Reciprocal Effects Between Academic
Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Achievement,
and Attainment Over Seven Adolescent
Years: Unidimensional and Multidimensional
Perspectives of Self-Concept
Herbert W. Marsh
Alison O’Mara
University of Oxford
2005; Hunter & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Marsh &
Craven, 2006). In a potentially serious threat to this
positive psychology movement, Baumeister, Campbell,
Krueger, and Vohs (2003, 2005) challenged the prevailing optimistic perspective of the value of positive selfbeliefs in a highly influential review commissioned for
Psychological Science in the Public Interest. They posed
the question, “Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles?” Arguing for a negative response to their
question, Baumeister et al. (2003) concluded that “selfesteem per se is not the social panacea that many people
hoped it was” (p. 38), a point reiterated by Baumeister
et al. (2005) in their article in Scientific American when
they concluded “that efforts to boost people’s selfesteem are of little value in fostering academic achievement or preventing undesirable behaviour” (p. 84).
Because of the strength of these conclusions and the
prestige of the journals in which they appeared, this
might seem to be the definitive word for mainstream
psychology on this construct that has been so central in
the development of psychology from the time of
William James. However, as noted by Baumeister et al.
(2003, see p. 7), their conclusions apply only to global
Authors’ Note: Requests for further information about this investigation should be sent to Professor Herbert W. Marsh, Department of
Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2
6PY, UK; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
PSPB, Vol. 34 No. 4, April 2008 542-552
DOI: 10.1177/0146167207312313
© 2008 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
In their influential review, Baumeister, Campbell,
Krueger, and Vohs (2003) concluded that self-esteem—
the global component of self-concept—has no effect on
subsequent academic performance. In contrast, Marsh
and Craven’s (2006) review of reciprocal effects models
from an explicitly multidimensional perspective demonstrated that academic self-concept and achievement are
both a cause and an effect of each other. Ironically, both
reviews cited classic Youth in Transition studies in support
of their respective claims. In definitive tests of these counter
claims, the authors reanalyze these data—including self-esteem
(emphasized by Baumeister et al.), academic self-concept
(emphasized by Marsh & Craven), and postsecondary educational attainment—using stronger statistical methods
based on five waves of data (grade 10 through 5 years after
graduation; N = 2,213). Integrating apparently discrepant
findings under a common theoretical framework based
on a multidimensional perspective, academic self-concept
had consistent reciprocal effects with both achievement
and educational attainment, whereas self-esteem had
almost none.
Keywords: self-concept; self-esteem; reciprocal effects model;
structural equation modeling
There is a revolution sweeping psychology, one that
emphasizes a positive psychology focusing on how
healthy, normal, and exceptional individuals can get the
most from life (e.g., Fredrickson, 2006; Lopez et al.,
2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Positive
self-beliefs are at the heart of this revolution (Furr,
Marsh, O’Mara / SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-CONCEPT, AND PERFORMANCE 543
self-esteem and not to specific components of self-concept.
Emphasizing the importance of this distinction, we
demonstrate that Baumeister et al.’s conclusions need
not sound the death knell for the relevance of self-beliefs
to achievement if self-concept is appropriately considered from a multidimensional perspective. Indeed, there
is convincing evidence for the consistent positive effects
of academic self-concept on subsequent achievement
after controlling the effects of prior achievement (e.g.,
Byrne, 1996; Marsh & Craven, 2006; Valentine &
DuBois, 2005; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004).
Marsh and Craven argued that conclusions drawn by
Baumeister and colleagues were based largely on research
studies, statistical methodology, and theoretical conceptualizations of self-concept that are no longer current.
Here, we provide an empirical test of a theoretical
model that integrates both of these apparently contradictory conclusions.
There were important areas of agreement between
Baumeister et al. (2003; see also Baumeister et al., 2005)
and Marsh and Craven (2006) on appropriate methodology. In particular, all parties agreed that correlations
based on a single wave of data cannot be used to infer causation and the need for longitudinal panel designs (as in
the reciprocal effects model outlined by Marsh & Craven,
1997, 2006), in which achievement and self-beliefs are
each measured on at least two different occasions. Noting
the strength and appropriateness of this design,
Baumeister et al. (2003) added the caveat,
Insisting that self-esteem [at Time 1] must predict achievement at Time 2 after controlling for achievement at Time
1 could obscure some actual causal relationships, so it
should be regarded as a highly conservative way of testing
the hypothesis . . . one may be throwing a very large baby
out with the statistical bathwater. (p. 9)
Despite such areas of agreement, there were key areas
of disagreement between the two sets of reviews in terms
of the following:
a. Use of current research: Baumeister et al. (2003) only
considered publications from before 1990, whereas
Marsh and Craven mostly considered studies from the
past 10 years;
b. Research methodology: Research reviewed by Baumeister
et al. (2003) was largely based on multiple regression
that was typical of research of that earlier era, whereas
Marsh and Craven (2006) focused on studies that used
structural equation models (SEM) based on multiple
indicators;
c. Unidimensional versus multidimensional perspective:
Baumeister et al. (2003) focused on an implicit unidimensional perspective of self-concept through their sole
reliance on self-esteem—the global component of
multidimensional, hierarchical models of self-concept
(see Marsh, 1993; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton,
1976). Marsh and Craven (2006) took an explicitly multidimensional perspective based on multiple, relatively
distinct components of self-concept.
Read more ...
