INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The Impact of Self-Worth on Student Academic Performance
The conventional symbol of proficient university graduates career has been the acquisition of a â€˜good’ degree, underlying by specialist knowledge, transferable and marketable skills with successful outcomes measured in quantifiable terms. However, academic growth is paralleled by emotional and personal development (Knightley & Whitelock, 2007). At the personal level, better academic accomplishments are attached with higher self-esteem, and this is especially the case for non-traditional students. At the university level, understanding and willing to help the dispositional and emotional needs of students is important, not least because student mental health is linked to success and retention rates. For this reason, university students’ whether graduation level or post graduation level are subjective interpretations of their education experiences and how this impose on very personal aspects of their lives and themselves is receiving increasing attention. For many students, embarking on higher education (HE) can pose particular threats and challenges not only to academic identity, but also to fundamental, personal aspects of the self (Knightley & Whitelock, 2007).
The construct of self-esteem is crucial in this debate, because it is an integral part of the self, of personal well-being and a prerequisite for educational achievement. Self-esteem is one of the important factors which help for learning outcomes. The question is how this a vital notion would be measured and analyze in university level students? The purpose of this thesis is to report the relationship of students’ academic performance and their level of self esteem, the study adopted a self-worth measuring instrument, about 90 students of bachelors and masters level from different the department of Iqra University.
The thesis begins with a review of the concept of self-esteem, its introduction, definition and how this has been viewed by many researchers; it will also discuss about the contingencies of self-worth, a concept which was majorly define and describe by Jennifer Crocker. Results from all the students who fill up the CSWS (Contingencies of self-worth Scale) along with Rosenberg Self-esteem scale will be taken their GPA or CGPA from examination department and will see that those students who have higher GPA like 3 or more, where these students mostly invested their self esteem.
Contingencies of self-worth also shape long-term and short term goals. People want to prove that they are a success, not a failure, in domains of contingent self-worth, because that would mean they are worthy and valuable; in other words, they have self-validation goals in these domains (Crocker & Park, 2004). People not only need to be recognized by others but it is also an inner satisfaction through which people want to have a feeling of self acceptance about their worth & value.
The main research question addressed was: Is there any relationship of students self-esteem with their academic performance, does high self esteem or low self esteem of a student have any impact on his/her academic performance? One of the main objectives of this paper is to check where university students mostly place their self-esteem in the domains of contingencies of self-worth. the research will conclude whether the high or significantly good level of self esteem of student have any positive or negative impact on his/her academic performance or there is no link in between these variables.
Based on above arguments the following hypotheses were developed.
H1. The relationship of students’ academic performance is depended on student’s self-esteem.
H2. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of family support in the contingencies of self-worth.
H3. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of God’s Love in the contingencies of self-worth.
H4. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of Academic Performance in the contingencies of self-worth.
H5. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of Appearance in the contingencies of self-worth.
H6. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of Virtue in the contingencies of self-worth.
H7. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of Competence in the contingencies of self-worth.
H8. Students invest their self-esteem in the domain of Approval from others in the contingencies of self-worth.
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
THE CONCEPT OF SELF-ESTEEM
Self esteem is the most highlighted concept that is discusses not only psychological clinical situations but also one of the most research concepts in psychology. Self-esteem is one of the most popular constructs of psychology (Brown, Dutton, & Cook, 2001). According to statistical research on Wikipedia, Self esteem is one of the most frequent themes in psychological literature which had been used for the research in psychology. Self esteem is continue to be one of the most commonly research concept in social psychology (Baumeister, 1993;Murk, 1995; Wells & Marwell, 1976; Wylie, 1979).
Fortunately, in recent years, a growing number of researchers have begun to incorporate additional aspects of self-esteem into their research and theories. These aspects include implicit self-esteem (Bosson, Brown, Zeigler-Hill, & Swann, 2003; Jordan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2002), contingent self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) and stability of self-esteem (Kernis & Goldman, 2002; Kernis & Waschull, 1995). In this research, we had discussed the concept of self esteem and the contingencies of self worth of students in the university sample. Students are future of any nation; there natural development is very vital and effective while it comes to their studies and development of these skills. Our study examines the joint implications of level and stability of self-esteem for various aspects of psychological and interpersonal functioning. This thesis has begun by discussing some definitional and measurement issues concerning these two self-esteem components.
A recent and extensive review concluded that high self-esteem produces pleasant feelings and enhanced initiative, but does not cause high academic achievement, good job performance, or leadership, or does low self-esteem cause violence, smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or becoming sexually active at an early age (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). In clarification of the optimistic emotions and favorable beliefs are associated to the self with high self-esteem, it seems reasonable to think that people who have high self esteem fare better in terms of the objective outcomes they experience in lifeâ€” that they would not only be happier but also richer, more successful, better loved, and perhaps even more attractive than low self-esteem people. Although researchers have long speculated that high self-esteem also has objective benefits, these hypothesized benefits are typically small or nonexistent (Kernis, 2006).
As (Wells & Marwell, 1976) pointed out in their important monograph, three difficulties arise out of the ubiquity of the term. First, the reliance upon common-sense definitions gives the misleading impression that different writers are referring to the same thing when they discuss self-esteem. Secondly, the assumption that everyone has an intuitive understanding of its nature hides the fact that individual theorists hold different views as to what comprises a healthy component of personality, it is a natural phenomena for general people to think differently and have a concept of complex description and understanding as the phenomenon sound complex and un-unique with general speaking and term for daily life. For self-concept & self-esteem: for example, high measures might be regarded as adaptive and desirable by one school, but rigid and defensive by another (Harter, 1986).
Finally, because we all think we know about self-esteem, we tend to take its existence as a separate and independent entity for granted, when this is by no means established. Even when central to a major theory, the concept is often defined rather hazily. For example (Brown, 1986) consider that vulnerability factors (e.g. early separation from parents) act through the common denominator of low self esteem, yet this term was chosen at least in part because it was used spontaneously by subjects. The psychological terms are most of the times are imagining as difficult and confusing.
According to identity theory, the self is composed of multiple identities that reflect the various social positions that an individual occupies in the larger social structure. Meanings in an identity reflect an individual’s conception of himself or herself as an occupant of that particular position or â€œself-in-roleâ€ (Stryker, 1980). Self-verification occurs when meanings in the social situation match or confirm meanings in an identity. Thus, when individuals enact and verify an identity, they simultaneously produce and reproduce the social structural arrangements that are the original source of those meanings. In adopting such a position in our investigation, we maintain the central focus on the individual within the social structure that has traditionally characterized the structural symbolic interactions position (Stryker, 1980).
Understanding of self-esteem is one issue which still needs to be clear and require much work to be understandable for everyone. On the other hand talking about self esteem there is also an issue which is very much enlighten about its level. There are no. of researches been done for measuring the levels of self esteem and debating on LSE or HSE have any/what impacts and benefits. Getting high self-esteem also require some cost as nothing is free or for granted. Some recent evidence suggests that high self-esteem has costs, especially under conditions of ego threat. For example, high self-esteem people are more likely to persist in the face of failure, but this creates problems when failure is unavoidable and persistence does not pay (Baumeister, et al., 2003). High self-esteem people under ego threat become overconfident and take risks, sometimes losing money as a result (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1993). Ego threat does not only losing of money but sometimes losing of relationships as well. How students can cope up with ego threat on the negative aspects shows their over-confident leads to lack of exam preparations or class presentation cause reduction in their marks and failure.
For positive aspects having high self-esteem has strong emotional benefits for the self, it may have costs for other people. For example, the positive and certain self-concepts of high self-esteem people often lead them to become hostile, defensive, and blaming when things go badly (Blaine & Crocker, 1993). High self-esteem people become less likeable, whereas low self-esteem people become more likeable under ego threat (Heatherton & Vohs, 2000; Vohs & Heatherton, 2001).
While research in each of the directions is extensive (Baumeister, 1998; Gecas, 1982; Murk, 1995; Wells & Marwell, 1976; and Wylie, 1979 for reviews), little has been done to synthesize the three research streams into an overall integrated model. The theory of self-esteem was integrated with the three conceptualizations within the context of structural symbolic interaction, or identity theory (Stryker, 1980). (Ervin & Stryker, 2001) began the process by discussing the links between self-esteem, identity salience, and identity commitment (embeddedness of individuals within the social structure). The connections between the different conceptualizations of self-esteem, however, remain unclear. Our paper connecting the self esteem with the contingencies of self worth and measuring with GPA scores of student’s academic performance.
In popular culture like today when people have life which not only very fast but also facing pressure from different dimensions, over 2000 self-help books, audiotapes, and childrearing manuals have been developed to enhance people’s self-esteem, with the assumption that high self-esteem (HSE) leads to a more successful, satisfying life (Branden, 1994).Having high self-esteem create difficulty is a different story but this is for sure that people having low self-esteem will definitely create problem for that person, nevertheless for him/her family too. People who find that have low value in their life, or they think like they haven’t achieve much their life and they have not much to get or work to get are having somewhere around having low self-esteem, self-concept and self-worth.
Measuring or assessment of self esteem is not that easy, it is a very difficult concept to evaluate for research. Self-esteem is a complex psychological concept, difficult to define and challenging to assess and to research (Rosenberg, 1979;Pals, 1999). The row form of self esteem, it is define as â€œthe value or worth a person think he have about his selfâ€ it is the reflection of person’s value and appraisal about his self worth and value. Self esteem is overall evaluation of persons trait about his emotions believe and perception, for example â€œI am a good student in generalâ€ â€œI have an ability to make tasty foodâ€ or â€œI am proud on my academic performanceâ€.
Much self-esteem research in the 20th century focused on global self-esteem. According to (Rosenberg, 1965), the social learning theorist define self esteem as; an individual’s global judgments about him- or herself, including levels of self-worth, self-acceptance and self-respect.
Some psychologists (Harter, 1999; Wagner & Valtin, 2004) anticipated that self-esteem was a global concept of one self, which was firm by some precise self-concepts. Self-Esteem establishes most frequently to an individual’s on the whole positive valuation of the self (Gecas, 1982; Rosenberg 1990; Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995).Self-esteem is the inside feeling of a person about one self whatsoever the domain of that self-esteem. Some researchers said, It is collected of two diverse magnitudes, competence and worth (Gecas, 1982; Gecas & Schwalbe, 1983). The competence measurement (efficacy-based self-esteem) submits to the degree though which an individual can see himself as competent and efficacious. The worth measurement (worth-based self-esteem) refers to the degree though which an individual’s feel that they have some value and they are basically a persons of worth & value.
In this world of today where everybody is fighting for survival and succession in the life, people are developing their self to be more competent and successful they need to have high level of self confident and self esteem i.e. they must believe on their own ability that they can do whatever the environment & society is depending. During the 1990s, some psychologists claimed that self-esteem was not a global uni-dimensional construct; accordingly, studies on the structure of self-esteem have become increasingly popular. Until recently, researchers believed that self-esteem was a hierarchically organized and multifaceted construct, but they did not agree on how to define the different domains. (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). But now some of the researches have demonstrate different aspects with different domains, through which people can increase their self-esteem, and eventually could decrease their self-esteem, when those domains been effected by any mean these different domains are used by For example, (Coopersmith, 1967) proposed that global self-esteem was based on four domains: significance, competence, virtue and power.
According to the hierarchical and multifaceted model (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976), self-esteem has different levels, the highest being global self-esteem, the lowest being evaluation of specific, concrete behaviors in context and with domain self-esteem, such as academic self-esteem and nonacademic self-esteem, being somewhere in the middle. Researchers have explored the structure of self-esteem extensively using this hierarchical model (Harter, 1986; Mboya, 1995; Watkins & Dong, 1994). Other then these hierarchical levels there are also domains through which one can find where he/she is mostly lacking or prospering their self-esteem.
In the year 2001, (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) proposed that self-esteem is contingent on different domains like appearance, competition, family support, perception of God’s love, approval from others, school competence and behavior, and they claimed that both global self-esteem and domain self-esteem could be classified as both a trait and a state. Trait self-esteem is relatively more of stable over time, at the same time as state self-esteem fluctuates according to the immediate circumstances or any situation which can affect the persons.
According to the perspective of Crocker and Wolfe, self-esteem is usually assessed with items that refer to how one generally evaluates the entire self trait (Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003), an example of item from her instrument such as, â€œAll in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure,â€ while in global state self-esteem is going to be assessed with analogous items with the intention of refer to how one feels at the moment, such as, â€œRight now, I feel like a failure.â€ Likewise, domain-specific self-evaluations also could be both typical, average, and trait level âˆ’ that is, domain trait self-esteem âˆ’ and momentary or state level âˆ’ that is, domain state self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).
In this study the paper is going to deploy the instrument of Contingencies of self-worth scale which have 7 factors of domain self-esteem. A contingency of domain self-esteem is the degree to which a person stakes his/her self-esteem on a particular domain or category, such that the person values himself/herself more if s/he meets his/her personal standards of success in these domains (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). It depends in what domain people based their self-esteem; those different domains have different contingencies for their self-esteem.
People differ in the contingencies of self-esteem because it all depends where they based their self-esteem (Coopersmith, 1967; Harter, 1986; James, 1890), and a person may value multiple contingencies to varying degrees (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Many researchers like (Crocker, et al., 2003; Crocker, Sommers, & Luthanen, 2002) have done a lot of research on domain based self-esteem, they previously demonstrated that contingency of academic self-esteem moderates the effect of success and failure events on academic state self-esteem.
The domains on which self-esteem is highly contingent, enduring events or dramatically and permanently changed circumstances would influence the level of trait self-esteem claimed by (Crocker & Park, 2004). However, these contingencies are the sort of effect which would not be replicated for trait self-esteem, and the social approval contingency does not moderate the effect of social approval from others on trait self-esteem demonstrated by (Lemay & Ashmore, 2006).High level of self-esteem is often regarded as the holy grail of psychological healthâ€” the major keys of self a person can have are like happiness, self-value, self confidence, success, and popularity. In contract to high self-esteem, low self-esteem is blamed for societal problems ranging from poor educational attainment to drug and alcohol abuse.
Nevertheless, this glowing view of high self-esteem has detractors who argue that the purpose benefits of high self-esteem are small and limited (Crocker, 2006). Even though pleasant feelings, high self-worth and enhanced initiative are the producer of high self-esteem, it does not cause high academic achievement, good job performance, or leadership, nor does low self-esteem cause violence, smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or becoming sexually active at an early age . Many parents, educators, and policymakers are confused, with some holding steadfastly to the idea that low self-esteem is the root of much, if not all, evil, and others concluding that self-esteem are, at best, irrelevant (Baumeister, et al., 2003). Although high self-esteem does little to cause positive outcomes in life, and low self-esteem is not to blame for most social and personal problems, but some of the researcher are disagree that self-esteem is inappropriate (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). There is always a detriment & benefit of high or low self esteems one can get.
People want to believe that they are worthy and valuable human beings, and this desire drives their behavior (Pyszczynski, Greeberg, Solomon, Arndl, & Schimel, 2004). Here the paper suggest that self-esteem has great significance lies less in whether it is high or low, but fact of the matter is that, in what manner people judge that, they are in need of to be or do to have value and person of worth (Crocker, 2002). What we call is the contingencies of self-worth.
SELF-ESTEEM AND CONTINGENT SELF-WORTH
About a century ago, William James (James, 1890) recommended that self-esteem is both a stable trait as well as an unstable state; transitory feelings of self-esteem fluctuates a person’s distinctive or trait level in response to good and bad events around him. James also noted and highlighted in his research that people are selective about what kinds of events affect their self-esteem.
Self-esteem is a belief of one person he/she hold about themselves. High self esteem people believe they are intelligent, attractive, and popular (Baumeister, et al., 2003). Nevertheless high self-esteem people acknowledge that they had flaws or made mistakes in the distant past, they see their present or recent past selves in a particularly positive light, believing they have changed for the better even when concurrent evaluations suggest they have not (Ross, 2002; Wilson & Ross, 2001). High self-esteem people believe they are superior to others in many domains, and they expect their futures to be rosy relative to others (Taylor & Brown, 1988). As a result, people having high self-esteem have more self-confidence as compare to those people who have low self esteem, especially following an initial failure.
(Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) proposed that good and bad events in domains of contingent self-worth raise or lower momentary feelings of self-esteem around a person’s typical or trait level of self-esteem, and these fluctuations in state self-esteem have motivational consequences. When level of self-esteem is on higher site people feel good, and self-esteem is on lower site then people feel bad. Consequently, apart from that whether people typically have high or low self-esteem, they search for the emotional high linked with success in domains of contingent self-worth and struggle to avoid the emotional lows that accompany failure in these domains. Consequently, contingencies of self-worth regulate behavior.
Many research studies have verified that people those have high self esteem gets the benefits of having high trait self esteem. The clearest benefits are the positive emotions, and the positive and certain self-concepts that accompany high self-esteem (Kernis, 2006). The strongest predictor of life satisfaction in the United States was found to be Self-esteem (Kernis, 2006), outstripping other predictors such as income, education, physical health, age, marital status, and all other psychological variables. Although high self-esteem is strongly correlated with positive emotions, evidence that it causes them is less clear (Baumeister, et al., 2003). Self-esteem is strongly related to the sentimental character of daily life, with high self esteem people reporting happier events, feeling of successes, positive effect, less hopelessness, more life satisfaction, less anxiety, and fewer depressive symptoms as compare to people who are low in self-esteem.
In June 20, 2006, a 16-year old boy in Tokyo set fire to his house, killing his stepmother, brother, and sister. The reason for this act was? The boy was ashamed of his poor academic test performance and wanted to avoid being scolded by his â€œresults-obsessedâ€ parents (Lewis, 2006). Although an extreme case, this example illustrates how profoundly failure can affect self-esteem, emotion, motivation, and behavior. When people fail, they may be devastated emotionally; link failure to the self, thinking â€œI am a failureâ€ rather than â€œI failedâ€; and pursue goals and behaviors to alleviate the pain of failure (Park, Crocker, & Kiefer, 2007). This is not the case in everyone’s situation, however, reacts to failure in the same way. Research has reveals that people react on failure conditions according to their level of self esteem; more particularly, people those have low self-esteem (LSE) are more sensitively hurt and discouraged by failure as compare to people those have high self-esteem (HSE). People who have moderate or good level of self worth like students, are they also performing good on academic mode, whether the students does not invest their self esteem in the domain of academic competences.
However focusing on one’s strengths and minimizing one’s weaknesses often foster positive mood, optimism, and perseverance, when one’s weaknesses interfere with accomplishing important goals and can be addressed, the exaggeratedly positive and highly certain self-views of high self-esteem may be an obstacle to recognizing and addressing their weaknesses and accomplishing their goals. Although research has documented self-esteem differences in response to failure, much of this work has focused on trait self-esteem effects (Baumeister & Tice, 1985; Brockner, Derr, & Laing, 1987; Brown & Dutton, 1995; Dodgson & Wood, 1998; Heatherton & Vohs, 2000; (Shrauger & Rosenberg, 1970). When people have successes particularly students when performing well and having good GPA are also having higher score on self worth scale.
(Kernis, 2006) In general, it seems likely that both low and high self-esteem are helpful or adaptive in some situations, and not adaptive in others. Because low self-esteem people doubt their abilities and worry about whether others will accept them, they tend to integrate feedback from others (Brockner, 1984), yet lack the self confidence to act on their goals, or drive others away through their need for reassurance (Joiner, Alfano, & Metalsky, 1992). Because high self-esteem people tend to think well of themselves, and overestimate their intelligence, attractiveness, and likability, they may be less realistic about their strengths and weaknesses than people who score lower on measures of self-esteem (Taylor & Brown, 1988). These positive illusions can be helpful or unhelpful, depending on the state of affairs. the positive self-views associated with high self-esteem may be helpful for asking the boss for a raise, but interfere with understanding his feedback about areas in which one needs to improve before a raise is about to happen.
On the bases of previous research and theories, we hypothesized that people more specifically students based there self esteem in the domain of academic competence when they have lower level of GPA must be having a lower score on the scale of CSWS, In the present studies, we examined the overall self-worth of University level students and we also examined their results in GPA form and link with the domain of academic competence, a domain of importance and relevance to many college students (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003).and found the relationship of Academic performance have any impact on students level of self esteem or not.
Contingencies of self-worth represent the domains in which people invest self-esteem; success in these domains boosts self-esteem, whereas failure diminishes it (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). A daily report study of university seniors applying to graduate school showed that academic contingency predicts an increase in self-esteem on days they were accepted to graduate programs and a decrease in self-esteem on days they were rejected (Crocker, Sommers, & Luthanen, 2002). Because success and failure in domains of contingencies affect self-worth, people who have contingent self-worth seek success and avoid failure in these domains to maintain or boost their sense of self-worth.
Among the seven domains of contingencies commonly identified in university students (Crocker, Luthanen, Cooper, & Bourvrette, 2003), the paper focused on all the domains of self worth and hypothesized that the significantly high level of self esteem of those students also have higher GPA score when performance academically, this paper also see that university student where mostly invest their self-worth in these domains of contingencies. When students are not sure that success is possible or failure can be avoided, they will disengage from the task, deciding it doesn’t matter, rather than suffer the loss of self-esteem that accompanies failure in these domains (Crocker, et al., 2002).
The Contingencies of self-worth approach extends or challenges existing models of self esteem in several ways. Crocker & Wolfe argument that the importance of self-esteem lies in what it is contingent upon stands in contrast to decades of research focused on whether trait self-esteem is high or low (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Furthermore, they did not basically broken up the focus to whether people have low or high self-esteem in specific domains such as academics or competence, but rather symptomatic of that regardless of people’s level of domain-specific self-esteem, contingent self-worth in these domains has predictable consequences.
Although the Kernis study complementary to research that focuses on the stability of self-esteem over time (Kernis, 2006), their research also extended that work by showing that instability of self-esteem results from experiencing positive and negative events in those domains in which self-esteem is contingent. Other scholars have argued that people vary as to whether their self-esteem is contingent or not (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis, 2003). We argue that nearly everyone has contingencies of self-worth but that people differ as to what their self-esteem is contingent on.
Students who base their self-esteem on their academic accomplishments typically have self-validation goals in this domain, viewing their schoolwork as an opportunity to demonstrate their intelligence. Because failure in domains of contingency threatens self-esteem, people try to avoid failure by increasing effort; if they are still uncertain of success, they may abandon their self-validation goal and become unmotivated, or prepare excuses that will soften the blow to self-esteem in case they fail. Basing self-esteem on external factors such as appearance, others’ approval, or academic achievement has more negative consequences than basing it on internal factors such as virtue or God’s love. And in contrast to most researchers who argue that self-esteem is a fundamental human need that people need to pursue (Pyszczynski, et al., 2004; Sheldon, 2004), Pursuing for self-esteem by attempting to prove that one is a success in domains of contingency is costly were argued by (Crocker & Park, 2004). There is always a cost for getting to improve self esteem & those domains which can boost your level require different events or elements according to your domain.
When failure in domains of contingency cannot be dismissed with defensive responses, self-esteem decreases. Consequently, contingencies of self-worth are both a source of motivation and a psychological vulnerability (Crocker, 2002). Making excuses or blaming others is defensive maneuvers by which people deflect the threat to self-esteem when they do fail.
Diverse and sustained research is needed to gain a better understanding of the persistent academic under achievement of minority students in higher education (Allen, 1985). The research literature suggests that efforts to close the academic achievement gap between racial minority and racial majority students have been largely unsuccessful and that variations in learning performance persist on all grounds of achievement levels; the supreme gap involving students of color, and their White and black peers with higher achievement levels (Schwartz, 2000). Self esteem has to play an important role when we are talking about minorities. Students coming for others areas most of the time facing low self esteem issues. The minority achievement gap remains one of the most pressing and perplexing problems in any education system today.
In this paper we have investigated the domains in which university students commonly invest their self-esteem, including appearance, others’ approval, outperforming others, academics, family support, virtue, and religious faith or God’s love. Our research indicates that contingencies of self-worth shape students’ emotions, thoughts, and behavior. In a sample of university students over all have high self esteem have also higher when they have to show their performance on academic scales, the more students based their self-esteem on their academic success. The higher students’ self-esteem was on days they were admitted to graduate school and the lower their self-esteem was on days they were rejected (Crocker, et al., 2002). It’s all about the event which make the students self esteem to be affected, whether it is getting admissions, getting scores on final exams or getting feedback on their class performance.
Students performance can be effected my many factors here we are measuring the self esteem of students, but we previously discussing some of the issues those reshape ones’ self esteem. Many Researchers (Boykin, 1983; Hale-Benson, 1986; Ogbu, 1995) argue that differences in Black and White cultures suggest different approaches to pedagogy. Not attending to the use of culturally responsive pedagogies can create stress in students who belongs to minority group especially when they enter predominantly to other majority groups universities. This should be core output of schooling that; Education must be relative to the student and it should be preserves that a student ought to be able to understand and convert the information accessible in order to make the schooling knowledge educative (Hale-Benson, 1986). Racism, difference in color and ethnic groups should not be involve in student education system, because these factors have great influence to minority students academic performance.
Contingencies of self-worth are strongly related to the goal of validating one’s abilities in the domain of contingency (Crocker & Park, 2004), and students report spending more time on activities that are related to their contingencies of self-worth (Crocker, et al., 2002). People always spend time in those activities where they most found themselves worthy and feel unworthy when they lack or failure on those domains. We have to see & relate with the higher level of self esteem of students with the domain academic performance of contingencies of self worth.
All the educational achievements at university level are measures on GPA bases. GPA is the ultimate result that reflects the students’ attention on his/her academics. When students based their self esteem in the domain of academic competence/performance then their score in the CSW scale must be high and those who base their self esteem on academics they contingent their self esteem by knowing and upgrading their learning ability and increase their academic performance. One of our papers important variables is students GPA.
Academic achievements are measured by students’ results in form of grades, percentages and Grand point assessments. Student’s results are depending of many elements but class room environment and facilitation for learning are the core elements which are subject to university or institute. Self-regulation of cognition and behavior is an important aspect of student learning and academic performance in the classroom context (Corno & Mandinach , 1983; Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985). There are a variety of definitions of self regulated learning, this component seems especially important for classroom performance. The effort on classroom academic tasks which are control and manage by students’ management has been proposed as another important component. For instants; capable students who persist at a difficult task or block out distracters (i.e., noisy classmates) maintain their cognitive engagement in the task, enabling them to perform better (Corno, 1986; Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985). An additional important aspect of self-regulated learning that some researchers have included in their conceptualization is the concrete cognitive strategies that used by students to learn, to remember, and to understand the material they want (Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Zimmerman Pons, M. & Pons, 1986). Learning & performance of students are highly related to the classroom environment and students characteristics they have. Nonetheless the abilities like mentions above about cognitive learning have to contribute to students’ performance and it is most important for those people who based their self-esteem in the domain of academic competence, and it is highly depended on students’ learning attributes and academic environment that ultimately lead to healthier academic self esteem.
Self-direction in learning “has develop into for numerous adult educators one of the prime goals of their instructional methods: permitting and, in various cases, coaching adults how to obtain additional accountability and organize in the learning procedure” (Caffarella, 1993). It is not the ultimate goal of learning process whether producing self-directed learners or not, but rather how best to achieve this goal in terms of course design and pedagogy in a multicultural learning environment. In view ” to be mainly accountable and in control of what, where and how one can learn ” (Caffarella, 1993), being self-directed is whether self-directed learning is collective or individual base, predictable or not, the biggest misconception may be in trying to capture the fundamental nature of self-directed learning in a single perspective (Kerka, 1999). The self directive learning is important to students especially in professional institute where the learning culture of multimedia presentations having complex learning terminologies and where teachers persist to uncooperative.
The circumstances that are inclined to make best use of the size effect consist of: the performance which is an outcome of knowledge of the task that has been performed, a short time wrap between task performance & self-efficacy ratings and self-efficacy procedures and performance that recline in the identical behavioral domain (Bandura, 1997). Instead of common tasks it should be particular tasks that produce greater size of effect. It is Knowledge which is very much require when dealing with complex tasks and Task complexity, cognitive ability and persistence nearby particular confronts for perfect self-efficacy approximates (Bandura, 1997), and for that reason it’s be inclined to lead to a weaker effect size (Lane & Lane, 2001). Self-efficacy shows the way the confident one should have and act accordingly, when students believe to have confident to performance they most likely to invest their self esteem on academic performance when talking about university environment. Lack of self-confident is one aspect which leads to low self-esteem and negatively affects the performance.
Self-esteem is collective of many attributes and component, one of them is person’s itself, the image they carry about perception they thing people have for them in their minds. The self-worth theory of achievement motivation suggests that people are motivated to construct an image of them as competent to maintain and enhance their self-esteem (Covington, 2000). Researcher also comment on the situation in which their findings had shown that students whose self worth is contingent on academics tend to adopt achievement goals focused more on performance than on learning.
There is another group of students out general people, who base their self esteem on their appearance and approval of others, in this case most of the time students not much focus on their academic results, they try to invest more on their looks, clothes and appearance. Any researches had work on it and propose many conclusions and reveals findings. Social scientists have long recognized that self-images are constructed through a social, interpersonal process; people tend to see themselves as they believe others see them (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). Along these lines, we propose that constructing an image of the self as competent may involve not only seeing one as competent but also ensuring that others perceive and acknowledge one’s competence. Another term for this idea is self-presentationâ€” people’s attempts to create, modify, or maintain an impression of the self in the minds of others (Schlenker, 1980).Like many other people who focus and define self-presentation goal as an effort to convey a desired image of one to others students also involve in creating they self-presentation to make an image to your viewpoint.
There are many different ways by which students can develop their confidence, and those who are confident about their skills are more likely to engage in challenging activities. Students have perceptions about their skills influence the types of activities they select, how much they dare themselves at those activities, and the diligence they exhibit once they are occupied in the activities. Supporting this view, research has shown that the centrality and importance of self-aspects are associated with the motivation to present oneself to others as possessing those self-aspects (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Students are likely to adopt self-presentation goals in domains on which they base their self-worth like all other people; for example, a person who bases self-worth on appearance should be motivated to present himself or herself as good appearance to others, relative to someone who does not derive self-worth from this domain.
Contingencies of self-worth are motivating; they may place certain individuals at risk when they fall short of meeting their standards of worth. In particular, people with LSE who base their self-worth on academics may be more emotionally hurt and derailed by failure than people with HSE who possess positive, confident self-views and are skilled at repairing their self-esteem following ego threat (Baumeister, 1998). Indeed, a large body of research has shown that people with LSE are uncertain of themselves and their self worth, and are less skilled at refuting ego threats directly than people with HSE (Blaine & Campbell, 1990). When people with LSE fail, they become lost in thought with themselves, feel mortified and ashamed, and internalize and generalize the negative feedback to other aspects of themselves (Brown & Dutton, 1995; Kernis, Brockner, & Frankel, 1989). People with HSE, on the other hand, do not show such self-derogating tendencies; they do not feel bad about themselves when they fail or view failure as a global indictment of their character. Instead, they compensate by engaging in self-affirmation or calling to mind their strengths relative to weaknesses (Brown & Dutton, 1995; Dodgson & Wood, 1998). Same in the case of students, who have LSE are tend to be more depressive when facing failure in academics and vice versa to HSE students.
Crocker & Wolfe anticipated that people with LSE would show negative responses to failure, but only if they strongly based their self-worth on academics. Specifically, students with LSE who based their self worth on academics and experienced failure were expected to have lower state self-esteem and positive affect than academically contingent HSE participants, who may be more elastic to negative feedback. Experiencing failure in a domain of contingent self worth was also expected to influence the self-evaluations of people with LSE at an implicit, automatic level. Specifically, LSE participants who experienced failure were expected to show faster embedded associations between self and failure words versus success words, but only if they strongly based their self-worth on academics. Such findings would extend previous research showing that people with LSE focus more on their weaknesses relative to strengths following failure (Dodgson & Wood, 1998). In short, one aim of the present research was to demonstrate that not all students with LSE respond the same way to failure; only those who strongly base their self-worth in the domain of where they base their self-esteem were expected to show effects. But these effects are limited to students’ performance in our research.
Students who are on master’s level are not the one who is full time students, there are almost 80% masters level students are working somewhere or running some kind of business. Students spending less time studying and more time working are two trends that all colleges and universities will have to confront. Lowering academic standards by rewarding minimum effort and achievement (expecting less) is certainly a short-term strategy, but one that will have negative long-term consequences.
In the year 1999, the National Institute of Mental Health reveals research findings, According to their research; depressions have an effect on approximately millions of adults each year. Fact of the matter is; it’s highly unfortunate that is most commonly found in United States about depression, which is one of the more frequent mental health conditions recognized on college campuses (Smith, Rosenstein, & Granass, 2001; Wong & Whitaker, 1993). Almost 50% of the college student population is directly affected by depression (Furr, Westefeld, McConnell, & Jenkins, 2001). Good academic performance was associated with having a good degree and high self efficacy scores with high self esteem. Students those have good self-efficacy also have healthier self esteem level on an average while academic scenario which is an opposite situation to depression.
Even though students’ have many variables which may contribute for creating students depressive symptoms, the most ordinary reasons involve are academic performance, social stressors, financial problems, and the modification innate in the alteration which is caused when student shift from a family setting to a college atmosphere. Doing jobs or running business is not an easy; dealing with costumers or boss is another ball game. When students having different situations and ways where he/she have to face many times gives depression or lack of self-validation or efficacy. These kinds of issues also lead to students’ academic performance without any doubts. Moreover students who base their self esteem in the domain of academic competency face lack in self-worthiness.
The influence that personal variables, such as motivation and ability, have on academic success is well documented, but there is a paucity of research investigating the influence that time college students spend on various activities such as studying outside of class and working has on their academic success (Nonis & Hudson, 2006). Talking about those students who bunk from the classes or no serious attending the lecture also has to face some kind of academic failure.
Attributes like ability efforts, self-efficacy and measuring self esteem leads to Perceived academic success correlated significantly. The direction of relationships indicated that a positive perception of academic success was associated with high self-esteem, and high self-efficacy. Self-esteem and self-efficacy measures showed positive significant inter correlations. Performance was associated with class of degree, attribution to other factors, and self-efficacy to gain at least a pass in the end-of-semester assessments.
It is commonly believed that students who spend more time on academic-related activities outside of class (e.g., reading the text, completing assignments, studying, and preparing reports) are better performers than students who spend less time on these activities. There is some empirical support for this belief. For example, (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) found that the study habits of freshmen relate significantly to their first year cumulative grade point average (GPA). In their investigation of 143 college students, (McFadden & Dart, 1992) reported that total study time influenced expected course grades, the ultimate outcome of academic performance is an output in the form of GPA, other than GPA whatsoever result outs it basically have some affects to students mental behavior or effect its self esteem.
Many researchers endeavored to plug this negated in the literature. They attempted to determine the direct relationship that time spent on academics outside of class and working had on academic performance among business students. They attempted to determine whether the time spent on academics outside of class interacts with variables, such as student ability and motivation, in influencing the academic performance of business students (Nonis & Hudson, 2006).
Other researches had found something different like (Mouw & Khanna, 1993) find study habits to significantly improve the explanatory power of the first year cumulative GPA of college students. (Ackerman & Gross, 2003) have found more recently that students with less free time have a significantly higher GPA than those with more free time. We are just over viewing these finding which are conflicting with each others’ finding this issue also needs to be reinvestigated, but at the end of the day students result is the outcome of his efforts whether it is due to spending less time in class or having some depressive issues in life, those who look their self esteem in academics loss their self esteem level & who do not invest in academic their results doesn’t affect them.
An additional, more plausible reason for this lack of research may be the complex nature of relationships with student academic performance and effect on their self esteem specially when evaluated in the presence of other variables, such as student ability and motivation. For example, it is likely that time spent studying outside of class will have a differential impact on the academic performance of college students who vary in ability. That is, the relationship that ability has with student performance will be stronger for those students who spend more time outside of class studying than for students who spend less time studying.
It has been noticed from more than 20 years that students attending college is normally viewed as a constructive experience, a dramatic enhance in stress among college students (Abouserie, 1994; Sax, 1997). a major contributing factor which develop depression in college students who presenting with symptoms of depression are commonly cite college-related stress, when students are been disturb by any mean it is very obvious that, their academic performance will be affected too (Weber, Metha, & Nelson, 1997) . University students are exposed, sometimes suddenly, to a host of narrative academic stressors, which includes time limitations, enlarged writing demands, and organization of multiple deadlines. Academic tasks sometimes require more demands from students, at the same time as correcting to the realities of university life. It is not a startlingly think, basically it is a circular relationship develops, in which academic depression and pressures may exaggerate one other (Heiligenstein & Guenther, 1996). Working part time or full time is a major cause of depression or disturbance for students. In Addition to this many other students those who wish to spend their time outside the class are another situation. Academic performance has great contribution to the students overall results which is based on their presence in the class and attending the class work as well as lectures.
Even though depression or spending time out of class are variables those lead to some affects on student performance, on the other hand it has received less attention in research, basing one’s self-worth on physical appearance may lead to social problems. Physical appearance was rated by university students as the most superficial and the most dependent on others of seven domains of contingencies and, overall, was the least healthy domain of contingency (Crocker, Luthanen, Cooper, & Bourvrette, In Press). Spending out of the class on canteen or meeting and chatting with other students are also an enthusing to shift their more focus on their physical appearance, and they lean to support their self esteem on approval from others and appearance, for that matter they spend time out to expose outside to be notices and watched my others.
Basing one’s self worth on appearance is significantly correlated with narcissism and neuroticism (Crocker, et al., in press) and highly correlated with public self consciousness (Crocker & Luthanen, 2002), these finding suggesting that students whose self-worth is highly contingent on appearance are likely to be focused on how they appear to others during social interactions, not only in parties they tend to spend time outside the class for gathering with other student to get remarks on their appearance by others.
Many college students tend to view their grades as key predictive factors when determining self-worth (Crocker, et al., 2002). In their self-worth contingency model, (Kuiper & Olinger, 1986)proposed that negative self-evaluation is a predictor of depression. According to their model, weakness for depression consists of a badly consolidated view of the self, with the individual relying excessively on negative attitudes to determine self-worth, students who want to be good in academic domain tend to spend more time on their academic activities .
One reason for a lack of research in this area may be the common belief among most students and academicians that more time spent studying outside of class positively influences academic performance and that more time spent working negatively influences academic performance (Nonis & Hudson, 2006). this is an assumption of common people, researchers have to find and deliver their finding that, it is all time rule those who have their self esteem in particular domain they always contingent their self esteem in it.
Negative events, such as impediments in performance and failures in academic environments, might threaten self-esteem. Students who place such contingencies of self-worth on their academic performance may also be at risk for instability in self-esteem, perpetuating depressive symptoms over time (Crocker, et al., 2002). Students also have to face and solve those inputs of depressive events or causes to least affected their self esteem. But their sources of depression might be differing from person to person. That is a different game ball to find and highlight these sources.
The trend which is presently going on for students who spending less time on academic-related activities, a growing number of college and university administrators are concerned that today’s postsecondary students are working more hours than their counterparts were years ago (Gose, 1998). It can be logically implicit that students working more hours per week will leave them less time for studying outside of class and that it will depressingly pressure their academic performance. Although working more hours per week can be one key reason for a student to be in academic problem, our research does not seem to support this hypothesis as we are looking for other variables that can cause to affect the main domain of academic competency of students.
(Stauss & Volkwein, 2002) reported that working more hours per week positively related to a student’s GPA. (Light, 2001), who take interviewed of undergraduate students from all majors; he found no significant relationship between paid work and grades. According to â€œstudents who work a lot, or a little work, they do not have similar pattern of grades “(Light, 2001, p. 29). This is also found in many cases but on an average and general rule of thumb are students who put more effects on academics having better results and higher GPA’s.
Self-worth is also having a link with the image one can think about his self in the perception of other people. People almost everyone requires approval from others, especially when people find they are in minority and having difference by color or by any physical need they tend to invest much their self-esteem on appearance and physical looks (Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004). Out of those seven domain of contingencies of self-worth, there is also a factor of others approval, when students are belong from a group which is in minority or different language, this issue is also very intuitive factor that students face in university settings.
Much of the research (Jencks & Philiphs, 1998; Romo & Falbo, 1996) examining the various factors thought to underlie the minority achievement gap concludes that sociological factors, such as teachers’ expectations, are often to blame. Also, Black students perform more poorly on examination when they think they are being judged as members of a typecast group rather than as an individual. It is all about the students domain where he/she contingent their self esteem. These are the some of the issues like belonging to some minority group always damages students’ self-confidence and lead to lack of healthier self esteem. When students do not have a good approval from other even if they are from the minority group, they fall into lack of confidence and deem to be less value and worth of their self.
Many Researchers provide empirical evidence to suggest that this stereotype threat can be felt as a physiological arousal that often results in substantial decreases in intellectual performance (Blascovish, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001). Others define stereotype vulnerability as the “tendency to expect, perceive, and be influenced by negative stereotypes about one’s social category” (Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004, p. 829-830). These findings detailed by stating that those minority group who are weak, will display wrong and uneven self-knowledge about their academic abilities.
This low self-esteem, highly contingent students may constantly have negative views of themselves (Alicke, 1985; Brown, 1986; Campbell, 1990), particularly in important and highly contingent domains (Pelham, 1995; Pelham & Swann, 1989).There is no hesitation about proposing that, it is possible that jointly contributing GPA of student with their contingencies of self-worth & level of self-esteem with their results of university academic performance, with the impact of contingent self-worth moderated by level of self-esteem. On one hand, it is possible that students who are low in self esteem and highly contingent experience more stress and pressure in the domain of contingency.
Individual can disagree that it is simply the study behavior that ultimately brings about the desired performance and not students’ inner desires or motivations. This is supported by the widely held belief that it is hard work. Student may have different issues or factors like spending time on academic activities outside of class by a student, or facing depression from different ways like job or business dealings, having issue of appearance or belongs to a minority group that results in academic success. Laziness and procrastination ultimately result in academic failure (Paden & Stell, 1997). Therefore, similar to how motivation interacts with ability to influence academic performance, one can suppose that behavior such as hard work interacts with ability to influence performance among college students.
Researcher suggested that students who foundation their self-worth on their appearance are highly dependent on validation and approval from others and, consequently, experience more social pressure and stresses in universities, just as students who base their self-worth on academics are hypothesized to experience more academic stresses and pressures. It had been hypothesize that the critical factor linking self-esteem to social and academic problems may not be its level, as many researchers and theorists have assumed, but the contingencies on which one’s self-esteem is based (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). University students who base their self esteem on academic performance, when affected from the variables that directly affect their academics are contingent on self-worth mostly facing low self-esteem. Our paper measures contingencies of self worth and global self esteem of university students and relate their GPA results. It is earlier to say that maybe students those score low on academic domain have high GPA results.
Other than issues directly related to student itself are on the other hand, scientists are also viewing students behavior when they are having LSE or HSE level, many researchers suggests that the combination of high and contingent self-esteem may be particularly problematic. Kernis and his colleagues, for example, have argued that it is individuals who have high but unstable self esteem who engage in various self-protective or self enhancement strategies, such as externalizing failure and derogating others who pose a threat to their self worth (Kernis, 2006; Kernis & Waschull, 1995).
The concept of self-esteem is known in the multinational cultures and people know this term when talking specifically in Pakistan. Saying that there has been not much research done on this concept, moreover how students can cope up with the situation of low self-esteem and how to handle with it require much work to do in it. Previous research on the effects of contingent self worth on academic problems has not directly measured the extent to which students base their self-esteem on academic performance. Instead, contingent self-worth is inferred from other indicators, such as shame and anxiety (Covington, Omelich, & Schwarzer, 1986).
A very renown researcher we have refer in our paper many times Baumeister with his colleagues also reviewed a wide range of verification and accomplished that fragile insensitivity, or high but vulnerable self-esteem, is associated with hostility and aggression (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Because self esteem is unstable and vulnerable when people experience positive and negative events in domains of contingency (Crocker, et al., 2002; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001), people with high and contingent self-esteem may experience more stresses in domains of contingency. In our study we measure students global self-esteem by Rosenberg self esteem scale and measure CSW scale and relate it with the participant students GPA, to check our hypothesis that students those have high self esteem level perform better and score high on