persistent - Interactive Adventures · --Stanley Coopersmith, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventories Manual A relationship between self-esteem and accomplishment has been identified

The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem

J. Thonnissen (B.Psych),Perth, Western Australia

November 2004

ABSTRACT

Researchers suggest that the active protection and promotion of self-esteem is

critical to improve mental and physical health. As it influences aspirations,

personal goals and interactions with others, self-esteem is of crucial importance to

mental and social well being and plays an important role as a protective and non

specific risk factor in physical and mental health. Youth problems such as poor

academic achievement, risky sexual behavior, insolence, drug and alcohol abuse,

psychological distress and delinquency to name only a few have been associated

with low self-esteem. Considering the possible consequences, many programs

have been designed to increase self-esteem in children. However, few have so far

been assessed on their merits. Thus, a study consisting of 98 participants aged 8-15

years was conducted at Interactive Adventures camps in Western Australia to

investigate whether a specialized self-esteem building program facilitated in a

camp environment had the desired effects. Based on theories underlying the

development and maintenance of self-esteem, the program is primarily concerned

with the establishment of personalized goal or task settings and their consequent

achievement, as a method by which to increase perceived self-esteem in

participants. Results based on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, applied at

pre-test and post-test, showed significant increases of ‘Global’ self-esteem over

time (measured between commencement and conclusion of camp), most

significantly in the dimensions of ‘Academic’-, ‘Social’- and ‘General’ Self-

esteem. In addition, a sub group of 54 participants provided data 3 weeks after the

conclusion of camp. This indicates persistent effects of the camp intervention on

‘Global’ self-esteem, most significantly in the dimensions of ‘Academic’-,

‘Social’- and ‘Home’ self-esteem. There appeared to be no age or gender

differences in the main effects, however, age-related differences were observed in

the dimension of ‘Social’ self-esteem.

The Effects of Camp on Children Self-esteem 2

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to identify issues relating to the formation and maintenance of self-esteem in

children by investigating the effects of a specialized camp based self-esteem building program.

Therefore, for the purpose of introducing the topic appropriately, a brief overview of the possible

consequences of low self-esteem is addressed. Following this, the intricacies of the construct of ‘self-

esteem’, as well as a brief overview of how self-esteem in children develops, is increased, and

consequently maintained, will be reviewed. Finally, programs designed to increase self-esteem are

addressed. On the basis of this background information, the study’s methodology, a statement of

achieved results, and a discussion on the findings, will be provided.

To compare oneself favorably to others, to appreciate and evaluate oneself

highly, to have a positive attitude, the conviction in ones ability,

competence and the belief to be in ‘control’ of ones life are all associated

with levels of ‘high’ self-esteem. On the other hand, powerlessness,

depression, self depreciation and helplessness are considered feelings of

‘low’ self-esteem (Mecca, Smelser & Vasconcellos, 1989)

Consequences of Low Self-esteem

Poor self-esteem, when internalized, is often associated with a number of mental disorders and

social problems, ranging from depression, suicidal ideations, eating disorders and anxiety, and if

externalized, it may find expression as violent behavior or substance abuse. Especially low global and

academic self-esteem in children and young adolescents was found to be a predictor of such health

compromising behaviors as well as a predictor for property and violent offending. There are a number

of characteristics displayed by children and adolescents with low self-esteem. For example the frequent

voicing of negative statements about the self as well as excessive criticism of others, overreaction to

constructive criticism or other anxiety provoking situations may all indicate low self-esteem.


Self-Esteem, a Definition of Construct

"Self-esteem is a set of attitudes and beliefs that a person brings with him- or herself

when facing the world. It includes beliefs as to whether he or she can expect success or

failure, how much effort should be put forth, whether failure at a task will “hurt,” and

whether he or she will become more capable as a result of different experiences. In

psychological terms, self-esteem provides a mental set that prepares the person to

respond according to expectations of success, acceptance, and personal strength”

--Stanley Coopersmith, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventories Manual

A relationship between self-esteem and accomplishment has been identified in the classic

‘Principles of Psychology’ by William James in 1890. Ever since, many researchers have sought to

define the construct. Even though there were many attempts to conceptualize or operationalize self-

esteem, it has so far been a rather inconclusive attempt due to the lack of dimensional specification in

the literature. However, self-esteem is generally believed to be multidimensional in structure and to

have three meanings; global or trait self-esteem, self evaluation, and feelings of self worth. The concept

of global self-esteem is commonly used to refer to the way people characteristically feel about

themselves, whereas the same term has also been used to refer to the way abilities and attributes are

evaluated, thus the name ‘self evaluation’. Conversely, feelings of self worth are used to identify rather

momentary emotional states arising from positive or negative situational outcomes. Across the

literature, age and gender has been cited as a significant indicator of the individual’s perceived self-

esteem with global male self-esteem being on average marginally higher than that of females and with

girls perceiving themselves as less academically capable than males. In addition, Coopersmith (1981)

identified that preadolescent children make little distinction about their worthiness in different areas of

experience when compared to older children. As for the purpose of the instrument used in our study,

the kind of self-esteem assessed by the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI hereafter) is

regarded as a more enduring type of self evaluation, feeling of self worth, self-esteem, etc, across time

and situations. Generally speaking, Coopersmith (1981) understands self-esteem as the evaluation an

individual makes and usually maintains with regard to him/herself.


Development of Self-Esteem in Children

There are a number of models by which self-esteem is believed to develop. For example, the

affective model assumes that it develops early in life in response to temperamental and relational

factors. However, as self-esteem is intrinsically connected to an individual’s ‘self concept’, the term

will have to be addressed for clarification. Perhaps the most noted psychologist to explain the

development of an individual’s ‘self concept’, from early childhood to adulthood is Piaget. In his

‘theory of mind’ he makes a distinction between four stages of cognitive development in individuals,

namely, sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational stages. In the

sensorimotor stage (birth to age 2), the child is believed to have no conceptual or reflective thought,

and therefore the notion of self-esteem is of no consequence. From about the preoperational stage (2-6

years), the child engages in symbolic thinking, at which moment the child understands the world only

from its own perspective and thus has only one point of view – that of its own. In the concrete

operational stage (7-11 years), the child begins to interpret experiences objectively and understands the

basic concepts of conversation and other scientific ideas such as classifications and numbers. The

formal operational stage (12 years and older), enables the adolescent or adult to think about

hypothetical concepts and abstractions. Throughout these four stages an individual’s cognitive abilities

are consistently increasing, which in turn also causes an increase in the individual’s self awareness due

to physical and mental attributes, as well as social roles. What emerges is the person’s ‘self image’. At

the same time, the individual usually develops a concept of who they would like to be, a characteristic

referred to as the ‘ideal self’. Together, self image and ideal self are part of a person’s ‘self concept’. In

other words, an individual’s self concept can be seen as an umbrella term for self image and ideal self,

two terms that between them give rise to self-esteem. As such, the level of self-esteem is determined

by the discrepancy between an individual’s perceived self, and an expectation of who they ‘should’ be.

Similarly, Branden (1995) understands self-esteem as the reputation individuals acquire within

themselves. Put simply, by satisfying personally defined roles an individual is able to measure or

perceive his/her ‘self-esteem’.


Important Factors in the Development of Self-Esteem in Children

Parental behaviors, such as their level of affection and support towards their children, have a

strong influence on children and adolescent self-esteem and mental health. Overall, children and

adolescents from high conflict families reported lower self-esteem, higher levels of anxiety and weaker

inward control. Besides strong evidence of parental support as a factor in developing self-esteem in

children, low teacher and classmate/peer support have also been linked to low self-esteem and

academic achievement, and consequently behavioral problems. Coopersmith (1981) outlines that

parents are involved in the formation of self-esteem in the home, whereas teachers help children to gain

a sense of confidence in their skills and competencies in the classroom. Therefore a partnership

between parents and school personnel is crucial if a child’s self-esteem is to be maintained at positive

levels. Further, as youth evaluate themselves across adolescence, contemporary social influences have

a major influence on the formation of their self-esteem. This is unsurprising if one is to consider the

impacts of media and advertising on social trends and lifestyles. For example, the ‘perfect body’ may

be something to be idealized by many, but achieved by only a few. Similarly, children and adolescents

may idealize a particular brand of footwear or soft drink used by the ‘in’ group, thereby perceiving

themselves as ‘outsiders’ or as ‘lesser’ individuals for as long as these ‘brand icons’ haven’t been

achieved.

Increasing Self-Esteem in Children

Kavussanu & Harnisch (2000) study shows that children high in task or goal orientation have

higher self-esteem. Accordingly, Baldwin & Hoffman (2002) believe that in order to increase self-

esteem, ones expectations have to be lowered or successes have to be increased. Millicent (1997) on

the other hand, views high self-esteem as adaptive as it is associated with an individual’s greater

capacity for a number of personality characteristics such as self –regulation, persistence and successful

performance as well as higher expectations of success. In other words, if persistence exceeds

expectations where performance is related to efforts, a person of high self-esteem will experience

success that will heighten self-esteem. Coopersmith (1981), on the other hand, understands

expectations to evoke behaviors by setting up goals and possibilities that previously may have appeared

impossible or unlikely. In other words, a child who believes him/herself to be unable to learn how to

read or write is unlikely to put much effort into attempts to actually accomplish the skill. Therefore, for


efforts to be exerted, the child needs to have a reason to believe that the achievement of such a goal is

actually within reach. For this process to take its course, it requires the environment (parents, teachers,

mentors, etc) to have high expectations in the child’s ability, as it translates into greater support,

attention and reward for the child’s effort. This, in turn, leads the child to believe in his/her own

worthiness as well as creates the belief that the goal is desirable and therefore valuable to be achieved.

However, Millicent (1997) makes a clear distinction between typical (realistic) and atypical

(unrealistic) expectations, as the latter often present themselves as an individual’s maintenance of goals

in situations where failure is the obvious result. Thus, one has to consider the effects of attainment and

non attainment of future expectations (expressed as realistic or unrealistic goals or tasks) as it will have

a direct effect on a person’s development of self-esteem. Studies conducted by Lewin found that a

‘positive goal discrepancy’ is achieved when performance exceeds expectations. On the other hand, a

‘negative goal discrepancy’ is achieved if performance fails to meet expectations. However, perhaps

the most important aspect in the self-esteem debate is the understanding that it is one’s own

observation of self that is of prime importance to the development of self-esteem. In other words, an

individual’s achievements are only seen as appropriately reflecting the self, if they have been internally

caused. Externally motivated achievements on the other hand, are said to have little effect on self-

esteem.

Maintenance of Self-esteem

How people maintain their self-esteem has been extensively researched, and it is generally

believed that after formation it endows those who are high in the construct to maintain high feelings

about the self, whereas those with a lesser degree of self-esteem, are proportionally less able to do

likewise. Coopersmith (1981) reports a person’s general appraisal of his/her worth to be relatively

stable and enduring over a period of several years, however, specific incidents and environmental

changes may affect a person’s self-esteem temporarily, but are believed to revert back to customary

levels once conditions return to ‘normal’. Further, it is thought that children and young adolescents

with high self-esteem employ various techniques and coping styles to protect, promote, and thus restore

their feelings of self worth by methods such as the attribution of failure to the selection of ineffective

strategies, whereas those low in self-esteem are less likely to employ similar strategies. However,

Branden (1995) expresses the view that mindlessness, lack of integrity and irresponsible behavior will


adversely affect self-esteem and thus urges responsible appropriate action to counteract these behaviors

for self esteem to be maintained or increased.

The Importance of Self-Esteem Enhancing Programs and Aim of the Study

Considering the potential impacts low self-esteem could have on people’s well being, it is

understandable that programs have been developed to enhance the children and young adolescent self

concept. Basically, self-esteem building programs can be divided into 5 different approaches;

cognitive, behavioral, experiential, skill development, and environmental approaches. For example,

mental attitudes and the ability to interpret life’s events in a more positive manner are considered

cognitive processes and therefore correspond to the cognitive approach. Based on this understanding,

music therapy as part of personal development programs has been firmly established as a method by

which to enhance an individual’s self-concept. Reynolds (no date) defines music therapy as the use of

music to accomplish non-musical goals, and provides evidence for increases in participants’ confidence

levels after being exposed to prolonged therapy session. The behavioral approach, on the other hand, is

concerned with the development of specific behaviors designed to demand greater respect from others

by maintaining eye contact, voice control and expression of feelings, whereas the provision of positive

experiences on the basis of external sources of feedback and reinforcement, most common to programs,

is considered part of the experiential approach. Equally, the skill development approach is concerned

with the acquisition of social and communication skills, based on the concept that positive feelings

about the self cannot be sustained unless individuals can function on a higher level, whereas the

environmental approach addresses issues of discipline, responsibility, goal setting and social activities

to develop attitudes and skills that lead to self-esteem.

This follows that the most effective programs are those that incorporate elements of all

approaches, as changes in self worth are based on intellectual, emotional and behavioral processes in

the individual. In other words, effective programs should be structured to be inclusive and emphasize

an experiential, individualized approach as well as allow for participation over extended periods of

time. Further, programs should also address an individual’s problem solving skills, the identification of

their unique talents and skills, as well as activities focusing on the community of peers of which the

individual is part. All of these activities should be conducted in an environment where comparisons and

competition between children and adolescents are avoided. Coopersmith (1981) highlights two general


strategies that will have to be considered in programs designed to increase self-esteem in children. Both

strategies are based on the concept of providing a ‘responsive’ environment and can be summarized as

follows;

1. Appropriate feedback encourages autonomy and initiative - in other words, the provision of

appropriate feedback will cause children to actively seek and use the information to improve

their understanding and recognition that they have the power to make a difference.

2. Children act consistently with the attitudes and expectations expressed by their environment

(i.e. parents, teachers, and peers)- therefore, as previously outlined under the heading

‘increasing self-esteem’, the environment should project an expectation that the child is

capable of succeeding as it is likely to produce marked increases in performances.

This follows that for a number of years now, adventure based outdoor programs designed to

combine recreation with self-enhancement programs have been used to address strategies that are

designed to meet youth development needs. It is believed that away from the struggle of rapid social

change, camps provide a unique opportunity for youth to ‘open up’ and connect with nature and fellow

peers. Successful programs usually display a number of communalities such as positive and supportive

staff interacting with participants to reinforce their sense of self, as well as the involvement of

participants in the planning and management of the camp experience, as this establishes a sense of

control and personal responsibility for the event. Increases of self-esteem are reported to have been

experienced by all ages, however, most of all by younger campers. There are a variety of examples in

which camp environments in conjunction with appropriate intervention programs have been used as a

platform from which to induce changes in children and adolescent behavior. For instance, Rubenstein

(1977) reports a study concerning the effect of competitive (task oriented) versus non competitive

(expressive social) camp programs on participants self-esteem in which results showed both camp

settings to have had the ability to increase participants self-esteem, considering participants had an

opportunity to engage actively in camp activities. Similar effects were observed by Grayson (2001)

who evaluated the ability of a camp program to foster resiliency in ‘at risk’ children. Outcome

indicators were based on self-esteem, future sense of self, social skills as well as positive peer

influence. Results indicated that participant’s self-esteem generally increased, as did their academic

performance when compared with a control group. Nonetheless, despite these findings, the outcomes


of many camp programs claiming to enhance self-esteem have not yet been substantiated due to the

lack of properly conducted studies into their effectiveness which in turn provided the motivation for

this research.

This follows that the camp program selected for our research is conducted by a professional

organization (Interactive Adventures Pty Ltd) that provides camp activities with an emphasis on

increasing confidence, motivation and self-esteem in children and young adolescents, and which has

implemented most of the self-esteem enhancing and maintenance recommendations mentioned earlier.

The company’s ethos is based on the underlying belief that all individuals are competent learners,

however, as everyone learns in different ways they must ultimately take responsibility for their own

actions in order to become a person of high self-esteem, a view also shared by Owens et al (1996).

Central to the camp program are activities designed to enable participants to experience success. Great

importance is placed on the individual’s development of leadership, problem solving and relationship

skills. These skills are achieved by teaching participants how to manage their time effectively,

strategies that improve reading, listening and study skills, as well as goal setting and conflict resolution

skills, a concept that promises to be effective as it is in line with observations by Kavussanu &

Harnisch (2000); Balwin & Hoffmann (2002); Millicent et al (1997); Millicent (1997); Branden (1995),

as well as Owens (1994).

Therefore, investigating whether or not the camp intervention causes an increase in self-

esteem in children and adolescents, it was decided to assess the perceived self-esteem of 98 participants

at pre-test and post-test (i.e. at commencement and conclusion of camp). In addition, 54 participants

attending a reunion 3 weeks after camp provided data for a follow-up assessment. Given the context of

the camp program, it was hypothesized that participant’s self-esteem as assessed by the Coopersmith

School Inventory, will show significant improvements. Based on this outcome, observed changes

would be further explored. In addition, Boys were expected to show greater scores in Global and

Academic self –esteem than girls, and effects were assumed to be largest in older children.


METHOD

Participants:

As part of the Measure

The sample consisted of 98 participants (52 females, 46 males) ranging in age from 8-15 years

(mean age was M =12.02, SD = 2.08) from undetermined socio-economic, cultural, and ethnic

backgrounds. Each camp (3 in total) was attended by approximately 25-50 participants on average.

Participants were assessed to determine possible changes in self-esteem as a consequence of camp

program intervention. Prior to this, written consent was obtained from parents and legal guardians,

outlining the permission for children and adolescents in their care, to take part in the experiment.

Further, it was explained that all information obtained as a consequence of the research would be

treated as confidential, and that participants were free to withdraw from the experiment at any time. In

addition, participants were debriefed and were made aware that feedback would be provided if

requested. No monetary compensation for participation was provided.

As part of the Camp Program

Agreements between facilitators and participants, based on respect and responsibilities,

discussed at the beginning of camp set a framework for the week that is clear for all to see and allows

everyone to participate in comfort and confidence. In the initial stages of the camp program, trust

games function to encourage participants to support and respect each other. Team building and goal

setting tasks are facilitated throughout the duration of camp, as well as a concept called ‘learning how

to learn’ which is structured to an individual’s ability and strategies that work best for that person.

Facilitators place great emphasis on ensuring that participants experience the process as enjoyable,

appealing and meaningful in order to show the desired effects (i.e. an increase in performance,

confidence and Self-esteem). In order to maintain a safe and positive environment, as well as

maximize positive peer interaction, educators and facilitators remind participants on a regular basis of

their responsibility to use positive language and behavior in order to create circumstances in which

individuals can willingly open up to others without fear of being ridiculed. The use of music

conveying positive messages of self worth and social justice, is a central component of the camp


program designed to reinforce participants’ feeling of self worth and it is believed that exposure to this

type of music, will, by association and subtle stimulation have long term effects (i.e. remind

participants of their self worth whenever they hear these particular pieces of music again sometime in

future).

Designed to compliment the ‘life skills’ program is the ‘challenge by choice’ outdoor

component in which participants are encouraged to challenge their self imposed limitations and fears. It

consists of activities such as abseiling, canoeing, wild water rafting, ropes courses, climbing walls,

orienteering, bush walking, or mountain bike riding. In essence, every step an individual completes, no

matter how large or small, is celebrated as success by all participants. In essence, regardless of the type

of activity, the individual’s experience of success is regarded as the motivating agent or re-enforcer that

will cause participants to consistently improve their self-esteem.

Instrumentation:

The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory School Form (CSEI hereafter) was used to assess

Global self-esteem in participants at base-line (Time 1), post-test (Time 2) and follow-up (Time 3). The

CSEI is designed to measure attitudes towards the self in subgroups (General, Home, Academic,

Social). The instrument has been chosen as it has shown great validity in capturing the construct of

Self-esteem by means of these 4 subgroups. In addition, the CSEI has a high test-retest reliability (r =

.78) as well as shows high internal consistency (r = .87 to .92) for each dimension. The Inventory is

presented in the form of a self rating questionnaire measuring responses on 58 items (50 items relating

to Self-esteem, 8 items relating to a ‘lie scale’ measuring defensiveness). Participants are required to

respond to statements such as "Things usually don't bother me." "I'm a lot of fun to be with." "There

are many times when I'd like to leave home”, etc, by answering either “like me” or “unlike me”.

Scores have been obtained by allocating 0 for “like me” and 1 for “unlike me” responses. Where

necessary, items have been reverse scored to obtain sub totals for each scale (General, Home, School,

Social and Lie), and missing values have been replaced by mean scores where participants have

provided answers such as ‘sometimes’ or ‘not always’. Subscales have been added up (with exception

of Lie Scale) and consequently multiplied by a factor of 2 to obtain Global self-esteem scores (High

Score = High self-esteem, Low Score = Low self-esteem). The program SPSS 11 (Statistical Package


for Social Sciences) has been utilized to compare the resulting scores with the independent variables of

(1) Time, and (2) Gender and (3) Age Group.

Validity and Internal Consistency of Measure

The test-retest reliability for the ‘main’ sample (N=98) was .88 between Time 1 (base-line)

and Time 2 (post-test), whereas the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency was .84 at

Time 1 (base-line) and .89 at Time 2 (post-test). The test-retest reliability for the ‘sub’ sample (N=54)

on the other hand, showed results between Time 1 (base-line) and Time 2 (post-test) of .74 , between

Time 1 (base-line) and Time 3 (follow-up) of .75, and between Time 2 (post-test) and Time 3 (follow-

up) of .88. Internal consistency is indicated by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .84 at Time 1 (base-

line), .88 at Time 2 (post-test), and .87 at Time 3 (follow-up).

Procedure:

At arrival, participants were seated collectively and camp program facilitators and support

staff introduced themselves. Thereafter, the Coopersmith questionnaire was handed out to each

individual, and instructions were given of how to fill it in. No time limit was given for completion of

the measure, however, most participants took between 10-15 minutes. During that time participants

were able to ask questions if clarification was needed. The same procedure was repeated at completion

of camp (Time 2). Participants attending a reunion three weeks thereafter were asked to finalize a third

measure (Time 3) administered under similar procedural guidelines.

RESULTS

Comparison of Self-Esteem Measures Time 1 and Time 2 (N = 98)

‘Global’ self-esteem, as well as it’s four dimensions, ‘Academic’, ‘Social’, ‘General’ and

‘Home’ self-esteem for 98 participants (N = 98), are analyzed in a repeated measures ANOVA using

Time (Time 1 = base-line, Time 2 = post-test) as within subjects factor in order to understand which

self-esteem dimension has been most affected by the program intervention. Results are further


scrutinized by pairwise comparisons (Time 1 minus Time 2 mean scores) to determine the size of the

immediate effect as well as the directional significance (i.e. a negative mean discrepancy indicates an

increase in scores towards Time 2, whereas a positive discrepancy would show a decline). Therefore, in

line with this method, the following results are reported:

Global Self-esteem (N = 98)

‘Global self-esteem’ results show significance. The mean score difference between base-line

and post-test indicate an increase in participant’s perceived self-esteem by 3.08 points (Table 1 & 2).

Social Self-esteem (N = 98)

‘Social’ self-esteem results show significance. The mean score difference between base-line

and post-test indicates an increase in participant’s perceived self esteem by .44 points (Table 1& 2) and

therefore has been the most effective dimension in increasing participants self-esteem scores over time.

General Self-esteem (N = 98)

‘General’ self-esteem results show significance. Although the negative mean score difference

of -.85 is larger than that of ‘Social’ self-esteem by -. 41 points, the significantly greater standard error

of ‘General’ self-esteem (SE =.34) when compared with that of ‘Social’ self-esteem (SE =.13), ensures

that this dimension takes 2nd place in importance to the overall result of ‘Global’ self-esteem (see

Table 2 and 3).

Home Self-esteem (N = 98)

‘Home’ self-esteem results show no significance. The mean difference scores between base-

line and post-test indicate an increase in participant’s perceived self esteem by .15 points (see Table 1

and 2) making it the 3rd most important dimension contributing to ‘Global’ self-esteem scores.

Academic Self-esteem (N = 98)

‘Academic’ self-esteem results show no significance. The mean difference scores between

base-line and post-test indicate a marginal increase in participant’s perceived self-esteem by .10 points


(see Table 1 and 2), therefore, making it the least important dimension to the overall outcome of

‘Global’ self-esteem.

‘Main Group’(N = 98) by Self-Esteem Dimensions

Descriptive Statistics and Analysis of Global Self- Esteem and its Four Dimensions,

Academic-, Social-, General-, and Home-Self-Esteem to determine Dimensional and Overall

Effectiveness of Camp Program Intervention in ‘Main Group’ Participants:

Table 1. 'Main Group' - Estimated Means and Confidence Intervals of Self Esteem Dimensions

Std. Deviation Std. ErrorDimension: IndependentVariable:

95% Confidence Interval

SELF -ESTEEM TIME

N Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

GlobalTime 1 (base-line) 98 67.83 15.79 1.59 64.66 70..99Time 2 (post-test) 70.91 18.24 1.84 67.25 74.57

SocialTime 1 (base-line) 98 5.81 1.86 .19 5.44 6.19

Time 2 (post-test) 6.26 1.75 .18 5.90 6.61

GeneralTime 1 (base-line) 98 18.08 4.30 .44 17.21 18.93

Time 2 (post-test) 18.92 5.07 .51 17.91 19.94

HomeTime 1 (base-line) 98 5.15 2.13 .22 4.73 5.58

Time 2 (post-test) 5.30 2.38 .24 4.82 5.78

AcademicTime 1 (base-line) 98 4.87 1.64 .17 4.54 5.20

Time 2 (post-test) 4.98 1.86 .19 4.60 5.35Based on estimated marginal means; Total number of participants in each dimension N = 98

Table 2. 'Main Group' - Pairwise Comparisons for Global, Academic, Social, General and Home Self-Esteem

(I) TIME (J) TIME

Mean Difference(MD) (I-J)

Std. Error (SE) Sig.(a) Sig.Overall (Repeated Measures ANOVA)

Global

1 2-3.08 1.13 .008* F (1,97) = 7.400, p <. 05)*

Social

1 2-.44 .13 .001* F (1,97) = 11.424, p <.05)*

General

1 2-.85 .34 .015* F (1,97) = 6.158, p <.05)*

Home

1 2-.15 .19 .381 F (1,97) = .775, p >.05)

Academic

1 2-.10 .16 .516 F (1,97) = .425 , p >.05)

Based on estimated marginal means; Total number of participants in each test condition N = 98

* = The mean difference is significant at the .05 level;

a = Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference


Self-esteem Measures of the Subgroup (N = 54) - Time 1 to Time 2, Time 1 to Time 3

All Self-esteem Measures outlined below, ‘Global ’, as well as its four dimensions,

‘Academic’, ‘Social’, ‘General’ and ‘Home’ self-esteem for the subgroup (N = 54), were analyzed in a

repeated measures ANOVA, using Time (Time 1 = base-line, Time 2 = post-test, Time 3 = follow-

up) as a within subjects factor. The results were consequently scrutinized by pairwise comparisons for

immediate effects (Time 1 compared to Time 2), as well as for effect persistence over time (Time 1

compared to Time 3), based on ‘least significant difference adjustment’ as performed by SPSS.

Therefore, in line with the described method, the following results are reported:

Global Self-esteem (N = 54)

The overall analysis shows ‘Global’ self-esteem’ to be significant. Mean scores increase by

3.70 points between base-line and post-test, increasing a further .82 points between post-test and

follow-up, whereas mean scores between base-line and follow-up show an overall increase of 4.52

points (see Tables 3 and 4).

Social Self-esteem (N = 54)

‘Social’ self-esteem results show to be significant. Mean scores increase by .41 points

between base-line and post-test, increasing a further .02 points between post-test and follow-up,

whereas mean scores between base-line and follow-up show an overall increase of .43 points (see

Tables 3 and 4).

.

Academic Self-esteem (N = 54)

‘Academic’ self-esteem results also show to be significant. Mean scores increase by .31

points between base-line and post-test, increasing a further .23 points between post-test and follow-up,


Tables 3 and 4).


Home Self-esteem (N = 54)

‘Home’ self-esteem results show to be significant. Mean scores increase by .37 points

between base-line and post-test, increasing a further .15 points between post-test and follow-up,


Tables 3 and 4).

General Self-esteem (N = 54)

‘General’ self-esteem results show to be not significant. However, the trend was in the right

direction as indicated by increases in mean scores by .76 points between base-line and post-test,

increasing a further .02 points between post-test and follow-up. Mean scores between base-line and

follow-up show an overall increase of .78 points (see Tables 3 and 4).

Sub Group (N = 54) by Self-Esteem Dimensions

Descriptive Statistics and Analysis of Global-Self Esteem and its Four Dimensions,

Academic-, Social-, General-, and Home-Self Esteem to determine Dimensional and Overall

Effectiveness of Camp Program Intervention in ‘Sub Group’ Participants:

Table 3. 'Sub Group' - Estimated Means and Confidence Intervals of Self Esteem Dimensions

Std. Deviation Std. ErrorDimension: IndependentVariable:

95% Confidence Interval

SELF-ESTEEM TIME

N Mean


Time 1 (base-line) 70.22 15.44 2.10 66.01 74.44

GlobalTime 2 (post-test) 54 73.92 16.23 2.21 69.49 78.36

Time 3 (follow-up) 74.74 16.26 2.21 70.30 79.18

Time 1 (base-line) 4.99 1.71 .23 4.52 5.46

AcademicTime 2 (post-test) 54 5.31 1.86 .25 4.80 5.81

Time 3 (follow-up) 5.53 1.86 .25 5.02 6.04

Time 1 (base-line) 5.93 1.89 .26 5.41 6.44

SocialTime 2 (post-test) 54 6.33 1.54 .21 5.91 6.75

Time 3 (follow-up) 6.35 1.63 .22 5.90 6.80

Time 1 (base-line) 18.65 3.96 .54 17.57 19.73

GeneralTime 2 (post-test) 54 19.41 4.66 .63 18.14 20.68

Time 3 (follow-up) 19.43 4.57 .62 18.18 20.67

Time 1 (base-line) 5.55 2.12 .29 4.97 6.13

HomeTime 2 (post-test) 54 5.92 2.25 .31 5.30 6.53

Time 3 (follow-up) 6.01 2.14 .29 5.48 6.65Based on estimated marginal means; Total number of participants in each dimension N = 54


Table 4. 'Sub Group' - Pairwise Comparisons for Global, Academic, Social, General and Home Self-Esteem

(I) TIME (J) TIME

Mean Difference(MD) (I-J)

Std. Error (SE) Sig.(a) Sig.Overall (Repeated Measures ANOVA)

Global

2 -3.70 1.57 .022* F (2,52) = 5.845, p <.05)*

1

3-4.52 1.53 .005*

Social

2 -.41 .19 .038* F (2,52) = 3.584, p <.05)*

1

3-.43 .18 .025*

Academic

2 -.31 .26 .125 F (2,52) = 3.913, p <.05)*

1

3-.54 .21 .012*

Home

2 -.37 .24 .122 F (2,52) = 3.385, p < .05)*1

3-.52 .23 .026*

General

2 -.76 .46 .105 F (2,52) = 1.884, p >.05)1

3-.78 .50 .129

Based on estimated marginal means; Total number of participants in each test condition N = 54

* = The mean difference is significant at the .05 level;

a = Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference

Analysis of ‘Global’ Self-Esteem for Gender and Age-Group (N = 98 and N=54)

In order to determine whether differences in ‘Global’ self-esteem between gender and age-

group existed, a 2x2x3 MANOVA was employed for the Main Group, and a 3x2x3 MANOVA for the

Sub Group. Time (base-line, post-test, follow-up) represented the first factor, gender (male, female)

the second factor, and age-group (age 8-10, age 11-13, age 14-15) the third factor in the analysis. In

addition a pairwise comparison between self-esteem dimensions and age-group/gender scores was

performed to identify significant dimensional differences in scores.

As indicated by the F-Ratios in Table 6 and 8, Global self-esteem showed neither gender, nor

age-group results to be significant for Main Group (N98) or Sub Group (N54) participants. Further, no

interactions between gender and age group results were observed (see Table 6 and 8). The pairwise

comparison of main group results, however, shows the dimension of Social self-esteem to be


significant for age-groups at post-test, F(2,96)=4.46, p<.05 with older ages indicating progressively

higher mean result than younger ages (M=5.62, SD=1.94 for ages 8-10; M=6.22, SD=1.69 for ages

11-13; M=6.95, SD=1.40 for ages 14-15), whereas at base-line only a significant mean difference of -

1.12 between the youngest and oldest age-group was evident (M=5.33, SD=1.77 for ages 8-10;

M=6.45, SD=1.73 for ages 14-15).

Similarly, pairwise comparisons of sub group results show the dimension of Social self-esteem to be

significant for age-group at post-test F(2,52)= 5.05, p<.05, with the older age groups scoring higher

than the younger age-group (M=5.25, SD=1.90 for ages 8-10; M=6.58, SD=1.37 for ages 11-13;

M=6.44, SD=.88 for ages 14-15). Likewise the follow-up showed progressively increasing mean

differences when comparing younger age-groups with older age-groups (M=5.43, SD=2.10 for ages 8-

10; M=6.52, SD=1.51 for ages 11-13; M=6.90, SD=1.04 for ages 14-15), however, overall the results

failed to achieve statistical significance. No other significant results in relation to age-group and gender

for neither, main group nor sub group participants were observed for the dimensions of Academic,

Home, and General self-esteem, and for that reason data is not reported here.

‘Main Group’(N = 98) by Gender and Age-Group

Descriptive Statistics and Analysis of Variance to determine Gender Differences in Global

Self-Esteem in ‘Main Group’ Participant:

Table 5. 'Main Group' - Estimated Marginal Means and Confidence Intervals for 'Global' Self Esteem by Age & Gender

Source IndependentVariable:

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

GENDER Lower Bound Upper Bound

TIME 1 female 52 65.62 17.14 2.18 61.30 69.93

(base-line) male 46 70.33 13.87 2.31 65.73 74.92

TIME 2 female 52 68.67 19.00 2.60 62.93 73.26

(post-test) male 46 73.44 17.20 2.70 68.02 78.75

AGE-GROUP

1. age 8-10 29 64.41 15.02 2.93 58.59 70.24

TIME 1 2. age 11-13 39 69.26 17.03 2.53 64.24 74.28

(base-line) 3. age 14-15 30 69.27 14.82 2.88 63.54 74.49

1. age 8-10 29 66.65 20.28 3.40 59.78 73.30

TIME 2 2. age 11-13 39 73.17 19.30 2.98 67.68 79.52

(post-test) 3. age 14-15 30 72.09 14.19 3.34 65.45 78.73

Based on estimated marginal means; Total number N = 98 in each test condition


Table 6. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 'Main Group' N98 Gender and Age-Group

SourceDependentVariable

Type III Sum ofSquares df

MeanSquare F Sig. Results

GENDER BASELINE 658.224 1 658.224 2.640 .108 F(1,97)=2.640,p>.05

POSTTEST 666.890 1 666.890 1.989 .162 F(1,97)=1.989,p>.05

AGEGROUP BASELINE 538.079 2 269.040 1.079 .344 F(2,96)=1.079,p>.05

POSTTEST 865.654 2 432.827 1.291 .280 F(2,96)=1.291,p>.05GENDER *AGEGROUP BASELINE 142.618 2 71.309 .286 .752 F(2,96)= .286,p>.05

POSTTEST 8.586 2 4.293 .013 .987 F(2,96)= .013,p>.05

‘Sub Group’ (N = 54) by Gender and Age-Group

Descriptive Statistics and Analysis of Variance to determine Gender and Age-Group Differences in

Global Self-Esteem in Sub Group Participants:

Table 7. 'Sub Group' - Estimated Marginal Means and Confidence Intervals for 'Global' Self Esteem for Gender and Age-Group

Source IndependentVariable:

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

GENDER Lower Bound Upper Bound

TIME 1 female 28 69.00 16.18 2.94 63.11 74.89

(base-line) male 26 71.54 14.80 3.05 65.43 77.65

TIME 2 female 28 72.02 17.05 3.31 63.14 76.45

(post-test) male 26 75.97 15.38 3.18 69.63 82.43

TIME 3 female 28 74.46 15.40 2.10 68.24 80.69

(post-test) male 26 75.04 17.43 3.22 68.58 81.50

AGE GROUP

1. age 8-10 14 67.43 11.73 4.09 59.21 75.65

TIME 1 2. age 11-13 24 74.13 16.31 3.13 67.85 80.40

(base-line) 3. age 14-15 16 66.82 16.45 3.83 59.13 75.50

1. age 8-10 14 68.43 17.64 4.48 58.54 76.54

TIME 2 2. age 11-13 24 78.42 15.69 3.32 71.83 85.20

(post-test) 3. age 14-15 16 71.99 14.83 4.05 64.56 80.83

1. age 8-10 14 70.36 16.68 4.34 61.65 79.07

TIME 3 2. age 11-13 24 78.08 16.71 3.31 71.43 84.74

(post-test) 3. age 14-15 16 73.56 16.26 4.06 65.41 81.71

Based on estimated marginal means; Total number N = 54 in each test condition

Table 8. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 'Main Group' N54 Gender and Age-Group

SourceDependentVariable

Type III Sum ofSquares df

MeanSquare F Sig. Result

GENDER BASELINE 59.130 1 59.130 .983 .326 F(1,53)= .983,p>.05

POSTTEST 118.747 1 118.747 1.843 .181 F(1,53)=1.843,p>.05

FOLLOWUP 13.128 1 13.128 .189 .666 F(1,53)= .189,p>.05

AGEGROUP BASELINE 160.625 2 80.313 1.335 .273 F(1,52)=1.335,p>.05

POSTTEST 259.831 2 129.916 2.017 .144 F(1,52)=2.017,p>.05

FOLLOWUP 143.052 2 71.526 1.027 .366 F(1,52)=1.027,p>.05GENDER *AGEGROUP BASELINE 67.105 2 33.552 .558 .576 F(1,52)= .558,p>.05

POSTTEST 60.453 2 30.226 .469 .628 F(1,52)= .469,p>.05

FOLLOWUP 8.980 2 4.490 .064 .938 F(1,52)= .064,p>.05


Analysis of ‘Global’ Self-Esteem between Participants (N = 98)

having completed, and not completed the Third Measure

In order to assess whether significant differences in ‘Global’ self-esteem existed between

those participants who completed the third measure, and those who have not, multivariate analysis of

variance was employed. As the F-Ratios in Table 10 show, results were not significant. However,

mean difference scores were observed to be higher by 5.33 points at base-line and by 6.71 points at

post-test, when comparing mean scores between participants attending the reunion, and consequently

completing the third measure (yes), with those who have not (no) attended (see Table 9). However,

results of a consequently performed pairwise comparison between groups and self-esteem dimensions,

showed that a significant difference between groups existed in Home self-esteem at base-line

F(2,96)=4.225, p<.05 (M=5.55, SD=2.12 for participants attending; M=4.67, SD=2.07 for participants

not attending) as well as post-test F(2,96)=8.652, p<.05 (M=5.92, SD=2.25 for participants attending;

M=4.67, SD=2.07 for participants not attending).

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Self-Esteem scores for Participants who have completed (yes) and not completed (no) the Third Measure

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean


BASELINE yes 54 70.22 15.44 2.10 66.01 74.44

no 44 64.89 15.89 2.40 60.06 69.72

Total 98 67.83 15.79 1.59 64.66 70.99

POSTTEST yes 54 73.92 16.23 2.21 69.49 78.36

no 44 67.21 20.01 3.02 61.13 73.30

Total 98 70.91 18.24 1.84 67.25 74.57

Table 10. Analysis of Differences in Global Self-Esteem between Groups having completed and not completed the Third Measure

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Result

BASELINE Between Groups 690.286 1 690.286 2.822 .096 F(1,96)= .2.822,p>.05

Within Groups 23485.765 96 244.643

Total 24176.051 97

POSTTEST Between Groups 1092.728 1 1092.728 3.363 .070 F(1,96)=3.363,p>.05

Within Groups 31193.159 96 324.929

Total 32285.887 97


DISCUSSION

From an overall perspective, and based on the data collection of the ‘main’ sample group, it

becomes evident that Global self-esteem in participants has been significantly increased following

program intervention. Likewise, results achieved by the ‘subgroup’ also confirm significant increases

between base-line and post-test. Results for the ‘main’-, as well as ‘sub’-group, are therefore overall

confirmatory of the assumption that the camp intervention is successful in increasing participants

‘Global’ self-esteem . As for the question whether the intervention had long term effects, the

assessment of the follow-up questionnaire completed three weeks after camp, revealed a slight increase

of .82 points between post-test and follow-up. In other words, despite participants having returned to

their respective environments where support conditions such as those extended by facilitators, support

staff, and peers, as well the unique ‘holiday like’ camp setting, no longer existed; where they had many

opportunities to test their new self-esteem strategies and have possibly faced a number of challenges to

their camp induced accomplishments, they were nonetheless able to maintain self-esteem at increased

levels. Yet, insofar as these levels can be maintained beyond the three week period, or whether these

effects are likely to have been caused by other influences, needs to be the subject of further

investigation.

Analyzing each dimension’s effectiveness, ‘Social’ self esteem was found to be the most

significant and therefore effective contributor to the construct of ‘Global’ self-esteem. This applied for

the immediate effect of main and sub group alike. The ‘Social’ self-esteem dimension has also shown

to maintain the increased effect three weeks after camp completion. In context of the camp experience,

these results can be seen in support of the camp programs endorsement of positive peer relations

between participants. In other words, training in problem solving skills facilitated by trust games,

conflict resolution, and leadership skills, appears to have generally improved the individual’s

relationship with other participants on camp, as well as provided the necessary tools to maintain these

abilities over time. Therefore it can be inferred that camp facilitators succeeded in creating an

environment of trust and friendship enabling participants to show vulnerability and their ‘true’ feelings,

a basic requirement to understand the reasons behind participants’ perceived level of self-esteem.

Hence, seeing individual participants ‘opening up’ in such manner, would have had the effect of


producing similar responses and likewise behaviors in other camp participants/peers, consequently

creating feelings of inclusiveness and belonging. These effects are in line with the recommendations

made by the Park (2003) who outlined ‘inclusiveness’ as one of the major requirements for self-esteem

programs to function appropriately. It is also in support of observations made by Owens (1994), as well

as Grayson (2001), who identified that individuals identify themselves with the personality and

behavior of their associations, and that positive peer influence is related to self-esteem.

The dimension of ‘General’ self-esteem on the other hand, proves to be more ambiguous to

analyze. For example, main group results have shown a significant immediate effect, however, sub

group results indicate neither an immediate nor longer term effect, although mean results have been

consistently increased over time. These results are in line with Coopersmith’s (1981) observation that

individuals are likely to be affected in their general perception of self-esteem by specific incidents and

environmental changes, however, soon after the event individuals are unwilling to accept evidence that

they are better or worse than they themselves have decided, and therefore generally resolve any

dissonance between the evidence and their judgment in favor of their customary judgment.

Results in the dimension of ‘Home’ self-esteem on the other hand, have shown to be not

significant for main and subgroup respectively, when measured between base-line and post-test.

However, a significant increase in self-esteem became evident between base-line and follow-up

measurement. This result is perhaps not surprising, as the assessment of this dimension is related to the

perception of the individual’s self-esteem in relation to their parents. Therefore, it could be argued that

while on camp, participants had no opportunity to implement their newly accomplished skills and

attributes as neither their home environment, nor their parents were present, and therefore an

insignificant result in the comparison between base-line and post-test should be expected. However,

upon returning home, and having spent some time with their respective parents/guardians, participants

were able to exercise and nurture their achieved accomplishments, something that may have become

evident in the significant difference scores in the base-line with follow-up comparison. Taking this

perspective, it can be assumed that the camp program affects participants’ relationship with their

parents for an extended period of time. Considering that good support from parents is an adequate


predictor for mental health and self-esteem in children the program’s positive results in this dimension

are particularly encouraging.

Likewise, results in the dimension of Academic self-esteem have taken a similar course.

Considering that the immediate effect between base-line and post-test does not indicate significant

increases in self esteem, yet a persistent effect between base-line and follow-up is apparent, it can be

inferred that the full benefit of the camp program only became evident after completion of the event. In

other words, participants may have not had an opportunity to apply the newly accomplished esteem

building strategy while on camp, and thus were unaware of its effects at the time when the post-test

was administered. More specifically however, significant longer term results in the Academic domain

indicate that the ‘learning how to learn’ method (reading, listening and study skills) as taught by

educators and support staff on camp has shown to be valuable to the construction of participants self-

esteem. This can be seen in support of a study by Grayson (2001) who found that camp programs are

well suited to increase self-esteem and academic performance.

Further, Coopersmith’s (1981) and DuBois et al’s (1999) suggestions that self-esteem varies

across gender could not be statistically substantiated in our sample of camp participants. Nonetheless, a

consistently lower mean score was generally observed for female participant’s ‘Global’ self-esteem

across all tests (base-line, post-test and follow-up for ‘main’ and ‘sub’ group) when compared to males.

This may have been attributable to factors such as in the literature often reported greater concern for

body image issues in females, which are believed to lead to body size concerns and poorer perceived

appearance and ultimately to lower ratings of self-esteem when compared to males. Reasons for such

differences in body image can be found in the way females are dis-proportionally affected by media

influences such as beauty magazines, etc. Evidence that girls perceive themselves as academically less

capable as observed by Kokenes (1978) was also not evident within our sample.

Similarly, with the exception of the dimension of Social self-esteem, the result of our study

was unable to support the assumption pre-empted by Coopersmith (1981) that older children would

show greater distinction in the different dimensions of self-esteem when compared to children of a

younger age-group. In other words, older and younger children responded equally to the camp

intervention from the perspective of Global self-esteem, as well as the dimensions of Academic,


General, and Home self-esteem. On the other hand, the significant difference in Social self-esteem

results between participants of the oldest age-group (age 14-15) and youngest age group (8-10) at base-

line, post-test and follow-up, may be related to the older children’s greater length in time of exposure

to social issues, as well as a greater level of maturity present at the time of testing. Thus, it is not

difficult to imagine that these factors could have contributed to the evidently greater self-esteem scores

in older children.

Equally, the belief that younger children would show a greater effect than older children in

their response to self-esteem building measures as expressed by Marsh (1999), were also not

substantiated. In fact, our data indicates the opposite to hold true when it comes to age groups and

demonstrated effectiveness of the program. In other words, effectiveness of the camp program in

building self-esteem is greater for older rather than younger children.

As for the question whether a difference in self-esteem existed between those participants who

chose to attend, and those who chose not to attend a reunion 3 weeks after completion of camp, the

answer is that with exception of the dimension of Home self-esteem, no statistically significant results

were apparent. However, it is noticeable that mean score differences were higher across all dimensions

for those who chose to be part of the reunion and consequently completed the third measure (follow-

up). These results could be seen as an indication that participants attending the reunion had better

relations with their parents/ guardians and thus were likely to have benefited from greater parental

support. This in turn could be inferred as supportive of Coopersmith’s (1981) statement that a good

parent/child relationship and support is crucial in the development and maintenance of children’s self-

esteem. On the other hand, numerous other variables could have prevented participants from attending

the reunion such as a lack of transportation, recreational commitments, etc.

Taking all main, and sub group dimensional results into consideration, a picture emerges which allows

for the assumption that the camp programs focus on teaching participants strategies of how to set goals

and consequently achieve them, had a number of specific successes. Considering that the immediate,

as well as persistent or longer term effects occurred in the dimension of social self-esteem, with longer

term effects being evident in home and academic self-esteem, a number of general inferences about the

results could be made. For example it is plausible to infer that an individual attending the program can


expect to learn how to become socially more confident by interacting with participants on camp, and

thus will probably also find that his/her social interactions after camp will be improving. Further, the

participants’ confidence in interacting with their parents or guardians is also likely to improve in the

period after camp. Equally, participants can expect to experience increased levels of confidence when

interacting with teachers and class mates in an academic setting after camp completion. However,

participants’ general appraisal of self worth, although increasing in the immediacy, is likely to revert

back to its pre-camp customary level.

The overall success of the camp intervention in not only creating, but also maintaining a

consistently higher perception of self-esteem in participants over time, regardless of age or gender, can

be seen in support of the notion that the setting of personalized goals and their consequent achievement

are related to increases in self-esteem. In other words, it is the setting of goals that are within a person’s

‘reach’, and which are ultimately identified and determined by the individual him/herself that will lead

to the individuals perception of success. It also lends credibility to Owens et al’s (1996) observation

that achievement is only of consequence to increases in self-esteem if it has been ‘self determined’ or

‘self directed’. Therefore, the camp’s program of implementing the setting of ‘realistic’ goals appears

to have had a striking effect. Or, better defined, one could say that participant’s ‘individualized’

successes, achieved under the guidance of educators and support staff, assisting participants in

identifying ‘achievable’ goals as well as encouraging them to take ‘small’ steps in the achievement

process, appeared to be very effective in increasing ‘Global’ self-esteem across it’s dimensions. By

providing such guidance, the by Millicent (1997) described danger of participants setting unrealistic

goals that cannot be achieved, have been actively avoided and thus, possible performance failures

which could have negatively affected an individual’s willingness to be persistent in his/her pursuit of

goals or targets, have been eliminated. Conversely, how far the camp program’s music therapy showed

effectiveness in raising participants self-esteem, is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, one will have to

assume that the persistent esteem building effect of the camp program could be, at least in part,

accounted for by the musical program component.

Consequently, it appears from the study, that the most important aspect to increasing self-

esteem in individuals is based on their ability to set goals that can consequently be achieved. This in


turn, will lead to a gradual increase in a person’s confidence and thus enable the individual to set goals

in line with increasing confidence levels. This whole process is instigated by a participants belief in

external factors (i.e. mentors and leaders/support staff/peers), thus confirming the research by DeWit &

Offord, 2003; DuBois & Burk-Braxton, 2002; Mann et al, 2004 who found teacher/mentor and peer

support to be of invaluable importance to increase self-esteem in children and adolescents. In other

words, the process of increasing self-esteem is, at least in the initial phases, an act of faith on behalf of

the participant for which teachers/mentors/peers function as external catalysts allowing participants to

discover their ability to succeed in a self responsible manner. Therefore, the camp programs emphasis

on developing and promoting autonomy granting behaviors in participants appears to be successful in

increasing self-esteem, a view shared by Nielsen & Metha (2002). This is also in line with Kavussanu

& Harnisch’s (2000) observations that success is consistent with achievement goal theory which

stipulates that achievement, or, in other words, an individual’s perceived success or failure is ultimately

nothing more than a subjective state of mind that can be altered for the better, given the right attention.

Limitations

However, in light of objectivity, a number of limitations to the study need to be considered.

For instance, the generalizability of the finding was in doubt as the representativeness of the sample in

terms of sozio-economic status, demographics, and cultural identity could not be determined. In

addition, the impetus of parents or legal guardians to send their children to camp could have been

motivated by concerns that their children generally lacked self –esteem. For example, when comparing

mean results of our sample with the normative mean and standard deviation of the CSEI (M=64.80,

SD=14.70 for males, M=63.50, SD= 15.00 for females) it became evident that our sample group

scored significantly above the norm (M=70.33, SD=13.87 for males, M=65.62, SD=17.14 for

females). In addition, the study did not include a control group due to time and resource constraints,

and given these circumstances, it is likely that regression to the mean may have operated. Therefore,

ongoing future testing is needed to provide more accurate data of population demographics, sample

size and test-retest reliability, as well as should feature the inclusion of a control group. Also, as the

construct of self-esteem is rather difficult to define, Coopersmith (1981) suggests that the CSEI should

be used with other supplementary measures to get a more accurate result when assessing self-esteem in

individuals, a suggestion that should be taken into consideration in the future planning of self-esteem


research. Further, the self-report nature of this study may have also compromised the provided

information and introduced some bias. In fact Coopersmith (1981) warns that some participants will be

incorrect in their views of themselves, as well as that individual’s from a particular ethnic, cultural or

religious sub group may have values and perceptions significantly different from those presented in the

CSEI statements.

Implications of the Findings

As this study has more or less only provided a broad overview of the multitude of effects the

camp intervention had on the perceived self-esteem of participants, future research should have a

greater focus on the intricacies of the camp program in order to specify how exactly these outcomes

have been determined. These findings may then be able to provide information that will help with the

development of methods that can be applied in a classroom setting for example, and therefore becomes

accessible to more people. Based on the current findings, however, parents and teachers should bear in

mind that low self-esteem appears to be associated with performance failure, which in turn affects a

child’s willingness to be persistent in his/her pursuit of future goals or targets. Therefore, each time a

child experiences failure, a lowering of expectations in his/her ability is the likely consequence. In

other words, self-esteem will be in systematic decline. On the other hand, feelings of success will lead

to the willingness to ‘raise the bar’ each time a task has been completed. Therefore, when dealing with

self-esteem issues, parents, teachers, or mentors are encouraged to support their children by providing

an environment that nurtures the development and maintenance of their self-esteem.

Moreover, other camp operations that have not yet added a self enhancing component to their

program can utilize the conducted research and enhance their outcomes by adopting operational

philosophies that address self-development. Camp operations that add the focus of self-enhancement

are then in a better position to participate in community strategies that are designed to address youth

development needs. Further, in light of the rapid change in society, the social desirability of self-

enhancement, and the identified development needs of youth, the programming and philosophies may

also find applications in classrooms or in after-school programs.


ReferencesAlves-Martins, M ., Peixoto, F., Gouveia-Pereira, M. & Amaral, V.,(2002). Self-esteem and academicachievement among adolescents. Educational Psychology : 22, 51-62

Axelsson, L. & Ejlertosson G. (2002). Self-reported health, self-esteem and social support amongyoung unemployed people: A population-based study. International Journal of Social Welfare 11

Baldwin, S. & Hoffmann, P. (2002). The dynamics of self-esteem: A growth-curve analysis. Journalof Youth and Adolescence New York, 31, 101-114

Berger, K. S. (2000), The developing person through the life span. New York: Worth Publishers.

Branden, N. (1995), The six pillars of self-esteem. NY: Bantam Books.

Brown, J.D., Dutton, K. A. & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: self-esteem and self evaluation.Cognition And Emotion, 15, 615-631

Coopersmith, S. (1981) The antecedents of self-esteem. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.(Original work published 1967).

Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-esteem inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

DeWit, D. J., Offord, D. R., (2000). The effect of school culture on adolescent behavioral problems:self-esteem, attachment to learning, and peer approval of deviance as mediating mechanisms.Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 16, 15-38

DuBois, D. L. & Hirsch , B. J. (2000). Self-esteem in early adolescence: from stock character tomarquee attraction. Journal of Early Adolescence , 20, 5-11

DuBois, D. L., Burk-Braxton, C. (2002). Getting by with a little help from self and others: self-esteemand social support as resources during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology , 38, 822-839

DuBois, D. L., Felner, D.F., Brand, S., George, G. (1999). Profiles of self-esteem in early adolescence:identification and investigation of adaptive correlates. American Journal of Community Psychology ,27, 899-932

Furnham, A, Badmin, N., Sneade, I. (2002). Body image dissatisfaction: Gender differences in eatingattitudes, self-esteem, and reasons for exercise. The Journal Of Psychology, 36, 581-596

Grayson, R. (2001). Summer camp as an intervention for at-risk youth. dissertation abstractsinternational: section B: The Sciences & Engineering , 62, 25-35

James, W. (1890), Principles of Psychology, NY: Henry Holt

Kavussanu, M. & Harnisch D. L. (2000). Self-esteem in children: do goal orientations matter? BritishJournal of Educational Psychology , 70, 229-242

Kokenes, B. (1978). A factor analytic study of the Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory. Adolescence13, 149–155

Kokenes, B. (1974). Grade-level differences in factors of self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 10,954-958.

Lawrence, D., (1996) Enhancing Self-esteem in the classroom, validity studies of the CoppersmithSelf-esteem Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 32 - 45.

Mann, M., Hosman, M. H., Schaalma, H. P., DeVries. N.K. (2004). Self-esteem in a broad-spectrumapproach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research. 19, 357


Marsh, P. E. (1999). Does camping enhance self-esteem? Camping Magazine, American CampingAssociation, accessed online at www.acacamps.org/campmag/9911enhance.htm 26/10/2004 McGee, R. & Williams, S. (2000). Does low self-esteem predict health compromising behaviors amongadolescents? Journal of Adolescence ,23, 569-582.

Mecca, Smelser & Vasconcellos (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley,CA:University of California Press

Medvedova, L. (2000). Relationships of family dimensions with self-esteem in early adolescence. Studia Psychologica, 42, 249-254.

Millicent, H. A. (1997). The role of self-esteem in typical and atypical changes in expectations. Journalof General Psychology

Mullis, R. L. & Chapman P. (2000). Age, gender, and self-esteem differences in adolescent copingstyles. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 539-541

Nielsen, D. M, Metha, A. (1994). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem in clinical andnonclinical samples. Adolescence , 29, 525

Neill, J.T. (2003). Reviewing and benchmarking adventure therapy outcomes; Application of meta-analysis. Journal of Experiential Eductation, 25, 316-321

Owens, T. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: reciprocal effects of positive self-worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems. American Sociological Review, 59, 391

Owens, T., Mortimer, J., Finch, M. (1996). Self-determination as a source of self-esteem inadolescence. Social Forces, 74, 1377

Park, J. (2003). Adolescent self-concept and health into adulthood. Supplement to Health Reports,Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-003

Phyllis, L., McGuigan, A. (2000). Early predictors of adolescent violence. American Journal OfHealth. 90, 566-572

Polce-Lynch, M., Myers, B. J. (2001). Adolescent self-esteem and gender: Exploring relations tosexual harrassment, body image, media influence, and emotional expression. Journal of Youth &Adolescence , 30, 225-244

Robins, R., Tracy, J., Trzesniewski, K. (2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal ofResearch in Personality 35, 463-482.

Romin, W. T. & Carolyn V. (1997). Two-dimensional self-esteem and reactions to success and failure.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,626

Rubenstein, R. (1977). Changes in self-esteem and anxiety in competitive and noncompetitive camps.Journal of Social Psychology ,102, 55-57

Tafarodi, R. W., Vu, C. (1997).Two-dimensional self-esteem and reaction to success and failure.Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 626-635

Vermeiren R., Bogaerts J., Ruchkin V., Deboutte D., Schwab-Stone M. (2004). Subtypes of self-esteem and self-concept in adolescent violent and property offenders. Journal Of Child PsychologyAnd Psychiatry, 45, 405-411

Williams, J. M. & Currie, C. (2000). Self-esteem and physical development in early adolescence:pubertal timing and body image. Journal of Early Adolescence , 20, 129-149

Documents

persistent - Interactive Adventures · --Stanley Coopersmith, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventories Manual A relationship between self-esteem and accomplishment has been identified