Introduction
Self-esteem is described as the amount of value or worth a person perceives him/herself to be. In this essay, two articles are critically appraised with the intention of finding out their similarities and differences with regard to the content of people’s inclination to self-esteem. Forsyth et al. (2003) in their article “Attempting to Improve the Academic Performance of Struggling College Students by Bolstering their Self–esteem: an Intervention that Backfired,” evaluate the value of enhancing students’ self-esteem in relation to performance in class. While Owens et al. (1996) in their paper “Self-Determination as a Source of Self-Esteem in Adolescence”, evaluate the possible effects of self-esteem in adolescence’s life. They look at all the important spheres of an adolescent life including, education, family and work.
Perceptions of self-esteem
The assessment of an individual’s self-image is a process of reflective self-evaluation in comparison with the varied societal norms. Owen et al. (1996) indicate that the emphasis of “self –concept” in literature does not essentially mean it forms the main basis of self-esteem and self-image determination (p. 1377). The authors disagree with the postulation that self-esteem is guided by the principle of perceived positive attainments by an individual, but rather it is guided by the values the society attaches to these particular achievements. They further argue that the individuals’ perceptions of self vary according to one’s standing and/or position in the society. They equate this to the theory of self-determination (p. 1378).
Forsyth et al. (2007) on the other hand draws a comparison between self-esteem and the Delphic command of seeking to know one’s self. They however, indicate that the “self” one may desire to know is influenced by his or her surroundings – the society (p. 448).
The convergent views in the two articles
Numerous literature suggested that bolstered self-esteem would directly translate to an improved performance in school, Forsyth et al. (2007) in their article quotes a number of research work in 1960’s and 1970’s which suggest a correlation between improved performance and high self-esteem (p.449). Though the majority of the conclusions did not indicate significant results in terms of this correlation, most schools opted to undertake self-esteem bolstering programs (p.450).
The continued underperformance of students with low self-esteem is a result of the society’s perception of them as being inferior (Forsyth et al., 2007, p. 448). The level and nature of involvement of the society shapes one’s perception of self (Owen et al., 1996, p.1380). Indeed the authors of the two articles underscore the importance of the society in determining the outcome of an individual’s self-esteem. Both the articles stress that a sense of belonging rather than the perception of belonging is what determines performance of an individual.
The divergent views in the two articles
Owen et al. (1996) concluded that their results reflected a concurrence with earlier work which indicated that self-esteem is mostly a self-termination event particularly in adolescents. However, they registered some limitation in their study which included; the failure to distinguish male and female in their research population, the subjectiveness of their measure of self-esteem and the simultaneous attempt to determine self-motivation in school, family and work. The authors further indicate that, even though prior good grades inspire an inner motivation with regards to school, “subjective perception of self-determination” enhances positive academic performance as opposed to work related performance (p. 1396).
The conclusions drawn by Owen et al. (1996) contradict the findings by Forsyth et al. (2007). The latter concluded that self-esteem bolstering initiatives did not result in better score in school, both in the absolute and relative terms but rather, led to a drop in grades. Self-determination concept that Owen et al. (1999) argue would lead to higher achievement resulted in to an opposite outcome in the case of Forsyth et al. (2007). They indeed found out that a bolstered self-esteem would lead student to good feel of worth in spite of their bad grade and hence a further dip in performance.
Conclusion
The two articles provide good grounds to look at the subjective outcome of self-esteem both at the individual level and at the societal context. Self-esteem generally is regarded as a motive that predicts an outcome. It is informed by the perception of self worth with respect to the generally accepted principles of the society. The outcome of self-esteem can be varied as indicated in the two articles depending on the circumstances an individual is subjected to. Indeed the outcome of self-esteem is determined by individuals’ perception, social comparison and reflected appraisal.
The assertion by Owen et al. (1996) is more acceptable, references from much literature indicate that high self-esteem will often translate to good performance. However, the feel good attitude associated with high self-esteem may lead to complacency and hence a drop in performance. It is important, however, to note the limitation of both studies particularly the inaccuracy of determining bolstered or lowered self-esteem because of its subjectiveness.
References
Forsyth, D. R., Lawrence, N. K., Burnette, J. L. & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Attempting to Improve the Academic Performance of Struggling College Students by Bolstering their Self-Esteem: An Intervention that Backfired. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26 (4), 447-459. Web.
Owens, T. J., Mortimer, J. T. & Finch, M. D. (1996). Self-Determination as a Source of Self-Esteem in Adolescence: Social Forces, 74 (4), 1377-1404.