a moderate association between the Big Five personality and well-being factors and the academic outcomes. Moreover, these personality constructs were unable to additionally contribute to the prediction of the academic outcomes over and above that which could be explained by the academic components of self-concept. In summary, Marsh et al. (2006e) have provided both personality and self-concept research with a way forward by demonstrating how multidimensional personality constructs and multidimensional self-concept constructs relate to each other. In doing so, they have begun the process of integrating two very important and productive strands of social psychology.

Summary The self-concept construct has had a long and distinguished history. Although once conceptualized as unidimensional, research over the last 35 years has demonstrated that

self-concept is indeed a multidimensional construct. As Marsh and Hattie (1996) aptly declared, “there appears to be no support at all for the unidimensional perspective of selfconcept or, apparently, even a unidimensional perspective of academic self-concept” (p. 44). Indeed, self-concept research has blossomed in this period, spanning issues as varied as developmental perspectives, to gender differences, effects of differing frames of reference on self-concept, self-concept’s association with personality, and the reciprocal relation that it has with achievement. These advances in self-concept are exciting and augur well for the future of the discipline. Perhaps more importantly they demonstrate how crucial a positive self-concept is in many areas of human functioning and endorse Marsh and Craven’s (2006) description of selfconcept as a “hot variable that makes good things happen, facilitating the realization of full human potential in a range of settings” (p. 134).

See also: Academic Achievement Motivation, Development of; Concept Formation in Childhood: Cross-Cultural Perspectives; Factor Analysis and Latent Variable Models in Personality Psychology; Gender Differences in Personality and Social Behavior; Internal/External Frame of Reference Model; Motivation, Learning, and Instruction; School Achievement: Motivational Determinants and Processes; Schooling: Impact on Cognitive and Motivational Development; Self and Emotional Development in Adulthood and Later Life; Self-Esteem; Self-Regulated Learning.

Bibliography Albert, S.U., 1977. Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review 84, 485–503. Barber, C.N., Hall, J., Armistead, L., 2003. Parent-adolescent relationship and adolescent. psychological functioning among African-American female adolescents: self-esteem as a mediator. Journal of Child & Family Studies 12, 361–374. Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., Vohs, K.D., 2003. Does high selfesteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4, 1–44. Burnett, P.C., Pillay, H., Dart, B.C., 2003. The influences of conceptions of learning and learner self-concept on high school students’ approaches to learning. School of Psychology International 24, 54–66. Byrne, B., 1984. The general/academic self-concept nomological network: a review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research 54, 427–456. Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., 1996. On the structure of social self-concept for pre-, early, and late adolescents: a test of the Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 599. Calysn, R., Kenny, D., 1997. Self-concept of ability and perceived evaluations by others: cause or effect of academic achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology 69, 136–145. Chen, S., Yeh, Y., Hwang, F., Lin, S.S.J., 2013. The relationship between academic self-concept and achievement: a multicohort–multioccasion study. Learning and Individual Differences 23, 172–178. Cole, D.A., Maxwell, S.E., Martin, J.M., Peeke, L.G., Seroczynski, A.D., Tram, J.M., Maschman, T., 2001. The development of multiple domains of child and adolescent self-concept: a cohort sequential longitudinal design. Child development 72, 1723–1746. Crain, R.M., 1996. The influence of age, race, and gender on child and adolescent multidimensional self-concept. In: Bracken, B.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Self-Concept. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, pp. 395–420. Craven, R.G., Marsh, H.W., Debus, R.L., 1991. Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology 83, 17. Davis, J.A., 1966. The campus as a frog pond: an application of theory or relative deprivation to career decisions for college men. American Journal of Sociology 72, 17–31.

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

Donahue, E.M., Robins, R.W., Roberts, B.W., John, O.P., 1993. The divided self: concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, 834–846. Dusek, J.B., Flaherty, J.F., 1981. The development of self-concept during the adolescent years. Society for Research in Child Development 46 (Serial No. 191). Feingold, A., Mazzella, R., 1998. Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science 9, 190–195. Festinger, L., 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations 7, 117–140. Fox, K.R., Corbin, C.B., 1989. The physical self-perception profile: development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11, 408–430. Francis, L.J., James, D.J., 1996. The relationship between Rosenberg’s construct of self-esteem and Eysenck’s two-dimensional model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 21, 483–488. Furr, M.R., Funder, D.C., 1998. A multimodal analysis of personal negativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, 1580. Guay, F., Marsh, H.W., Boivin, M., 2003. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 124–136. Hart, D., Fegley, S., Brengelman, D., 1993. Perceptions of past, present and future selves among children and adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 11, 265–282. Harter, S., 1990. Processes underlying adolescent self-concept formation. In: Montemayor, R., Adams, G., Gulotta, T. (Eds.), From Childhood to Adolescence. Sage Publications, California. Harter, S., 1998. The development of self-representations. In: Damon, W., Eisenberg, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, fifth ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Hattie, J., 1992. Self-Concept. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. James, W., 1890/1963. The Principles of Psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., 1998. The power of being positive: the relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance 11, 167–187. Jonkmann, K., Becker, M., Marsh, H.W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., 2012. Personality traits moderate the big-fish–little-pond effect of academic self-concept. Learning and Individual Differences 22, 736–746. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., Gore Jr., P.A., 1997. Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology 44, 307–315. Marsh, H.W., 1984. Self-concept: the application of a frame of reference model to explain paradoxical results. Australian Journal of Education 28, 165–181. Marsh, H.W., 1986. Verbal and math self-concepts: an internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal 23, 129–149. Marsh, H.W., 1987. The big-fish–little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (3), 280–295. Marsh, H.W., 1989. Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept: preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology 81, 417–430. Marsh, H.W., 1990a. The causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: a multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 646–656. Marsh, H.W., 1990b. A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review 2, 77–172. Marsh, H.W., 1991. The failure of high ability schools to deliver academic benefits: the importance of academic self-concept and educational aspirations. American Educational Research Journal 28, 445–480. Marsh, H.W., 1993. Academic self-concept: theory, measurement and research. In: Suls, J. (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 59–98. Marsh, H.W., 2002. A multidimensional physical self-concept: a construct validity approach to theory, measurement and research. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society 9, 459–493. Marsh, H.W., 2007. Self-concept Theory, Measurement and Research into Practice: The Role of Self-concept in Educational Psychology. British Psychological Society, Leicester. Marsh, H.W., 2008. A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: an important facet of personality. In: The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 447–469. Marsh, H.W., Ayotte, V., 2003. Do multiple dimensions of self-concept become more differentiated with age? The differential distinctiveness hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 687–706.

467

Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., 1988. A multifaceted academic self-concept: its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 366–380. Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B.M., Yeung, A.S., 1999. Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational Psychologist 34, 155–167. Marsh, H.W., Chanal, J.P., Sarrazin, P.G., 2006a. Self-belief does make a difference: a reciprocal effects model of the causal ordering of physical self-concept and gymnastics performance. Journal of Sports Sciences 24, 101–111. Marsh, H.W., Chessor, D., Craven, R.G., Roche, L., 1995. The effects of giftedand-talented programmes on academic self-concept: the big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal 32, 285–319. Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 1994. Who benefits from selective schools? The role of academic self-concept and a call for further research. Forum of Education 49, 1. Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 1997. Academic self-concept: beyond the dustbowl. In: Phye, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Classroom Assessment: Learning, Achievement and Adjustment. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 131–193. Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 2006. Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1, 133–163. Marsh, H.W., Debus, R., Bornholt, L., 2005a. Validating young children’s self-concept responses: methodological ways and means to understand their responses. In: Teti, D.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Developmental Science. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 138–160. Marsh, H.W., Ellis, L.A., Craven, R.G., 2002a. How do preschool children feel about themselves? Unraveling measurement and multidimensional self-concept structure. Developmental Psychology 38, 376–393. Marsh, H.W., Hattie, J.A., 1996. Theoretical perspectives on the structure of self-concept. In: Bracken, B.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Self-Concept: Developmental, Social and Clinical Considerations. Wiley, Oxford, pp. 38–90. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., 2003. Big-fish–little-pond effect on academic self-concept: a cross-cultural (26 country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist 58, 364. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., 2004. Explaining paradoxical relations between academic self-concepts and achievements: cross-cultural generalizability of the internal/ external frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 56–67. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Peschar, J.L., 2006b. OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing 6, 311–360. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Kong, C.K., 2002b. Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: influence of language of instruction (English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong students. American Educational Research Journal 39, 727–763. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Sung, R.Y.T., Yu, C.W., 2007. Childhood obesity, gender, actual-ideal body image discrepancies, and physical self-concept in Hong Kong children: cultural differences in the value of moderation. Developmental Psychology 43, 647. Marsh, H.W., Köller, O., Baumert, J., 2001a. Reunification of East and West German school systems: longitudinal multilevel modeling study of the big-fish–little-pond effect on academic self-concept. American Educational Research Journal 38 (2), 321–350. Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., 2011. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology 81, 59–77. Marsh, H.W., O’Mara, A., 2008. Reciprocal effects between academic self-concept, self-esteem, achievement, and attainment over seven adolescent years: unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives of self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, 542–552. Marsh, H.W., Papaionannou, A., Theodorakis, Y., 2006c. Causal ordering of physical self-concept and exercise behavior: reciprocal effects model and the influence of physical education teachers. Health Psychology 25, 316–328. Marsh, H.W., Parada, R.H., Craven, R.G., Finger, L., 2004. In the looking glass: a reciprocal effects model elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychological determinants and the central role of self-concept. In: Sanders, C.S., Phye, G.D. (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the Classroom. Academic Press, Orlando. Marsh, H.W., Parada, R.H., Yeung, A.S., Healey, J., 2001b. Aggressive school troublemakers and victims: a longitudinal model examining the pivotal role of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 411–419. Marsh, H.W., Parker, J., 1984. Determinants of student self-concept: is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 213–231.

468

Self-Concept: From Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond

Marsh, H.W., Perry, C., 2005. Self-concept contributes to winning gold medals: causal ordering of self-concept and elite swimming performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 27, 71–91. Marsh, H.W., Seaton, M., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Hau, K.T., O’Mara, A.J., Craven, R.G., 2008. The big-fish-little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review 20, 319–350. Marsh, H.W., Shavelson, R., 1985. Self-concept: its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist 20, 107–125. Marsh, H.W., Tracey, D.K., Craven, R.G., 2006d. Multidimensional self-concept structure for pre-adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities: a hybrid multigroup-mimic approach to factorial invariance and latent mean differences. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66, 795–818. Marsh, H.W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., Baumert, J., 2006e. Integration of multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: construct validation and relations to well-being and achievement. Journal of Personality 74, 403–456. Marsh, H.W., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Koller, O., Baumert, J., 2005b. Academic self-concept, interest, grades and standardised test scores: reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development 76, 297–416. Möller, J., Köller, O., 2001. Dimensional comparisons: an experimental approach to the internal/external frames of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 826–835. Möller, J., Marsh, H.W., 2013. Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review 1 no pagination specified. Möller, J., Pohlmann, B., Köller, O., Marsh, H.W., 2009. A meta-analytic path analysis of the internal/extern frame of reference model of academic achievement and academic self-concept. Review of Educational Research 79, 1129–1167. Nagengast, B., Marsh, H.W., 2012. Big fish in little ponds aspire more: mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. Journal of Educational Psychology 104, 1033. Parker, P.D., Schoon, I., Tsai, Y., Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Eccles, J., 2012. Achievement, agency, gender, and socioeconomic background as predictors of postschool choices: a multi-context study. Developmental Psychology 48, 1629–1642. Parker, P.D., Marsh, H.W., Ciarrochi, J., Marshall, S., Abduljabbar, A.S. Juxtaposing math self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of long-term achievement outcomes. Educational Psychology, in press-a. Parker, P.D., Nagy, P.D., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O. The internal/external frame of reference as predictors of career aspirations and university majors. In: Eccles, I., Schoon, I. (Eds.), Gender Differences in Aspirations and Attainment, in press-b.

Pinxten, M., De Fraine, B., Damme, J., D’Haenens, E., 2010. Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: effects of type of achievement measure. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 689–709. Pinxten, M., Marsh, H.W., De Fraine, B., Van Den Noortgate, W., Van Damme, J., 2014. Enjoying mathematics or feeling competent in mathematics? Reciprocal effects on mathematics achievement and perceived math effort expenditure. British Journal of Educational Psychology 84 (1), 152–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ bjep.12028. Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., Rosenberg, F., 1995. Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review 60, 141–156. Seaton, M., Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 2009. Earning its place as a pan-human theory: universality of the big-fish–little-pond effect across 41 culturally and economically diverse countries. Journal of Educational Psychology 101, 403. Seaton, M., Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 2010. Big-fish–little-pond effect generalizability and moderation – two sides of the same coin. American Educational Research Journal 47, 390–433. Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., Stanton, G.C., 1976. Self-concept: validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research 46, 407–441. Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1990. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 878. Tracey, D.K., Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 2003. Self-concepts of preadolescent students with mild intellectual disabilities: issues of measurement and educational placement. In: Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., McInerney, D.M. (Eds.), International Advances in Self Research. Information Age, Greenwich, pp. 203–230. Valentine, J.C., DuBois, D.L., 2005. Effects of self-beliefs on academic achievement and vice-versa: separating the chicken from the egg. In: Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., McInerney, D.M. (Eds.), International Advances in Self Research. Information Age, Greenwich, pp. 203–230. Valentine, J.C., DuBois, D.L., Cooper, H., 2004. The relations between self-beliefs and academic achievement: a systematic review. Educational Psychologist 39, 111–133. Watson, D., Suls, J., Haig, J., 2002. Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 185. Wylie, R.C., 1974. The Self-Concept: Theory and Research on Selected Topics. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Wylie, R.C., 1979. The Self-Concept, vol. 2. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.