how do they see themselves: assessing the self-concepts of hong kong young people in a cosmopolitan...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
How do they see themselves: Assessing the self-concepts of Hong Kong
young people in a cosmopolitan context
Christopher H K Cheng, PhD
City University of Hong Kong
“Understanding Hong Kong Youth Symposium”
The Eighth International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, July 10-14, 2002, Hong Kong.
Outline
Part 1: How do Hong Kong young people see themselves?
• Content structure (configuration) of self-concept• Age and gender characteristics
Part 2: Comparing the self-concept of young people from three cosmopolitan cities: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia
General
Self-Concept
Social
Self-Concept
Emotional
Self-Concept
Physical
Self-Concept
Academic
Self-Concept
English History Math Science
General:
Academic and Non-Academic Self-Concept:
Subareas of Self-Concept:
Peers Significant
Others
Particular
Emotional
States
Physical
Ability
Physical
Appearance
Evaluation of
Behavior in
Specific
Situations:
Shavelson et al.’s (1976) model of self-concept
Configuration of Hong Kong Adolescents’ Self-Concept
• Emic and qualitative approachConsiderations:• Potential “imposed etic” problem of impo
rted scales• Cultural sensitivity and validity (use of la
nguage?)• Psychmetric properties (Berry, 1980; Bochner, 1994; Hui & Triandis, 1985; Mark
us & Kitayama, 1991; Yang & Bond, 1990)
Assessing the Self
• From the talks and written responses to the classical “Who Am I” procedure (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954), a number of self-descriptors categories were generated.
Appearance & AttractivenessAppearance & Attractiveness
肥瘦高矮、四眼(帶眼鏡)、身材好、樣子甜美、醜樣
Physical & Non-acaPhysical & Non-academic abilitiesdemic abilities
身體弱 / 強、健康、喜歡游泳、反應快、有音樂天份
Family relationsFamily relations
關心家人、喜歡和家人一起、不想講我屋企人
Academic abilitiesAcademic abilities
成績普通、老師成日針對我、沒有進步、不能升預科
General intellectual abiGeneral intellectual abilitieslities
記性好、醒目、富創作力、蠢、聰明、有分析力 Academic attitude Academic attitude
& orientation& orientation
有恆心、上堂留心、心散,不專心上課、有上進心
Rule-abiding, selRule-abiding, self disciplinef discipline
情緒化、脾氣差、有耐性、做事有原則、無厘頭
Virtues & ConductVirtues & Conduct
不貪心、為人誠實、有責任心、為人著想、對人坦白、心地善良、老實 Social skillsSocial skills
口材好、有幽默感、害羞、廣結朋友、不曉得與人溝通
Social relationsSocial relations
有義氣、齊齊玩、「八卦」、不合群
Social mannerSocial manner
文靜、斯文、大方得體、儀態得體、有禮貌
PersonalityPersonality
開朗、活躍、文靜、被動、內向 / 外向
Filial pietyFilial piety
尊敬老人家、聽父母話、激父母、亂「洗」父母錢、孝順
GeneralGeneral
失敗、有自信、獨特、信自己
General
Self-Esteem
Physical
Self
Social Self
Family Self
Intellectual Self
Moral Self
Physical Attractive-
ness
Sport &
Physical abilities
Discipline & Self-Control
Social relations
Social Skills
Family Relations
Filial piety
Academic abilities
Intellectual abilities
Virtue &
Conduct
Altruism
A conceptual structure of Hong Kong adolescents’ self-concepts.
The CASES
• Based on the content analysis of the emic study, through vigorous instrumentation procedures, a measuring instrument called the Chinese Adolescent Self Esteem Scales (CASES) was developed.
Scales No. of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
General 8 .82
Social 10 .83
Intellectual 10 .81
Appearance 8 .81
Moral 8 .80
Family 8 .83
Physical/sport 8 .89
Total 60 .93
Table 1: Means, SD, and Internal Consistency Reliability of CASES
N=558
The CASES
• Testing the measurement models (i.e. the conceptual structure that the CASES measures) – SEM using LISREL
• One general factor or multiple factors?
• How many? One level or hierarchical?
General
Physical Appearance
Social
Moral
Family
Sport and
Physical AbilitiesIntellectual
Family
Sport & Physical Abilities
Moral
Intellectual
General
Social
Physical Appearance
Model * 2 d.f. 2/d.f. CFI NNFI RMSEA
M1: One general factor model
3029.39 349 n/a .597 .564 .117
M2: First order six correlated factors model
1369.70 335 118.55 .845 .825 .0745
M3: First order seven correlated factors model
767.65 329 100.34 .934 .924 .0489
M4: Hierarchical seven correlated factors model
802.70 338 3.89 .930 .922 .0497
* M2: Six-factors model formed by combining Physical Appearance and Physical/Sports Abilities to one factor.
* M4: Hierarchical model formed by the General Self scale at the apex with the six domain-specific scales at the base, all seven factors were correlated.
2/d.f. (Ratio of the differential chi-square to differential degrees of freedom) was obtained by comparing the differential statistics between the said model and the preceding model. A statistic of 6.63 and 3.84 is deemed to be significant at .01 and .05 significance levels respectively.
Table 2: Goodness-of-fit statistics of CASES competing models
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Structural Equation Modeling)
Confirmed:
• Six domain specific factors and one general factor
• Hierarchical model supported
General Self
Intellectual Self
Social Self
Moral Self
Family Self
Physical Appearance Self
Physical Abilities & Sport Self
Structural Model of the CASES
General Social Intellectual Appearance Moral Family Physical
General 1.0
Social .64 1.0
Intellectual .81 .55 1.0
Appearance .77 .52 .62 1.0
Moral .49 .45 .39 .40 1.0
Family .39 .30 .29 .31 .34 1.0
Physical/Sport .48 .37 .44 .49 .20 .21 1.0
*All coefficients significant at p<.01, and were obtained by LISREL.
Table 3: Correlation between latent factors of the CASES (Hong Kong sample)
Age Groups
Scales 11-13 14-15 16-17 18-20 F-tests
General 4.43 4.43 4.48 4.44 .15 ns
Social 6.01 6.05 5.97 5.82 1.38 ns
Intellectual 4.29 3.98 4.14 4.19 3.36 *
Appearance 3.90 3.97 3.98 4.04 .52 ns
Moral 4.57 4.61 4.88 5.04 11.84 *
Family 4.80 4.86 4.93 4.93 .66 ns
Physical/Sport 4.19 4.12 4.23 4.18 .65 ns
* p < .01, d.f.=1, 829ns = non-significant
Table 4: Age Differences on Multiple Self-Concepts
Age Differences
Age Trends in Moral Self and Intellectual Self
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
11-13 14-15 16-17 18-20
Age
Mea
n
Intellectual
Moral
Age Differences
• Moral self increased with age (linear contrast significant)
• Intellectual self changed in a quadratic fashion – rapid drop from age 12 to age 14 (i.e. F.1 to F.3), then some recovery in higher forms
Scales Boys Girls F-tests
General 4.56 4.36 7.63 *
Social 5.91 6.05 3.25 ns
Intellectual 4.13 4.12 .01 ns
Appearance 4.12 3.85 14.96 *
Moral 4.64 4.85 11.37 *
Family 4.77 4.98 8.24 *
Physical/Sport 4.66 3.85 77.99 *
* p < .01, d.f.=1, 829ns = non-significant
Table 5: Gender Differences on Multiple Self-Concepts
Gender Differences
Self-Concept Means of Boys and Girls
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
Self-Concept Facets
Mea
ns
BoysGirls
Boys high:Physical self-concepts
(incl. appearance & physical abilities)
General self-esteem
Girls high: Moral self-concept
Family self-concept
~ similar levels in Social Self and Intellectual Self ~
Comparing the self-concepts of young people from three
cosmopolitan cities: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sydney
ScalesAustraliaM(s.d.)
SingaporeM(s.d.)
Hong KongM(s.d.)
F-tests
General 4.32(.93) 4.09(.93) 3.49(.93) 49.60*
Social 4.02(.77) 3.89(.77) 3.31(.78) 58.08*
Intellectual 3.34(.93) 3.47(.93) 3.03(.93) 14.21*
Appearance 3.37(.87) 2.98(.87) 2.88(.87) 19.54*
Moral 4.34(.71) 4.14(.71) 3.50(.70) 92.72*
Family 3.18(.87) 4.04(.87) 3.45(.87) 59.12*
Physical/Sport 3.80(1.19) 3.47(1.18) 3.30(1.12) 10.38*
Notes:
All multivariate tests (Pillai’s, Wilks, Hotelling’s) significant at p<.001.
* p< .01, N(Singapore)=249, N(Australia)=211, N(Hong Kong)=251, d.f.=2,708
# Post-hoc tests of the underlined pairs were non-signficant, all other pairwise comparisons were significant at p<.01.
Table 6: Comparing the multiple self-concepts across Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong
Comparing young people in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia
General self-esteem Physical self-concepts
(appearance and abilities)
Social & Intellectual self-concepts
Moral Self Family Self
Reflection 1:Developmental Differences
Intellectual Self shows a clear drop from F.1 to F.3, then some recovery from F.4 onward, similar to other research (e.g. Cole et al., 2001; Lau, 1990; Marsh, 1989)
• Physical, cognitive, social transitions: Educational transition can be detrimental (Cole et al., 2001; Harter, 1998)
Moral Self shows a linear rise: consistent with cognitive development (from concrete to formal operations), i.e. adolescents are becoming more confident of their moral/ethical selves during their maturation
But no significant changes in other facets (incl. general self-esteem) – quite stable
Reflections 2: Gender Differences
Consistent with gender-role stereotypes, but boys tend to have higher general self-esteem
• Social desirability of masculine stereotypes?
• Impacts of the new secondary school placement allocation (SSPA) system?
Reflection 3: Challenges
Self-concepts of H.K. youth rather low but not entirely grim, e.g. similar to Singapore youth in family and physical self-concepts (incl. appearance & abilities)
• Need to note the weak facets – in particular intellectual & social self-concepts (academic pressure? peer’s acceptance? self-expectation and parent’s aspiration?)
• More work on enhancing self-esteem and self-efficacy in these facets is necessary (Note: enhancing specific facets will automatically enhance general self-esteem)