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