1
Olivia Jones
February 6th, 2012
Self Confidence
Phil Backlund
Explicating and Measuring a Concept
Introduction
Some would say that self-confidence is important within many phases of our lives
because of the positive benefits it can bring us. Benefits including self-assurance, selfworth, faith, and for countless people it can bring success. Self-confidence is an
important concept when measuring communication variables because it is a belief that
everyone either has or doesn’t have, which makes it easily measureable and accessible for
research. Self-confidence is essential because it ultimately leads to ones life ambition and
the ability to believe in yourself and your capability to reach future goals. Self-confidence
is both mental and physical, but what makes it so significant is the fact that people create
self-confidence on their own due to how they choose to live, behave, and communicate
amongst themselves and others.
Conceptual Definition
Since the importance of this variable has been shared, what does self-confidence
exactly mean? A common definition of self-confidence comes from believing that one
learns this confidence on an individual level and it varies from person to person
depending on their personality. Therefore, no connotation of self-confidence can have the
same meaning for every person. Similar to this, researchers G. Hollenbeck and D. Hall
(2004) state that self-confidence is, “Our judgment of whether or not we can do
something. It is a judgment, based on weighing all our capabilities – our abilities, our
2
motivation. People make these judgments all the time, in both important and (seemingly)
unimportant activities; we may be confident that we can find our way to work, that we
can complete the project, that we can develop a mission that others will want to work
toward, that we can obtain the resources to conduct the work” (Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004,
254–269). Hollenbeck and Hall give this definition with the insinuation that the outcome
of ones self-confidence is up to that of the individual and their past, present, and future
choices and goals they make.
Similar to Hollenbeck and Hall’s definition of self-confidence, researchers S.
Baldwin and J. Hoffman (2002) believe that self-confidence is an attitude, which allows
individuals young and old to have positive yet realistic views of themselves and their
situations (Baldwin & Hoffman, 2002). However, they have found that self-confidence is
a changing variable by reading archival research from the past. Much of the research read
is inconsistent with developmental theories of self- confidence and has indicated that it
remains fairly static from adolescent to adult life (Baldwin & Hoffman, 2002). In spite of
this, Baldwin and Hoffman (2002) have found that the most common focus of the
individual change in self-confidence is on a group level because of peer pressure and
other similar determining factors (Baldwin & Hoffman, 2002).
Overall, after researching two very widespread definitions of self-confidence, the
conceptual definition rendered is that self-confidence is when self-assured people have
expectations that are realistic and make individual choices that spawn their motivation
and future actions to get there. Then, even when some of their expectations are not met,
they continue to be positive, accept themselves and make an effort.
Similar Concepts
3
Self-confidence has three similar variables to iteself in the category of
communication; Self-image, self-concept, and self-awareness. In this section, the
following variables will be compared in the similarities and differences they have to selfconfidence. Self-esteem researchers from Florida State University (2003) state that,
“Self-esteem is literally defined by how much value people place on themselves. It is the
evaluative component of self- knowledge. High self-esteem refers to a highly favorable
global evaluation of the self. Low self-esteem, by definition, refers to an unfavorable
definition of the self” (Baumeister, Campbell & Krueger, 2003, p. 2). So, while selfesteem is based on ones values, self-knowledge, and evaluation of the self, it can be
looked at as similar to self-confidence but not the same. Self-confidence can be measured
through ones values for their potential goals to be met, but value of oneself is not the
major benefit of -confidence as it is with self-esteem. The major benefit of selfconfidence is creating an attitude to make future aspirations that allows one to be positive
when executing those objectives.
Moving on, the second similar variable to self-confidence is self-concept. According
to psychologist and researcher R.F Baumeister (1999), self- concept is the individual's
belief about himself or herself, including the person's attributes and who and what the self
is (Baumeister, 1999). Unalike self-confidence in certain ways, self-concept is how
someone perceives him or herself and how they classify themselves to others in the
outside world, where self-confidence is the belief that one can execute their realistic
expectations of themselves. However, self-concept and self-confidence are similar
because self-confidence depends on how one recognizes themselves to others. Depending
on one perceives their self-concept is what will render the decision, goals, and attitudes
4
you make when creating self-confidence not. Similar to both self-concept and selfconfidence with having emphasis in individuality and values comes self-awareness.
According to authors of recent student success articles R. Sherfield, R. Montegomery,
and P. Moody (2005), self-awareness is a way for us to explore our individual
personalities, value systems, beliefs, natural inclinations, and tendencies because we are
all different in the way we react to things, learn, and process information. (Sherfield,
Montegomery & Moody, 2005)
Operational Definitions
Within this section, one substantial article that use self-confidence as the measurable
variable will be analyzed. The following article is a comparative study of the selfconfidence of a single child then of a child with sibling’(s) by researchers Dr. Goel and
Associate Professor Preeti Aggarwal (2012) from YMCA University of Science &
Technology. The article summary is that due to changing society financial needs,
increasing cost of living and social status, both the parents are working, joint family
concept has turned into nuclear family culture, parents are opting to have single child
instead of two children (Goel & Aggarwal, 2012). Because of this, researchers have
decided to create the following hypothesis: there is no significant difference between selfconfidence of single child and child with sibling. The definition of self-confidence that
the researchers use throughout their study, as a guide to measure the participants is, “A
positive attitude of oneself towards ones self-concept and a persons ability to tackle
situations successfully without leaning on others and to have a positive self-evaluation. A
self confident person perceives himself to be socially competent, emotionally mature,
intellectually adequate, successful, satisfied, decisive, optimistic, independent, self-
5
reliant, self-assured, forward moving, fairly assertive and having leadership qualities”.
(Goel & Aggarwal, 2012, p. 2)
A) The administrative and method procedures used in this study were the following: 80
children have been selected by using random sampling out of collection of. Out of
which 40 students were single child and 40 students were children with siblings
(Goel & Aggarwal, 2012). On administrative basis, `the Self Confidence Inventory
also known as the ASCI was used as framework along with the operational definition
of the study. The ASCI Test has been previously designed by Dr. Rekha Ahnihotri
(1997) for the purpose to evaluate the level of self-confidence hat adolescents and
adults have.
B) Scoring instructions were the following: “The final form of the ASCI has 56 truefalse type items that works as perimeter to check self confidence of the adolescents.
After calculating raw scores as per scoring key interpretation of individual score has
been done” (Goel & Aggarwal, 2012, p. 95).
C) The interpretation of the hypothesis is that there is significant difference in the selfconfidence level of a single child or a child with a sibling, so therefore, their initial
hypothesis is rejected and researchers conclude that single children or children with
siblings have correlation and there is a significant difference between their selfconfidence levels (Goel & Aggarwal, 2012). Researchers created this inference by
placing their data in the following tables:
TABLE 1: Scores & Interpretation
(Goel & Aggarwal, 2012, p. 95)
Raw Scores
7 and below
8-19
20-32
33-44
45-above
Interpretation
Very High Self-Confidence
High Self-Confidence
Average Self-Confidence
Low Self-Confidence
Very Low Self-Confidence
6
Table 2: Number of children falling in various categories in study
(Goel & Aggarwal, 2012, p. 96)
Raw Scores
7-below
Interpretation
Very High
Self-Confidence
High Self-Confidence
Average Self-Confidence
Low Self-Confidence
Very Low Self-Confidence
TOTAL
8-19
20-32
33-44
45-above
N/A
Single Child
_
Child with Sibling
_
10
19
11
40
22
13
5
40
Table 3: Self Confidence of Single Child and Child with sibling
(Goel & Aggarwal, 2012, p. 9)
Single Child
Child with Sibling
N
Mean
S.D
T.Value
40
40
27.5
32.5
8.45
6.32
2.99
2.99
Significance
Difference?
YES
YES
D) Others sources and/or other references related to the measurements were the ASCI
(Self Confidence Inventory) by Dr. Rekha Ahnihotri (1997) for the purpose to
evaluate the level of self-confidence hat adolescents and adults. This was the main
reference other than quantitative data because she created the framework (Hindi test)
for how the researchers could measure self-confidence. Without it, the researchers
might not have been able to achieve the same data and/or draw the same conclusions.
Evaluation of Definitions/Conclusion
After reviewing the conceptual definition of self-confidence and the operational
definition used by researchers of the study at hand, both definitions of self-confidence are
clear and are very similar. The conceptual definitions had great range from individuality
to motivation and beliefs, while researchers of the study examined looked at similar
concepts such as positivity, attitudes, and self-evaluation. The one aspect that stood out in
the study that the conceptual definitions didn’t touch on was isolation. The researchers
used isolation as a major component of high or low self-confidence. The future
improvements for suggestion would be for researchers and authors to define the negatives
views of ones self-confidence. Many researchers state the benefits of a balanced self-
7
confidence and the importance of having self-confidence, but there was no piece of
research I came across that stated negatives. Therefore, I see potential bias in many
articles on self-confidence. As a result, future researchers such as myself that write or
read scholarly articles on this variable and create study designs should have the
importance, the benefits, and the non-benefits of having too much or too little selfconfidence within testable measures.
References
8
Baldwin, S., & Hoffman, J. (2002). The dynamics of self-esteem: A growth-curve
analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 31(2), 101-113. doi: Springer Link
Hollenbeck, G. H., & Hall, D. H. (2004). Self-confidence and leader performance.
Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 254-269. doi: Science Direct
Baumeister, R. B., Campbell, J. C., Krueger, K. J., & Vohs, K. V. (2003). Does high selfesteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1),
Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.) (1999). The Self in Social Psychology. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).
Goel, M. G., & Arggarwal, P. A. (2012). A comparative study of self-confidence of
single child and child with sibling. International Journal of Research in Social
Sciences, 2(3), 89-98.
Montgomery, R., Sherfield, R., & Moody, P. (2004). Cornerstone: building on your best.
(4 ed.). Pearson Hall. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=hTgSAQAAMAAJ&q=Cornerstone: Building
on Your Best, 4th Ed., by Robert M. Sherfield, Rhonda J. Montgomery, and
Patricia G. Moody (Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005)&dq=Cornerstone: Building on
Your Best, 4th Ed., by Robert M. Sherfield, Rhonda J. Montgomery, and Patricia
G. Moody (Pearson/Prentice Hall,
2005)&hl=en&sa=X&ei=smMQUaK8NrH2igKHsICwDw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwA