European Joumal of Psychology of Education
2009. Vol. XXIV. n"2. 247-262
€'2009.1.S.P,A.
The impact of significant others' actual appraisals
on children's self-perceptions:
What about Cooley's assumption for children?
Cécile Nurra
Pascal Pansu
University of Grenoble 2, France
The aim of this paper was to study the construction of children's
self-perception relying on Cooley 's hypothesis. More precisely, we
were interested in the mediation effect of signiftcant others' actual
appraisal on self-perception by the perception of others' actual
apprai.sal (i.e.. reflected appraLuil). First, we argued that this mediation
effect would occur in the domains where children have feedback from
signiftcant others (here teacher or parents). Second, we took into
account two measures of reßected appraisal: reflected appraisal
assessed in a cla.ssic fashion and appraisal .social support assessed with
Harter 's seale (1985b). We argued that reflected appraisal assessed in
a classic fashion would be a better mediator of the effect of actual
appraisal on self-perception by reflected apprai.sal in comparison to
appraisal .social .mpport. In order to test these hypotheses, we conducted
a study with 126 children (age 8-9). ¡06 parents and six teachers. The
results, taken as a whole, support these hypotheses.
The aim of this paper was to expand our understanding of the construction of children's
evaluations of themselves. Two major kinds of detemiinants have been found in literature dealing
with the construction of self-evaluations (e,g,, Leary, 2006). The first one focuses on the
intrapersonal determinants. For instance, global evaluation results from the integration of specific
self-evaluations (Harter, 1999), The seeond one focuses on interpersonal déterminants. Here
scholars study the impact others have on self-evaluation (Markus & Cross. 1990). This impact can
be studied in different ways as. for example, the impact of others" expectations on behaviors (e,g.,
Jussim, 1986) or how competent is the person with whom one compares him/herself (e.g,. Wood
& Wilson. 2003), Another way others have an infiuence on self-evaluations is through their
judgments and feedback (Markus & Wurf. 1987), The impact of other's judgments and feedback
has been mostly studied relying on Cooley's (1902) framework which has been particularly
relevant when dealing with children's self-pereeption (Hart. Atkins, & Tursi, 2006; Harter. 1999).
The goal of the current paper was to provide additional support to Cooley's ( 1902) hypothesis.
Authors want to thanks Dominique Müller. Mona F.l-Shamaa and two anonymous reviewers fnr ihcir helpful
comments.
248
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
According to Cooley ( 1902), significant others' Judgments and feedback arc involved in
the construction of self-perceptions. These significant others would be like a looking glass
self, a mirror into which we can see how we are. This author argues that "the thing that moves
us to pride and shame is not the merely mechanical reflection of ourselves but an imputed
sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another's mind" (Cooley, 1902, p. 184).
When signifieant others make a judgment about us (i.e.. significant others' actual appraisal),
we perceive this judgment (i.e.„ reflected appraisal) and this perception influences how we
think about ourselves {i.e., self-perception). In other words, we evaluate ourselves as we think
others evaluate us.
Following this long-standing tradition of research., results support this hypothesis when
the effect of actual appraisal on self-perception is mediated by reflected appraisal {Felson,
1989). Framing Cooley's (1902) hypothesis in terms of mediation suggests that three
relationships must be demonstrated (Felson, 1985; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979): first, a
relationship between actual-appraisal and self-perception, second, a relationship between
actual appraisal and reflected appraisal and third, a relationship between reflected appraisal
and self-perception. Furthermore, reflected appraisal should account tor the relationship
between aetual appraisal and self-pereeption. In other words, the strength of this relationship
should be decreased when reflected appraisal is statistically held constant. As we shall see, a
full support for these different conditions has not been found in related literature. In this paper,
we argue, however, that these different conditions ean be mei with children as long as we take
into account difterent domains of self-perceptions and signiflcant others, and we choose a
suitable measure tbr reflected appraisal.
Studies that focus on the actual appraisal effect on children's self-pereeptions lead to
mixed conclusions. The important Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) literature review shows
that there is no clear evidence concerning the effect of significant other's actual appraisal on
self-perceptions. However, when different domains and significant others are taken into
account, several studies reported that the actual appraisal of parents, teaeher and peers actually
affected self-perception more clearly. For example. Cole (1991) showed that peers' and
teacher's actual appraisals have an effect on children's self-perceptions. Importantly, Cole
(199!) showed that this effect depends on the domains under consideration; peers" actual
appraisal predicted change in self-perception in social and academic domains, whereas
teacher's actual appraisal predicted change in athletic self-pereeption. Results by Cole,
Jacquez, and Maschman (2001) also supported this view. Their results showed ihal teacher's,
parents' and peers' actual perception were correlated with self-perception in the important
domains for ehildren - although this correlation was only weak for social acceptance and
physical appearance (see also Cole, Maxwell, i& Martin. 1997). Research conccming more
specifically the academic domain showed that teacher's actual appraisal had an effect on
children's academic self-perception (Gesl. DoETiitrovich. & Welsh, 2005; Herbert & Stipek,
2005). but also on social and behavioral conduct self-perception (Bressoux & Pansu. 2003).
As far as parents are concerned, Felson (1989) showed that parents' actual appraisal has an
effect on children's academic self-perception. Therefore, it seems that the relationship
between actual appraisal and self-perception can be found, but only within particular
combinations of domains and significant others.
If, as Cooley (1902) suggested, reflected appraisal is the mediator of the aetual appraisal
effect on self-perception, we should observe both a relationship between actual appraisal and
reflected appraisal, and a relationship between reflected appraisal and self-pereeption. Studies
testing the relationship between aetual appraisal and reflected appraisal reported only weak
evidence (Cook & Douglas. 1998; Felson, 1985). On the contrary, studies testing the
relationship between reflected appraisal and self-perception reported clearer evidence (e.g.,
Felson, 1989), Studies also reported that the effect of actual appraisal on self-perception is not
mediated by reflected appraisal. For example. Felson (1989) showed that self-perception was
influenced by both parents' actual appraisal and refleeted appraisal. Refteeted appraisal,
however, did not mediate the effect of actual appraisal on self-perception. In the same fashion,
Hergovlch. Sirsch, and Felinger (2002) showed more recently a relationship between teacher's
OTHERS* APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
249
and parents' aetual appraisals in various domains of children's self-perceptions. But again.
they concluded that there was no mediation because this relationship was shown to be
significant when retlected appraisals were controlled. These results suggest that the effecis of
actual appraisal and reflected appraisal are independent (Felson, 1989). Authors like Felson
(1989) even argue that the mediation was not obtained because the relationship between
reflected appraisal and self-perception could be opposite of Cooley's (1902) hypothesis: selfperception would influence reflected appraisal. Such an inverse relationship could be
explained by the fact that when we evaluate what others think about us, we use private
information that others do not have (Chambers. Epiey. Savitsky. & WindschitI, 200K). Hence,
we would often attribute to other people the perception we have about ourselves, what Felson
(1989) referred lo as a projection effect.
What emerges from these results is a weak support of Cooley's hypothesis: whereas the
relationship between reflected appraisal and self-perception is high, the relationship between
actual appraisal and reflected appraisal is weak or absent (e.g., Felson. 1989). We would argue,
however, that the mediation implied in Cooley's hypothesis has to be studied with at least two
considerations in mind. The first is the specificity of domains and significant others. The second
has to do with the measure we rely on to test the meditational role of reflected appraisal.
Specificity of domains and signifícant others
Results we presented above showed how the relationship between actual appraisal and
self-perception depends on the domains and the significant others taken into account (e.g.,
Cole et al., 2001). It could be suggested that ihis is so because significant others do not give
feedback in all domains (Boivin. Vitaro. & Gagnon. 1992; Funder & Colvin. 1997). Thus, the
relationship could be observed only when children received feedback from significant others.
Applying a similar reasoning. Jussim. Soffin. Brown, Ley. and Kohlhepp (1992) argued that
reflected appraisal could have an effect on self-perception when we have infonnation about
how others see us. In contrast, these authors propose that the reverse relationship (i.e.,
projection effect) should be observed when we do not have enough information. Some results
support this idea. For instance. Malloy. Albright, Kenny, and Winquisi (1997) showed that the
relationship between actual appraisal and reflected appraisal is getting larger as others are
closer to the target. Their results revealed that this relationship was larger for family members
as eompared with friends and was also larger for friends as compared with colleagues. Finally,
this same reasoning could be applied to the mediation through reflected appraisal: this
mediation should be lound when participants have enough information on how they are
perceived. In line with this idea. Bois, Sarrazin. Brustad. Chanal. and Trouilloud (2005)
showed that the effect of parents" physical abilities aetual appraisal on physical ability selfperception was mediated by reflected appraisal. Even though these results are in line with the
"importance of feedback" reasoning, only one domain was investigated in this study.
Extending past research, we postulated that the different relationships implied by
Cooley's (1902) hypothesis should be found when children receive feedback from the
significant others. To test this hypothesis, we took into account, simultaneously, five domains
and two significant others, Hence, we selected the five domains considered as important for
children: academic competence, behavioral conduct, social acceptance, physical ability, and
physical appearance (Harter. 1985a). As for significant others, we selected the two most
significant others in the construction of children's self-perceptions in middle childhood:
teaeher and parents (Sarason. Pierce. Bannerman, & Sarason, 1993).
Relying on these different domains and signifieant others we tested the following
hypotheses. First, as teachers provide feedback particularly in académie and behavioral
conduct domains, we predicted a mediation only for these two domains. Second, as parents
give feedback to their children on all the important domains of their life, we predicted a
mediation for all the domains.
250
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
Refiected appraisal measures
As mentioned earlier, we have to pay ¡itlcnlion to the measure we use. In fact, the
variability in the measure used to study Cooley's hypothesis (1902) also contributed to ihe
lack of consensus on the question (May, 1991). Among studies dealing with children., this
variability is mostly observed for reflected appraisal measures. Most ofthe time, this appraisal
is assessed quite simply by using questions from the self-perception questionnaire reworded in
the third person, for example: "How smart do you think you are?" would be reworded as
"How smart does your mother/father think you are?" (e.g., Felson. 1989; Hergovich et al.,
2002). Using this rewording procedure enables to assess reflected appraisal at the same level
of specificity, that is, at the level ofthe studied self-perception domains.
In addition to this classic measure, reflected appraisal can also be assessed with Harter's
(1985b) social support scale. This scale measures a specific kind of social support: social
support in terms of appraisal. According to several authors, this kind of support is "what
symbolic interactionists refer to as reflected appraisal" (Heller, Swindle, & Dusenbury, 1986,
p. 467). Hence. Harter's seale ( 1985b) Is clearly announced as a mean to "directly examine the
link between the perceived regard from others and the perceived regard for the self" (Harter,
1999, p. 175). Consequently, when a relationship between this measure and global selfperception is observed, this is usually interpreted as supporting Cooley's hypothesis (e.g.,
Piek, Dworcan, Barrett. & Coleman, 2000; Robinson, 1995).
Yet, we argue that Harter's scale (1985b) may not be an appropriate measure to test
Cooley's hypothesis since several concerns can be raised about this measure. First, it assesses
the construct only at a general level: it does not differentiate between different domains.
Second, reading each item carefully reveals that items" content is quite general and affective.
Third, there is no strong construct validity evidence for this measure. More speciflcally. the
assumption that appraisal social support would measure something similar to reflected
appraisal never received empirical support. Moreover, to date, the relationship between actual
appraisal and appraisal social support is rarely considered. Consequently, the same is true for
the mediation hypothesis as a whole.
These criticisms leaded us lo hypothesize that the classic measure of reflected appraisal is
a better mediator than Harter's (1985b) social support scale. In order to test this hypothesis,
we took into account these two reflected appraisal measures.
In sum, the aim of this paper was to test Cooley's hypothesis about children's selfperceptions. We have pursued this general aim while testing two specific hypotheses; the first
one related to domains and significant others specificity and the second one related to
reflected appraisal measures.
Method
Participants
The study was conducted in an elementary school setting on 126 French children coming
from third grade (61 girls and 65 boys; aged 8 to 9) and their respective teachers (6). Children
took part on a voluntary basis and their parents had previously given explicit written consent.
One hundred and six parents also participated in the study.
Measures
Six scales were used. They were all translated (and reworded for questionnaire related to
parents and reflected appraisals) into French from the versions of Harter's questionnaires
(1985a,b). More precisely, three native French speakers did the translation. Afterward, a
OTHERS' APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
251
bilingual person living in the United-Stales for a long time performed a baek translation. In
addition, a bilingual person who was neither Freneh nor English native speaker evaluated the
resulting translation, It allowed controlling whether the meaning in Freneh and English
versions was identieal. When there were disagreements, the simplest sentenee was chosen in
order to be understood by ehildren.
The question format was similar for the six scales (cf. Figure 1. Harter, 1999). In a first
time, for eaeh item, partieipants (i.e., children, parents and teachers) had to choose between
two opposite statements. For exatnple, in the self-perception profile, ehildren had to decide
whieh ehild was more like him/her (e.g., "Sotiie kids often forget what they leam but other
kids can retnember things easily"). In a seeond time, patiicipants had to assess whether the
statement was "Really true" for her/him or only "Sort of true" for her/him. Thus, for the six
scales, four answers were possible for all the items: a very positive one, a positive one, a
negative one, and a very negative one. Items were seorcd on a 4-point scale with higher seore
refleeting a better self-perception, social support, actual appraisal or reflected appraisal.
Really Sort of
true
ttiie
•
D
Son of Reallv
true
true
D
Some kids often forget
what they leam
D
This child is really good
al his/her school work
BUT
olher kids can remember
things easily
OR
tliis child can't do the
school work assigned
D
a
a
D
Figure I. Example ofthe question fomiat of H arter" s scales: one item from the SPPC (first)
and one from the TRS (second)
Self-perceptions. Children's self-perceptions were assessed with the .self-perception profUe
for chUdren (SPPC; Harter, 1985a). The SPPC is a 36-item self-report measure. It contains five
domain specific subscales {academic eompetenee, behavioral conduct, sociai competence,
physieal ability, and physical appearance) and a global self-worth subseale (not used in the
eurrent study). Eaeh speeific subseale consists of three positive items and three negative items,
for instanee "Some kids do very well at their classwork, but, other kids don't do veiy well at their
elasswork". An average score ofthe six items was computed with higher seores reflecting a more
positive children's self-perception. A Principal Component Analysis with oblique rotation
(PROMAX) was conducted on the 30 items. This analysis revealed a factorial structure
eonsistent with Harter's multidimensional approach, that is, the same five factors corresponding
to the flve domains we tnentioned earlier. Moreover, the ititemai consistency of eaeh subseale
was satisfaetory with Cronbach's alphas at .79 for physical appearance, .78 for behavioral
eonduct, .74 for seholastic competence, .67 for athletic eompetenee, and .63 for social acceptanee.
Note that two items were deleted for the social acceptance subseale. Correlations beiween
subscales ranged from .25 to .51 as is usually found in related literature.
Teacher's and parents' actua¡ appraisals. Teaeher's and parents' appraisals of children's
competences were assessed by the Teacher Rating Scale of children actual behavior (TSR;
Harter, 1985a). The TRS is a 15-item self-report measure. Form and eontent of this scale are
similar to the SPPC and taps the same domain speeifie subseales (scholastic eotnpetenee,
athletic eompetenee, peer likeability, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct). Eaeh
subseale eon,sists of three items, for instanee "This child is really good at his/her school work or
this child can't do the sehool work assigned". An average score ofthe three items was then
computed with higher scores refleeting a more positive actual appraisal. As reeommended by
Harter (1985a). the TSR was reworded in order to assess parents' appraisals about their own
ehild. An example of item is "My child is really good at his/her school work or my ehild can't do
252
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
the school work assigned". A Principal Component Analysis with oblique rotation (PROMAX)
was conducted on the 15 items for teacher and parents separately. These analyses revealed a
factorial structure eonsistent with Harter's supposition. Results of theses analyses also supported
Cole. Gondoli. and Pecke's (1998) findings about these scales, for teacher and parents. We
found the same five factors corresponding to the five domains. Furthennore. intemal consistency
was satisfactory for each subscale (respectively for teachers and parents, Cronbach's alphas were
.93 and .75 for physical appearance, .94 and .75 for scholastic competence, .93 and .65 for
behavioral conduct. .90 and .59 for social acceptance, and ,93 and .61 tor athletic competence).
Teacher '.v and parents ' reflected appraisals. Children's assessment of significant others'
beliefs about their competenee in five domains were measured with a scale adapted from the
TSR (Harter, 1985a). Here, children were asked to fill out a scale from another person's point
of view, one for his/her teacher and another for his/Tier parents. For example, "Your teacher
sees you like a child who does very well at his/her classwork or like a child who doesn't do
very well at his/her classwork". These two scales contain 15 items corresponding to the five
subscales tapping the same five domains of self-perception competence. Each subscale is
composed of three items. An average score of the three items was then computed with higher
score refiecting a more positive refiected appraisal. Two Principal Component Analyses with
oblique rotation (PROMAX) were conducted on the 15 items for teachers and parents
separately, 1 hese analyses revealed a five-faetor strueture for teachers but not for parents. For
the latter, the physical appearanee items did not load into a distinct factor. Consequently, we
did not take into account these items and the corresponding score. The intemal consistency for
each subscale was acceptable (Cronbach's alphas were, respectively for teachers and parents.
.68 for physical appearance. .68 and .59 for scholastic competence. .79 and ,71 for behavioral
conduct, -57 and .65 for social acceptance, and .76 and .60 for athletic competence).
Appraisal social support from teacher and parents. Children's perception of appraisal
social support from teacher and parents was assessed with the Social Support Scale for
Children (SSSC; Harter. 1985b), The SSSC is a 24-item self-report measure. It contains four
sources of support (teacher, parents, classmates and close friends). Each subscale consists of
three positive items and three negative items, for instance "Some kids have parents who like
them the way they are but other kids have parents who wish their children were different." An
average seore of the six items was then computed with higher scores refiecting a more positive
perception of appraisal social support. A Principal Component Analysis with oblique rotation
(PROMAX) was eonducted on the 24 items. It revealed a tactorial solution consistent wiih
what Harter found for this age. A three-factor structure emerged here: teacher, parents and
peers. Only teacher's and parents' appraisal social support were used in the eurrent study.
Their intemal consisteney were quite weak (Cronbach's alphas were .54 for teacher and .64
for parents). Note that one item was deleted for the parents subscale and three for the teacher
subscale. as they not only loaded on their factor but also on another factor. The correlation
between these two subscales is .26.
Procedure
Children's self-report scales were group administered in a classroom setting. Data were
collected at two time points in order not lo overload the children. The presentation order of the
scales was counterbalanced. The children were instructed on how to answer the ditferent
questions, and the experimenter told them that their results would remain confidential. The
items were read aloud and children filled out the questionnaire as the experimenter went
along. After they had eompleted all the scales, children were asked to give the scale
conceming the measure of parents" actual appraisal to their parents and to retum it when it
was filled out. Parents were requested to till out the scale together (when ihey both live in a
same place). Teachers were told to fill out the questionnaire when they wished to do so.
OTHERS' APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
253
Results
Correlations
In order to assess the relationships between teacher's and parents" aetual appraisal,
teacher's and parents' reflected appraisals, appraisal social support and reflected appraisals for
teachers and for parents, a correlation matrix was drawn up (Table 1 ).
Table 1
Correlations hetween teacher's and parents ' actual appraisal, teacher's and parents ' reflected
appraisals, appraisal social support and reflected appraisals for teacher and for parents
,^c^ua¡ appraisal
parents
with teacher
Reflected appraisals
parents
wilh teacher
Appraisal stK:ial
support wilh rellccied
appraisal for teacher
Appraisal social
suppi>rt wilh rcilecled
a^^raisal fur piircnLs
-.04
.31"
.34"
.45"
.17+
54«.
.63**
.67"
.76"
.19*
.19*
.13
.23*
,15
,52-'
,25"
,41"
Physical appeafBnce
Behavioral conduct
Swiai acceptance
Academic competence
Athletic compeicncc
„lO"
Note, *V^.UI; •ii<-,()5;twv. I».
These first results show that teacher's and parents' actual appraisals are eorrelated
although these correlations are sometime weak {rs from -.04 to .45). As far as refleeted
appraisals are concerned, children attribute in a large extent the same appraisal to their teacher
and parents (r.v from .54 to .76). Interestingly, a comparison of these last two sets of
correlation shows that children overestimate the similarity between teacher's and parents'
appraisals. The weakest presented correlations are between teacher's reflected appraisal and
appraisal social support (rs from .13 to .23). Finally, we ean observe that these correlations are
higher for parents {rs frotn .25 to .52). These last two sets of correlations are important as
reflected appraisals and appraisal social support are often supposed to assess the same
construct. Although they do appear correlated, these correlations seem a bit weak to support
the idea that they are assessing the same construct.
Test and comparison of the mediation of the actual appraisal effect on self-perception bv
appraisal .social support and reflected appraisals
We tested the following hypotheses. First, we expected that teacher's actual appraisal has
an effect on self-perception and this effect should be mediated by refleeted appraisal but only
for two specific domains: academic and behavioral eonduct. We also expected that parents'
actual appraisal has an effect on self-perception and this effeet should be mediated by reflected
appraisal for all the domains. Second, we expected that reflected appraisal should be a better
mediator than appraisal social support.
In order to test the mediation hypotheses, we conducted several mediation analyses' (for
teaeher and parents in the flve domains) following the steps suggested by Baron and Kenny
( 1986). In order to ilkistratc these analyses, the different steps of the analysis of the effect of
teaeher's actual appraisal on self-perception are represented in Figure 2. Hence, we first tested
c paths, that is. the predictor's (i.e., teacher's and parents' actual appraisals) global effect on
the outcome (i.e., self-perceptions). Seeondly. we tested a paths, that is. the predictor effect on
the potential mediators (i.e.. teacher's or parents' reflected appraisals or teacher's and parent's
appraisal social support). Thirdly, we tested h paths, that is, ihe mediators' effect on Ihe
C.NURRA&P. PANSU
254
outcome (controlling for the predictor). All these paths are tested controlling for the second
significant other- (cf. Figure 2, dotted line). For example, the effect of teacher's actual
appraisal on reflected appraisal (a¡) is assessed controlling for the effect of parents' actual
appraisal on this mediator. In order to argue for mediation, c, a, and b must be found
significant at the same time (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Teacher's actual
appraisals
c
Self-perception
_ . . - • ' ' '
Parents'
Self-perceplicin
Parents' appraisal
social support
|
Figure 2. Example of the tested model for the multiple mediation of teacher's actual appraisal
on self-perception by teacher's reflected appraisal and teacher's appraisal social
support controlling by parents' relative measures in doted lines
In addition, we tested the signifieanee of the indirect effects {a*b, a test that is equivalent
with testing the decrease in the effect of actual appraisal on self-perception once the mediator
is controlled, in other words testing the difference between c and c'). This test allows
assessing whether reflected appraisal or appraisal social support mediates the effeet of aetual
appraisal on self-perception. In order to test this indirect effect, we relied on the macro
proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) instead of the commonly used Sobel test. We did so
because this enables to test indirect effects relying on bootstrapping and the mediation
literature tells us that bootstrapping is more statistically powerful (e.g., Fritz & MacKinnon,
2007; Shrout & Bolger. 2002).
Finally, this macro allows us to test our hypothesis relating to the comparison of
mediators. Indeed, it gives the opportunity to consider several mediators at the same time and
to test whether a specific mediator is better than another is (i.e., a¡*b,>a2*b2)., again by
relying on the bootstrap methods. Therefore, with this macro we will be able to test whether
reflected appraisal is a better mediator than appraisal social support.
Test of c paths. This analysis tested whether actual appraisal has an effect on selfperception. As can be seen in Table 2. results show that it was the case only for some
domains: Teacher's actual appraisal effect on self-perception was significant only for social
OTHERS' APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
255
acceptance, b=0.244. H95)=2.30. p<.03. Parents' actual appraisal efTect on self-perception
was significant only for academic competence. /i=C.288. i(94)=2.57, /;<.O2. and social
acceptance, ¿^0.407./(95)^3.25,/j<.01. Hence, in these domains, the higher the teacher's and
parents" actual appraisals, the higher were the self-perceptions.
Test of a paths. This analysis tested whether children perceive significant others' actual
appraisal. In other words, it tested how actual appraisal is linked to reflected appraisal. These
results revealed that teacher's actual appraisal effect on teacher's reflected appraisal was
significant for academic competence, ^=O.I84, /(94)=2.21,/)<.O3, and behavioral conduet,
/)=O.23O, /(92)=2.49./;<.O2. Parents' actual appraisal effect on parents' reflected appraisal
was significant for social acceptance, /)=0.421, /(95)=3.55, p<.Q\) and was marginally
significant for academic competence. A^0.20I, i(94)=1.82. /)<.O8, and behavioral conduct,
¿=0.261, /(92)=1.72,/j<.09. Therefore, for these different combinations, the higher the
significant others' actual appraisal, the higher was the reflected appraisal. Note that for
teacher, actual appraisal effect on appraisal social support was not reliable for all the domains.
For parents, it was marginally significant only for physical ability. A=-O,2O2, r(93)=l.73,
/?<.O9, This effect, however, was in the opposite direction of what could be expected. Indeed,
in this case, a higher value of actual appraisal was associated with a lower value of appraisal
social support.
Table 2
Summarization ofthe different steps ofthe mediation analysis for the five domains and the two
significant others
c
Teacher's AA Academic competence
Behavioral conduct
S11 ¡ipt cesión
0.072
-0,007
0,069
-0,042
Social accqilance
0,244*
0,172'*'
Physical abiJiry
0,123
0,067
Physical appearance
Parctits'AA
c'
Academic competence
0,173
0,288*
0.158
0.13Rt
Behavioral conduct
0,170
0,031
Social acceptance
0,407**
0,267t
Physical ability
0 125
0.046
Teacher/academic eompeience 0,111
Parents.'physical ability
0.220''"
-0.007
(MM6
a
b
il-1-1
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
0,184»
-0,122
0,2.10*
0,041
0,070
-0,061
0,129
0.078
-0.096
0.086
0.348**
0,160*
0,29.S-*
-0,005
0,105
0,0i>5
0.312**
0,010
0.424**
0,144
0,{)65*
-0,020''"
0,067*
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
RA
ASS
0.20 i t
0,066
0,261 +
0,073
0.421**
-0.1(7
0.20]
-0,202"''
0.272**
0,221**
0,310*0,174
0,311*
0.182
0,285**
0.301**
0.054t
0,014
0,080'''
0.009
0,127*
-0,020
0,059'''
RA
RA
0,206*
0.254''"
0,348-*
O,2H5**
0,072*
0,076*
O,(X)1
0,00«
-0,006
0.03 H
0.005
-0,041
>!'¡!b,)
0,084*
0,066*
0,014
0.0.18
-0.054
0,013
0,041
0,071
0,147*
0,122*
-0.063*
_
Note. AA=actual appraisal, RA=reflected appraisal, ASS=iippraisal sociai support; Indirect ctTect=(a*b). Mediators
comrast=(a|b| vs. a2b2); Coefficient in the tableare unstandardized one (b); **/i<,01; *p<.05; \p<,\Q.
Test of h paths. This analysis tested whether the mediator had an effect on self-perception
controlling for actual appraisal. Teacher's reflected appraisal effect on self-perception was
significant for four domains: academic competence, /)^0.348. i(90)=4.31,/3<.O1, behavioral
conduct, /)-0.295, i(88)=3.30, /X.Ol. physical ability, /)=0.312, /(89), p<.OI, and physical
appearance, A=0.424, i(89)-4.09, p<.Ö\. Parents' reflected appraisal effect on self-perceptions
256
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
was signifieant for four domains: academic eompetence, />=0.272, r(90)=2.75, p<.Ol,
behavioral eonduct, /i=0.310, /(S8)-3.41./J<.01, social acceptance, /f=0,31l, /(91)=2.57,
p<.02. and physical ability, h^0.2H5. t{^9)=2.W, p<.0]. Therefore, for these different
eombinations. the higher the significant others" reflected appraisal, the higher was selfperception. The same analysis concerning appraisal social support revealed several significant
effects. Teacher's appraisal soeial support effeet on self-perception was significant for
academic competence, b=0.\60. ^(90)^2.43, / J < . 0 5 . Parents' appraisal social support effect on
self-perception was signifieant for aeademie competence, /)=0.22l, í(9Ü)=2.65, /K.Ol, and
physical ability, A=(1.2H5, /{89)=3.36. p<.0\. Therefore, for these different combinations, the
higher the signifieant others" appraisal soeial support, the higher was self-perception.
Test of indirect effect and tnediators contrast. With the following analyses, we tested two
things. On the one hand, we tested whether aetual appraisal has an indirect effect (a*b) on
self-perception through the mediators. On the other hand, we tested if reflected appraisal was a
better mediator as compared with appraisal social suppotn (ajbj vs. ajb^).
As far as teacher is concemed, the first analysis revealed that teaeher's actual appraisal
indirect effect on self-perception through refleeted appraisal was significant for academic
eompetenee. PE=0.065. Cl^,{0.Í)(i9. 0.142)'. and behavioral conduct, PE=0.i)66. a„,-(0.012,
0.166). We also found that teacher's indireet effeet through appraisal soeial support was
marginally signifieant only for aeademie eompetenee, PE--0.Q20, C/9,,(-0.057,-0.001). The
second analysis revealed that reflected appraisal was a better mediator than appraisal .soeial
support for aeademie competence, /'£=0.084, C/y,(0.024, 0.174) and behavioral conduct,
PE=0.066. r/y,(0.012, 0.173). Thus, for teacher, indirect effeets through refleeted appraisal
were larger than indirect effeets through appraisal social support for these two domains.
As far as parents are concemed, the first analysis revealed that parents' aetual appraisal
indireet effeet on self-perception through reflected appraisal was signifieant for social
acceptance, P£^I27, C/ÇÎ(0.027, 0.317). It was only marginally significant for academic
eompetenee. ^£=0.054, C/,;„(0.013, 0.137), behavioral conduct. /'£=0.080, C/y,,(0.004,
0.249), and physical ability, PE=().(i59, 0^,(0.007, 0.165). The second analysis revealed that
reflected appraisal was a better tnediator than appraisal social support for social acceptance.
P£=0.147. C/55(0.053, 0.365). and physical ability, PE=0.\22, C/y,(0.032, 0.260). Thus,
parents' indirect effects through reflected appraisal were larger than the indirect effects
through appraisal social support for these last two domains.
Additional analyses. We obser\'ed thai the effect of teaeher's aetual appraisal on selfperception was positive while the indireet effect of teacher's actual appraisal on selfperceplion through appraisal social support was significant and negative. Thus, we can
eonelude that appraisal social support is not a mediator bul a suppressor - once the appraisal
social support is controlled, the effect of actual appraisal is larger and not smaller. The satiie
conclusion can be drawn for parents' actual appraisal in the physical abiliiy domain. Since a
suppressor variable reduces the magnitude of a global effect when it is not controlled, we
tested again these global effeets but eontrolling tor appraisal social support, Results showed
that the aetual appraisal global effect for teacher is still non significant, b^Q.\ 11, /(93)=1.52,
p<.\4. Yet. it appeared marginally reliable for parents in physical ability domain, /Ï=0.220.
Conclusion on the hypotheses
Concerning the first hypothesis (i.e., domains speeificity), we ean conclude in favor of a
mediation effect when we observe a signifieant effeet of the paths c, a, b and a*b. As for
teaeher, results in aeademie eotnpetenee and behavioral conduct domains partially support the
mediation hypothesis. We found a signifieant teaeher's aetual appraisal effect on refleeted
appraisal (i/ path), a signifieant refieeted appraisal effect on self-perception (b paths) and a
OTHERS' APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
257
significant indireet effeet (a*b). Yet. we did not found a significant c path (i.e.. the global
effect of actual appraisal on self-perception was not significant) tor these two domains. As for
parents, results lead us to conclude, with some reserve, that the effect of actual appraisal on
self-perception is mediated by rctlected appraisal for the four domains: academic competence,
behavioral conduct, social acceptance, and physical ability. Note, however, that some effects
were only marginally significant: the a path and the indirect effect for academic competence
and behavioral conduct, and. the c path and the a path for physical ability. Furthermore, we
did not observe a significant effect for c path on behavioral conduct. Finally, none of the
indirect effect was significant by appraisal social support.
Conceming the second hypothesis (i.e,, comparison of mediators), we can conclude that
reflected appraisal is a better mediaior than appraisal social support when we observe a
significant contrast between the two potential mediators or when appraisal social support is a
suppressor. Our results support this hypothesis for teacher. Indeed, teacher's retiected
appraisal was a better mediator than appraisal social support for academic competence and
behavioral conduct domains, Bui. for parents, the results only partially supported our
hypothesis. We observed that retlected appraisal is a better mediator for social acceptance and
physical ability domain, but not for academic competence and behavioral conduct.
Discussion
The aim of this paper was to test Cooley's (1902) hypothesis eoneeming the constmction
of self-perceplion. that is. the mediation of the actual appraisal effect on self-perception by
refiected appraisal. According to Cooley ( 1902). the self is shaped by social interactions. From
this standpoint, significant others represent a social mirror: our self-perception is what we
imagine others think about us. In today's temi, the effect of actual appraisal on self-perception
would be mediated by refiected appraisal, Firsi. we predicted that this mediation should occur
only when children receive repeated feedback from significant others. Therefore, we
hypothesized that this mediation would occur in academic and behavioral conduct domains for
teaeher and in all the domains for parents. Second, we hypothesized that reflected appraisal
assessed in a classical way would be a better mediator than appraisal social support (with
Harter's scale. 1985b).
As a whole, despite some marginally significan! results, our data provide some support lo
our first hypothesis by suggesting that the mediation through retlected appraisal can be tbund
within specific combinations of domain and significant others. The clearest exceptions to this
general pattern have to do with the effect of actual appraisal effect on self-perceplion. We
found thai this etïeet is not reliable in the two domains where it was expected for teacher's
actual appraisals (i.e.. academic competence and behavioral conduct). This effect was also not
significant for parents in the behavioral conduct domain. Although we expected these
relationships to be significant, they were the most likely not to be significant. Indeed,
according to Shrout and Bolger (2002). this type of effect (i.e.. the c path in the mediation
analysis) being more distal ihan the other meditational paths, a larger statistical power is often
required. They further argue that this is even more so with correlational designs like ours.
They conclude that in such a case these c paths do not appear necessary to demonstrate the
existence of a mediation. Therefore, with these restrictions in mind, we could consider that our
results support the first hypothesis. As expected, there are specific others who have an impact
on specific domains depending on how much feedback these others provide to the children. In
this study it was the case for teacher in two domains (i.e., academic eompetence and
behavioral conduet). as well as for parents in the four domains under scrutiny (i.e., academic
cotnpetence, behavioral conduct, social acceptance, and physical ability).
The results obtained in this study are useful for two reasons. First, it seems possible to
predict when retlected appraisal mediates the relationship between actual appraisal and selfperception: significant others infiuence children's self-perception through refiected appraisals
258
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
only when we can suppose that they provide enough feedbaek. Second, our results extend
previous work, wliicii demonstrated that self-perception is more or less influenced by others'
perception as a ftinction of trait characteristics (e.g., trait stability, Cole, 1991) or population
characteristics (Cole, Jacqucz. & Maschman, 2001). Indeed, in addition to these
characteristics, our results reveal that it is also important to study the proper combinations of
domains and signiflcant others.
As far as the second hypothesis is concerned, our results confirm that reflected appraisal
(as it is classically measured) is often a better mediator than appraisal social support. Hence,
with only two exceptions (i.e.. parents in acadetnic competence and behavioral eonduct
domains) we found that indirect effects through reflected appraisal were larger than indirect
effects through appraisal social support. Moreover, we observed no signifieant mediation
through appraisal social support. In fact, we even found evidence that not only appraisal social
suppon was not a mediator, it happened to play the role of a suppressor twice in our data.
Taken as a whole, these results are critical because in the literature reflected appraisal and
appraisal social support are often presented as two measures of how children think others
think about them. Our results suggest, however, that these measures are not equally
appropriate to test Cooley's hypothesis. This conclusion only stands for Harter's measure of
appraisal social support, and it cannot be generalized to all appraisal social support measures.
Yet. these results are important because Harter's measure is often used to assess Cooley's
hypothesis (e.g.. Harter. 1999; Piek, Dworcan, Barret. & Colcman. 2000; Robinson. 1995).
Our study has at least two main limitations. The first issue that could be raised eoncerns
the causal relationships implied in our hypotheses. The fael that variables have not been
induced does not allow us to draw strong conclusions on this ground. We can only argue that
our results are in line with our theoretical reasoning. Still, the direction of some of these
relationships could be debatable. For instance, it can be possible that the relationship between
refleeted appraisal and self-perception is opposite to what we suggested earlier, that is. what
Felson (1989) refers to as a projection effect. We see two reasons, however, to doubt that the
projection effect would explain in and on itself the effect we observed. On the one hand,
research has shown that the same mediation we studied has already been observed in a
longitudinal design with parents in the physical ability domains (Bois et al., 2005). Although
longitudinal designs have their own issues as far as causality is concerned (e.g., a third
variable could still explain the observed relationship), it is still an argument in favor of a
eausal relationship. On the other hand, we believe that the whole mediation pattern we
observed would be less likely if a projection effect was at stake. If it was. there would be no
reason for the actual appraisal effeet on self-perception to be significantly reduced after
controlling for reflected appraisal. Therefore, although we have to be careful with our results,
they still bring important insights on how to study the mechanisms that account for the impact
of significant others' appraisal on self-perception. This comment leads us to the second
limitation.
Our first hypothesis relied on the idea that it is only when children get feedbaek from a
signifieant other that his/her judgment has an effeet on self-pereeption through refleeted
appraisal (Funder & Colvin, 1997; Jussim et al., 1992). In our study, we assumed that feedback
is actually more frequent for teacher on academic competence and behavior and on all the
domains for parents. Although this assumption seems rea.sonable, we have no data to strengthen
this argument. In addition, we know thai feedback can vary in its content (e.g.. valence) and
nature {e.g.. these feedback can suggest ways for improvement) (Nareiss, 2004). Therefore,
one might suppose that the mediation we studied may not only depend on feedbaek frequeney,
but also on other feedback attributes (as content or nature). We should also mention that
maybe feedback could influence self-perception without being perceived consciously. For
example, we have seen that for teacher in the social acceptance domain, actual appraisal had a
signiflcant effect on se If-percept ion, but we did not found an effeet of actual appraisal on
reflected appraisal, nor an effect of reflected appraisal on self-perception. This suggests that
others' aetual appraisal can sometimes aftect self-pereeption without the children being able to
perceive how others see them. Therefore, it seems that in order to go further into our
OTHERS' APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
259
hypothesis, it will be necessary to control the fact that feedback is more frequent when the
mediation occurs and to take into account feedback attributes. Doing so should be helpful to
understand the process by which significant others' appraisal influences self-perception.
Despite these limitations, this study shows how important it is to rely on the appropriate
signifieant others and domains combinations in order to understand the construction of
children self-perception. Furthermore, although peers do not seem to play a role as important
as teacher and parents with children of the age we studied here (Sarason. Pierce, Banneniian,
& Sarason, 1993). we can question iheir impact in this process. Following the same reasoning,
we can expect that their actual appraisal will also have an effect on specific domains. Future
studies should be devoted to analyzing this question.
Notes
'
Two ihings have to be noticed about ihc analyses we eonducted, Fir.sl, for each analysis, we eliminaied participants who
presenied aberrani data (outliers). To ihal end. we used studcmizod deleted residuals. Cook's dislances itnd leverage
value as indicaiors (Judd & McClelland. I^SQ). Tins melhod involves thai ihe outliers are specific tn a model (beeau.se
with these Ihree indicators, we evaluate the ouilier on X, Y. and the link between X and Y). Consequently, the iuitlicrs
detected are not the sattie in all the analyses. However, we deleted ihe sattie participants fbr the analyses of one domain
in order to tesi Ihe mediation always with the same panieipanis. Second, we lested gender a.s a moderator of ihe elTeeis.
It is not a moderator so we did noi eonsider it in our analyses.
-
Here the daia are noi independent. IndL-i?d, they can be regarded as more similar wilhin classrooms thnn between
elassrooin.s. This should be parlieiilarly true with teaeher's acUial appraisal as only one teacher jiidgcii all the
children ofone classrootn. In order to lake into aeeourtt this rton independence, we enicred the class as a eovariaie in
all otir slalistical tnodols.
Note thai bootstrapping provides poinl estimates (PC) ihat are a mean estimation of se\eral iterations of whai is
calculated (here indirect elTect and contrast comparing mediators). Their signilleanee is deieniiincd with confidence
intervals (Cl). If ihe zero is not contained in the confidence inler\al. ii means that the ptiini esiimate is signiflcanlly
(Jiiïcrenl from zero. We calculated confidence intervals for/)<.05 (a 95% confidence interval. Clijsi. WHien i( is not
significant at this point, we calculated confidence interval for/K.lO (a 90V'o confidence interval, Clqo). Menee, in ihis
first example, PE-0,Ü65. Clqj (l),0Ü9. 0,142). this, means thai on average a*b=0.065. Moreover, ihe confidence interval
al 95% docs noi includeO which tneans Ihal this PE (i.e., the indirect cftceI) is significantly different fromOat/K.O.'i,
References
Baron. R.M.. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable disiinelion in .social psychological researeh:
Coneeptual, strategic, and staiistical con.siilerations. Journal of Personality andSixiiil Psychohg\\ 51. 1173-1182,
Bois. J.E,. Sarrazin. P,G,, Brustad, R,J., Chanal. J,P., & Trouilloud, D.O, (2005), Parents" appraisals, reflected
appraisals, and children's self-appraisals of sport competence: .A yearlong study. Journal of Applied Sport
P.'.ychology. / 7. 273-289.
Boivin, M,. Vitaro, F,. & Gagnon, C, (1992), A reassessment of the SelT-Perceplion Profile lor Children: Factor siructure.
reliability, and convergent validity of a Freneh version among second through sixth grade children. International
Journal of Behavioral Development. 15. 275-290.
Bressoux. P., & Pansu, P, (2003). Quand les en.teignants Jugent leurs élèves. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Chambers, J,R., Epley, N., Savilsky, K,, & WindschitI, P,D, (20()S), Knowing loo much: Using privaie knoviledge Io
predict how one is viewed by oiher.s. Psychological Science. 19. 542-548,
Cole. DA, (1991), Change in sell-perceived competence as a liinction of peer and teacher evaluation. Dcvehpmerital
P.sychohgy. 27. 682-688.
Cole, D,A,, Ootidoli, D,, & Peeke. L. (1998). Structure and validiiy of pareni and leaeher pereepiions of children's
eompetence: A multitrait-multimethod-miilli group investigaiion. Psychological Assessment. 10. 241-249,
Cole, D.A., Jacquez, F.M., & Ma.schman, T.L. (2ü[)l), Social origins of depressive cognitions; A longitudinal siiidv ai
self-perceived competence in ehildren. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 25, 377-395,
260
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
Cole. D.A., Maxwell, S.E., & Marlin. J.M. (1997), Reflected sclf-appraisals: Strength ynd siructure of the relation of
teacher, peer, and parent ratings to children's sell-perce i ved competencies. Journal vj Educatiimat Psychology, ÄV,
55-70,
Cole, D.A., Maxwell, S.E., Martin, J,M.. Peeke. L.G,, Seroc/ynski. A.D., Tram. J.M,. Hoffman. K,B., Ruiz. M,D.,
Jacqutv, F., & Ma.schman, T, (2001), The dcvelopmeni of multiple domains of child and adolesceni self-concept:
A cohort sequcniial longiludinal design. Child Development. 12, 1723-1746,
Cook, W.L., & Douglas, E. M. ( IWH). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relafiotis analysis, .iournut t>f
Family Psycholoff.\ 12. 299-309,
Cooley, C.H, (1902), Human nature and the .social order {]')M ed,}. New York: Scocken Books,
Felson. R,B, ( 19H^). Retlccicd appraisal and the developmcnl of self. Social P.-iVchohg}' Quarterly. XV, 71-78,
Felsoti, R.B. (IV89). Parents and the reflected appraisal process: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social P.Kvehohgy, .^6, 965-971,
Friiz, M.S,, & MacKintion. D.P, (2007), Required sample si/e to delect the mediated elïeei. Pwchohgical
233-239.
Science. IH.
Funder, D.C. & Colvitt, C,R, (1997), Congruence of others' and self-judgmenis of personality. In R. Mogan. J. Johnson,
& S, Briggs (Ed^.). Handhíwk ofper.wnaliiy psychology {pp. 617-647): Academic press,
Gest, S.D., Domitrovich, CE., & Welsh. J.A. (2005), Peer academic repulation in elementary school: Ahsocialiori with
changes in self-ctincepl and academic siiiWa. Journal of Educational P.-iyehology, 97. 337-346,
Han. D,, Aikins, R,, & Tursi, N. (2006). Origins and Dcvelopmenlal Influences on Self-E.stcem, In M,H, Kemis (Ed.),
Self-esteem issues andan.swers: A sourcehook of cttrrent perspectives i,-^-[>- 157-162), New York: Psychology Press.
Harter, S. (1985a). Manual for the .telf-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Harter, S, ( 1985b). Manual for the social support scale for children. Denver. C"O: University of Denver.
Harter, S, (1999), The constniction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford,
Heller, K,, Swindle, R.W., & Dusenbury. L, (1986). Component social suppon processes: Comitients and integration.
Journal tif Consulting and Clinical Psvcholog}-. 54. 466-470.
Herbert, J,. & Stipck, D, (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children's perceptions of their academic
competence. Applied Developmental P.sychology, 26, 276-295.
Hergovich, A.. Sirsch. U., & Felinger, M, (2002), Sell-appraisals, actual appraisals and reflecled appraisals of
préadolescent children. Social Behaviour and Persotialit}\ 3U. 603-612.
Judd, C M , , & McCleiland, G.H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. New York: Harcoun Brace
Jovanovich,
Jussim, L, {1986), Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretieal and integraiive review, Psychologictil Review. V.i, 429-445,
Jussim. L., Sotiln, S,, Brown. R,, &. Kohlhepp. K, (¡992). Untiers Land ing reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from
symbolic interaction ism and cognitive evaluation theory. Journal tjf Personality and Social P.sycholog\\ (>2, 402-421.
Leary. M,R, (2006), To what extent is self-esteetn influenced by interpersonal as eompared with intrapersonal
processes? Whal are these processe.»;.' In M.H. Kcmis (Ed,), Selfesteetn I.V.VMC.V atid atiswer.^: A .wuriehook of
current perspectives (pp. 195-200), New York: Psycholog)' Press.
Malloy, T.E., Albright, L., Kenny. D.A,, Agatstein. F,. & Winquist. L. (1997), Interpersonal perception and
tnetaperception in non overlapping social groups, .hiinutl of Personality und Social Psycholog); 72. 390-398.
Markus. H„ & Cross, S. (1990). The interpersonal self. In L,A. Pcrvin (V.o.). llundhook ofpcrsonnality.
research (pp, 576-608). New York. London: The Guilford Press,
Theoiy and
Markus, H., & Wurf. E, (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social cognitive perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, }H, 299-337.
Narciss, S, (2004). The impact of informative tutoring feedback and seif-efllcacy on moiivaiion and achievement in
eoncepl leaming, E.\perimental Psychology. .'>/. 214-228,
Piek, J,P,. Dworcan. M.. Barreti, N.C, & Coleman. R. (2000), Determinants of self-wonh in children with and without
developmental coordination disorder. International Jmtmal of Disability, Development and Education, 47. 259-272,
OTHERS' APPRAISAL AND CHILDREN'S SELF-PERCEPTION
261
Preacher. K..I., & Hayes. A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for a.ssessing and comparing indirect effects
in simple and multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 40, K79-89I.
Robinson. N.S. ( 1995). Evaluating the nature of perceived support and its relation to perceived self-worth in adolescents.
Journal ofResea)Th on Adolescence, 5. 253-280.
Sarason. B.R., Pierce, G.R., Banncmian. A.. & Sarason. I.G. (1993). investigating the antecedents of perceived social
support: Parents' views of and behavior toward tlieir children. Journal of Per.wnality and Social P.sychology, 65,
1071-1085.
Shrauger, J.S., & Schoeneman. T.J. (1979). Symbolic interdctionis! view of self-concept; Trough Ihc Itwking glass darkly.
Psychological Bulletin. 86. 549-573.
Shrout, P.E., & Böiger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental sludies: New procedures und
recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7.422-445.
Wood, J.V., & Wilson, A.E. (2003). How important is social comparison, hi M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.).
Handbook of .iielf and identity (pp. 344-3fi6). New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Le but de eel article est d'étudier la construction des perceptions
de soi des enfants ¿i partir de l'hypothèse de Cootey (1902). Plus précisément, nous nous intéressons à ¡a médiation de l'effet du Jugement
des personnes signifiantes sur ¡es perceptions de soi par ¡a perception
de ce Jugement (i.e., perception prêtée)- Premièrement, nous faisons
/ 'hypothèse que cette médiation sera observée uniquement dans ¡es
domaines oii ¡'enfant reçoit des feedback d'une personne signifiante
(ici l'enseignant ou ¡es parents). Deuxièmement, nous avons pris en
compte deux mesures de perceptions prêtées pouvant être considérées
comme éi/uivaientes: une mesure dassique ct une mesure de soutien
social d'approbation (Marier, 19H5b¡. Nous faisons ¡'¡lypothése qtie les
perceptions prêtées mesurées de manière dassique seraient un tneiHettr
médiateur de l'effet du Jugetnent des personnes signifiantes sur ¡es
perceptions de ."ioi que ¡a mesure de soutien .socia¡ d'approbation. Afin
de tester ces ¡lypothèses, nous avons conduit une étude auprès de ¡26
enfants ¿îgês de 8-9 ans, de 106 parents et de sLx enseignants. Pris dans
¡eur ensemb¡e. ¡es résu¡tats voni dans ¡e .sens dc nos hypothèses.
Key words: Actual appraisal. Appraisal soeial sitppoti. Children's self-perception. Reflected
appraisal.
Received: March 2úm
Revision received December 2008
Cécile Nurra. Laboratoire In ter-Un i vers i ta i re dc Psychologic, Uiiivcrsitc de Oreiioble, France. E-mail:
cecile.nurra@univ-savoie.fr; Web site: www.lip.iiniv-siivoie.rr
Current theme of research:
Her main interest of research is about ibe constmction of self-evaliialions. She is interested in the way signiflcant others'
(namely parents, peers and teacher) actual appraisal inlluences self-evaluations. She is particularly interested in the
impact of aciual self and ideal self, and more specifically on the impact of Ihe perceplion of temporal distance between
ideal self as a goal and the present.
262
C. NURRA & P. PANSU
Most relevant publications in the field of P.\vcholog}- of Educalion:
Joet. G,. NiirTa. C . Bressoux, P,. & Pansu, P, (2007), Le jugement scolaire: Un dctemiitiatit des croyances sur soi des
élèves, Psycholngie ei Education. 3. 23-40,
Nurra, C. (2008), L'estime de soi. In M. Bouvard (Ed,). Echelles et questionnaires d'évaluation de l'enfant et de
l'adolescent (pp, 47-64). Paris; Masson,
Pascal Pansu. Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Education, Equipe Perspectives Sociocognitives,
Apprentissages et Conduites Sociales. Université Pierre Mendcs France. 1251 Avenue Centrale, BP
47, 3íí040-Grenoble, France, E-mai!: pascal,pansu@upmf-grenoble.fr
Current iheme ol research:
His main research Tocuses un social judgment norms, the evaluative knowledge and on the two fundaînental dimensions
of social judgment: swial desirability and social utiliiy. His highesl research interesis also concem teachers' judgments
and iheir effects on pupils' self-concept. They also include the impact of the siigmati/alion on cognitive perfonnances
(e.g.. school periontiances).
Most relevant publications in the field of Pxycholog\'of Education:
Bressou.\. P.. & Pansu. P, (2007), A methodological shortnole on measuring and assessing the effects of normative
clearsightedness about intcmahty. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2. 169-17B,
Dompnicr, B,. Pansu, P,. & Bressoux. P, (2007), Social utility, social desirability and scholastic judgments: Toward a
personological model of acadetnic evaluation, European Journal of Psyehology of Education. 3. 333-.T50.
Pansu. P, (2006) The intcmalit)' bia.s in social Judgments: A sociocognitive approach. In A, Columbus (Ed,). Aihances
in psychology research (vol, 40. pp. 75-110). New York: Nova Science Publishers,
Piinsu. P,. ÍSL Gilibori. D. (2002). Effect of causal explanations on work-related judgment. .-Applied Psycholog)^: An
Intertiational Review. .5/(4). 505-526.
Pansu. P.. Dubois. N.. & Dompnier. B. (2008). Intemalily-nomi theory in educational contexts, European Journal of
Psychologv of Education, 4. 3S5-397.
Pansu. P.. Bressoux. P.. & Louche. C. (2003), Theory of the social norm of intemality applied to education and
organ i/ill ions. In N, Dubois (Ed,), ,4 sociocognitive approach to social norm.': ('Çi'p. 196-230). London: Routledge.