Psychological Reporls, 2003,92,745-754.

O Psychological Reports 2003

RELATIONS AMONG PERCENED SELF-EFFICACY,

SELF-ESTEEM, AND SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT '

ANTONELLA D'AMICO AND MAUIUZIO CARDACI

Dzparfimento di Psicologia-Sezzone Snenza Cogni~iva

Via delle Scienze

Summary.-The present research explored empirically the factorial dimensions of

self-efficacy and self-esteem and asscciations among self-esteem, sell-efficacy, and scho-
lastic achievement as measured in 151 subjects (M age= 13.4 yr.). Five factors emerged
from factorial analysis: two factors reflected the self-esteem feelings (and were, respec-
tively, named as s&-referential self-esteem and comparative self-esteem). The remain-
ing three factors reflected che sell-efficacy beliefs in the three different scholastic do-
-mains considered, linguistic-literary, logical-mathematical, and technical-practical. All
self-eff~cacyscores were signihcantly correlated with scholastic achievement while n o
associacions between self-esteem scores and scholastic performance were found. Never-
theless, selt-eFficacy and selt-esteem dimensions shared some common aspects. In par-
ticular, each dfierent self-esteem factor showed different magnitudes of association
with domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs.

At present, a lot of psychological research is devoted to exploring self-

esteem and self-efficacy constructs. One problem in this research area is that
these two constructs frequently overlap (see Bong & Clark, 2000, for a re-
view). Perceived self-efficacy was defined by Bandura (1997) as "beliefs in
one's capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations." Self-efficacy beliefs and judgments are con-
cerned with individuals' perceived capabilities to attain designated types of
performance (academic, personal, and career development). Major problems
emerge in the definition of self-esteem: several authors give definitions that,
in some cases, seem to be quite different from each other. Accordmg to
James (1890), self-esteem results from the relationship between expectancies
and outcomes. Coopersmith (1967) affirmed that self-esteem is the outcome
of a series of self-evaluations that individuals form in ddferent areas of expe-
rience. Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) defined self-esteem as "a per-
son's perception of himself." Harter (1986) considered self-esteem as the out-
come both of social support and of perceived comperence in domains view-
ed as relevant by indviduals. In such approaches, self-esteem seems to be
nothing but a generalised form of self-efficacy (Pajares, 1997).
The distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy was indeed a "hot
point" for Pajares in an unpublished lecture given at Emory University in

'For correspondence, please contact Antonella D'Amico, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Via delle
Scienze, Parco d'orleans, Palermo, Italy or e-mail (adamico@unipa.it).
746 A. D'AMICO & M. CARDACI

2000': self-esteem is "a judgment of self-value, a personal evaluation of one's

self that includes the feelings of self-worth that accompany that evaluation,"
while self-efficacy is "a judgment of one's own confidence, a judgment of
capability to perform a task." Marsh, Walker, and Debus (1991) argued that
another difference between the two constructs regards the source of individ-
ual judgment. While self-efficacy judgments are focused on the individual's
specific ability to accomplish the criterion task, self-esteem judgment is
based both on social comparisons (I'm better than my friend) and self-com-
parisons (I'm better at English than at Mathematics). In spite of this theo-
retical debate, only few empirical investigations have been performed to ver-
lfy if self-esteem and self-efficacy capture independent dimensions of person-
ality. Ac present, there is some empirical evidence that the ddferences be-
tween self-esteem and self-efficacy may have been overstated. For instance,
Skaalvik and Rankin (1996) recently reported that both self-esteem and self-
efficacy items load on the same factor.
Another issue in the self-efficacy and self-esteem literature is the rela-
tions between these variables and achievement. A great number of studies
(Schunk, 1989; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Hackett , 1995; Zimmerman,
1995; Pajares, 1996; Bandura, 1997) have demonstrated that self-efficacy be-
liefs about particular achievement domains (academic, sports, career devel-
opment, and so on) are significantly correlated with subjects' performance.
Nevertheless, only a few researchers have explored in a single study the asso-
ciations among self-esteem, self-efficacy, and school achievement. Pajares
and Miller (1994) found that mathematics self-efficacy was more predictive
than mathematics self-esteem in a mathematics problem-solving task; Mone,
Baker, and Jeffries (1995) reported that self-efficacy has greater predictive va-
lidity for academic performance than self-esteem; and Chapman and Tunrner
(1995) stated that children's reading performance during their first year of
school influenced their self-efficacy beliefs more than their reading self-es-
teem. On the contrary, Marsh, et al. (1991) reported that the achievement in
mathematics has a stronger &rect effect on self-concept than on self-efficacy.
Relich (1983) reported that achievement correlated equally strongly with
self-efficacy and self-concept. Thus, the literature seems quite controversial.
To clarlfy this issue, the aim of our research was twofold: to explore empiri-
cally the factorial dimensions of self-efficacy and self-esteem and to study the
associations among self-esteem, self-efficacy, and scholastic achievement.

Pajares, F. (2000) Schooling in America: m chs, mixed messages, and good intentions. Lecture
delivered at Emory University, Cannon c{apter, January 27, 2000 [On-line] Available ar:
htrp://www.cc.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/greatteacherlecture.html.
 SELF-EFFICACY, SELF-ESTEEM, ACHIEVEMENT

Subjects
One hundred fifty-one subjects (78 boys, 73 girls) of mean age 13.4 yr.
(SD=1.1) who attended two Italian "Scuola Media" in Palermo, participated.
From a school situated in a central-residential neighborhood of the town
(middle-upper class) 79 subjects were drawn, while 72 subjects were drawn
from a school of a peripheral neighborhood of the town (middle-lower
class).
Materials and Procedure
Self-efficacyand self-esteem scale.-A questiomaire was administered to
subjects: 10 items, adapted from the Itahan version of the "Culture-free Self-
esteem Lnventory for Children" (Battle, 1996), explored self-esteem; 14 items,
prepared for the present research, explored self-efficacy behefs referring to
school achievement in Linguistic-Literary, Logical-Mathematical, and Tech-
nical-Practical topics. (In Itahan Educational "Scuola Media" Curricula, the
Linguistic-Literary area includes Italian, history, geography, and forergn lan-
guage. The Logical-Mathematical area includes mathematics and sclence.
The Technical-Practical area includes arts, physical education, technique,
and music.) The subjects, collectively tested in their schools, were requested
to choose among four alternatives (not true at all, not true, true, truest) cor-
responding to scores of 1 to 4, where low scores indicated either low self-ef-
ficacy or low self-esteem. Completing the questionnaire took about 15 min-
utes. To examine the internal consistency of initial self-esteem and self-effi-
cacy items, Cronbach coefficients alpha were calculated; for self-esteem a
was .67 and for self-efficacy .80.
Scholastic performance.-Each teacher, in the specific area taught, rated
students by assigning scores with the following anchors: 1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3
(good), 4 (very good), 5 (excellent). Then, three mean scores (Linguistic-Lit-
erary, Logical-Mathematical, and Technical-Practical scores) were compared
for each student, by averaging the teachers' ratings for each topic within
each area.
RESULTS
Factor analysis, using the principal components method, was conducted
on the 24 items to explore the psychometric properties of the global scale.
After examining the scree tesl, only components accounting for variance of
5% ( p = 5 % ) or more were considered. Five principal components emerged
and accounted for 53.2% of the total variance. To ensure each variable was
associated with a minimal number of factors and to provide the best inter-
pretation of data, the orthogonal rotation was used. After varimax rotation
only items with factor loadings greater than .30 were considered The items
and their loadings in each factor are shown in Table 1.
 4
TABLE 1 &
03
FACTORIAL
WEIGHTS
O F EACHITEM* ~ E VARIMAX
R ROTATION

Item Content Linguistic-Literary Self-rcferential Logical-Mathematical Comparative Technical-Practical

Self-efficacy Esteem Self-efficacy Self-cstcem Self-efficacy
I'm capable o € obtaining good results in
Linguistic-Literary topics.
I.think I have a talent lor Linguistic-Literary topics.
I'm capable of obtaining good results on the
Linguistic-Literary oral examination.
I ' m capable of obtaining good results on the
Linguistic-Literary written examination.
It seems to me that, evcn if I make an effort to study
Linguistic-Literary topics, 1 d o not succeed in
obtaining the hoped results.
I feel almost always unsatisfied with what I do.
If I could, I'd change many aspects of myself.
1 easily become discouraged and sad.
I havc no confidence in myself.
I often feel ashamed of mvself.
I'm ca ablc of obtaining good rcsults in Logical-
~ a t R c m a t i c atopics.
~
I think I have a ralcnt for Logical-Mathematicd topics.
I'm ca able of obtaining good results in the Logical-
~ a t i e m a t i c a loral examination.
I'm ca able of obtaining good results in the Logical-
~ a t i e m a t i c a lwritten examination.
It seems to me that, even if I make an effort to study
Logical-Mathematical topics, I do not succeed in
obtaining the hoped for results.
I feel as important as most people of my age.
I'm as strong and healthy as most people of my age.
(continued on next oaee)
 E
TABLE 1 (Com'o) l-
7
FACTORIAL OF EACH ITEM' AFTER VARIMAX
WEIGHTS ROTATION
a
Item Content Lin uistic-Literary Self-referential Logical-Mathematical Comparative Technical-Practical =!
n
8elf.efficacy Esteem Self-efficacy Self-esteem Self-efficacy 9
n
I'm as clcver as most people of my age. .64 j
V)
I like to be a boy (girl). .49 m
I'm as good-looking as mosl people of my age. r
.58 7
I'm capable of obtaining good results in Technical-
Practical topics. .75 g
2
I think I have a talent for Technical-Practical topics.
I'm ca able of obtaining ood results on the
~ectnical-practicalorafexamination. .30
.77
g
.70 9
It seems to me that, even if 1 make an effort to study
Technical-Practical to ics, I do not succeed in
obtaining the hoped L r results. .30 -.5 1 .49 i
3
Nore.-Only scores statistically significant (r > .30) are reported. *Scores of items expressed as a negative have been reverscd. 6Z
'-I
750 A. D'AiiICO & M. CARDACI

The five factors were named. The first component, accounting for the
20.5% of total variance, was named Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy. The sec-
ond component, explaining the 9.7% of total variance, was named Self-ref-
erential Esteem because the items loading this factor explored how the sub-
ject evaluates himself without explicit comparisons with others. The third
component (9% of total variance) was named Logical-Mathematical Self-effi-
cacy. The fourth component (7% of total variance) was defined Comparative
Self-esteem because it included items exploring how a subject evaluates self
through comparisons with other individuals of the same age. The fifth com-
ponent, explaining 6.7% of the total variance, was defined as Technical-
Practical Self-efficacy.
To examine the internal reliability of each factor, Cronbach coefficient
alpha was calculated: .78 for Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy, .69 for Self-ref-
erential Esteem, .74 for Logical-Mathematical Self-efficacy, .58 for Compara-
tive Self-esteem, and .75 for Technical-Practical Self-efficacy. The five factors
were considered from now on as five different subscales. In Table 2 are
shown the means and the standard deviations calculated by averaging the
raw scores of the items included in each subscale.
TABLE 2
MEANSA N D STANDARD
DEWATIONS
O F SELF-EFFICACY VAMLES ( N = 151)
AND SELF-ESTEEM

Variable M SD
Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy
Logical-Mathematical Self-efXcacy
Technical-Practical SelE-efficacy
Self-referential Esteem
Cornoarative Self-esceem

Sex and Sociocultural Dzfierences Among Five Components

To study the ddferences between groups of cldferent sex (males, fe-
males) and sociocultural level (middle-upper, middle-lower), analyses of vari-
ance have been conducted with each of the Self-efficacy and Self-esteem
variables as dependent variable.
With regard to Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy, only the main effect of
sociocultural level was significant (F,,,,, = 9.45, p < .001), with neither a main
effect of sex nor an interaction between components. Analogous results have
been found with Logical-Mathematical Self-efficacy as a dependent variable
[main effect of sociocultural level: F,,,,,=5.02, p < .05: neither a main effect
of sex nor an interaction] and with Self-efficacy in the Technical-Practical
area as a dependent variable [(F,,,,, =3.73, p < .05): neither a main effect of
sex nor an interaction]. These results indicate that subjects of upper socio-
cultural status report higher Self-efficacy scores than others, while there are
no differences between boys and girls on self-efficacy.
 SELF-EFFICACY, SELF-ESTEEM, ACHIEVEMENT 75 1

With regard to Self-referential Esteem, the analysis of variance showed

only a significant main effect for sex, indicating that girls reported self-es-
teem scores lower than those of boys (F,,,,,=4.42, p<,05). Similarly, we
found neither a main effect of sociocultural level nor an interaction between
factors. Finally, neither main effect was significant with Comparative Self-es-
teem as a dependent variable.
Relations Among Self-esteem, Self-efficacyand Scholastic Performance
To investigate the correlations among Self-efficacy, Self-esteem, and
scholastic performance, intercorrelations were examined using the scholastic
performance ratings and the scores of subjects on each of the f~vesubscales
(see Table 3). The Self-efficacy measures showed significant correlations with
scholastic performance ratings, but none between the Self-esteem measures
and scholastic performance. An association between Self-efficacy and scho-
lastic achievement is supported by our results. O n the contrary, self-esteem
appeared to be independent of scholastic performance. All correlations be-
tween Self-efficacy and Self-esteem scores were statistically significant, sup-
porting a strong association between them, even if self-efficacy and s&-es-
teem appear to be statistically independent in factor analyses.

TMLE 3
CORREUTIONS SELF-ESTEEM.AND SCHOLASTICPERFORMANCE
AMONGSELF-EFFICACY, ( N = 151)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy . 2 8 ~ .32t .17* .25t .54t .40t .44t
2. Logical-Mathemaucal Self-efficacy .20* .3lt .15* .35t .41t .28t
3. Technical-Practical Self-eFficacy .34t .25t .19* .08 .21*
4. S&-referential Esteem .21* 13 .10 .13
5. Comparative Self-esteem .OO -.07 .OO
6. Linguisuc-Literary Performance .85 .83t
7. Logical-Mathematical Performance .83t
8. Technical-Practical Performance

To study the reciprocal relations between each Self-eficacy and each

Self-esteem score after the influence of all the other considered variables were
accounted for, a partial correlation analysis was performed. As shown in Ta-
ble 4, the Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy was significantly correlated only
with Comparative Self-esteem (r = .17), while the Logical-Mathematical Self-
efficacy appears to be associated significantly only with the Self-referential
Esteem (r = .25). On the contrary, the scores on Technical-Practical Self-effi-
cacy were weakly correlated with both Self-referential Esteem ( r = .26) and
Comparative Self-esteem (r = .13).
752 A. D'AMICO & M. CARDACI

TABLE 4
PARTIAL
CORRELATIONS
BETWEEN
SELF-EFFICACY
A N D SELF-ESTEEM
VARIABLES

Variable Lin uistic-Literary Logical-Mathematical Technical-Practical

!?elf-efficacy Self-efficacy Self-efficacy
Self-referential Esteem -.01 .25f .26f
Comparative Self-esteem .17" .04 .13*

DISCUSSION
Our study sheds light on a series of controversial issues of the litera-
ture. The first aspect refers to the empirical ddference found between self-
efficacy and self-esteem. Ln the study, five independent dimensions
emerged from the factor analysis: three factors were identified as Self-effi-
cacy components, and two factors were identified as Self-esteem compo-
nents. The emergence of these latter two components indicates that individ-
uals may formulate self-judgments both in a self-referential frame and by
comparisons with peers, as claimed by Marsh, et al. (1991). The two self-es-
teem factors are also somewhat parallel to the Lndependent and Interdepen-
dent Self-construal factors of Singelis (1994; see also Sharkey & Singelis,
1995; Singelis & Sharkey, 1995) as, the independent self-construal factor is
defined as a "bounded, unitary, stable self separate from the social context",
and interdependent self-construal is defined as a "flexible and variable self"
subjected to the environmental influences and to the evaluation of others.
The scores on the five factors were not equally distributed by sociocul-
tural status or sex. Ln the three self-efficacy domains considered, subjects be-
longing to the lower sociocultural status reported lower self-efficacy than
subjecrs of [he same age belonging to the higher sociocultural status. On the
contrary, ddferent sociocultural groups showed no differences on the two
self-esteem scores. Self-esteem may be a global feeling, independent of the
context. No differences on Self-efficacy and Comparative Self-esteem scores
were found. Nevertheless, girls had lower Self-referential Esteem scores than
boys. A similar result has been reported by many authors (e.g., Blyth, Sim-
mons, & Carlton-Ford, 1983; Nottelmann, 1987), and it is generally attrib-
uted to specific srdges m physical and sexual development of girls and boys.
Another interesrmg result emerged from the correlations as scores on
each self-efficacy factor were significantly correlated with scholastic achieve-
ment, but not between self-esteem scores and scholastic performance.
These results, taken altogether, stress the differences between the defi-
nitions of self-efficacy and self-esteem: while self-efficacy is a contextual
learning process acquired from ddferent environmental and objective sources,
as are the scholastic outcomes (and sociocultural status), self-esteem judg-
ments rely on a more ~ersonaland subjective framework which could vary
 SELF-EFFICACY, SELF-ESTEEM, ACHIEVEMENT 753

significantly within each person. Nevertheless, these factors share some com-
mon aspects, as indicated by the correlation and partial correlation analyses.
In fact, Linguistic-Literary Self-efficacy was associated only with the compar-
ative self-esteem. On the contrary, Logical-Mathematical Self-efficacy was as-
sociated only with Self-referential Esteem. Finally, self-ratings of efficacy in
managing technical-practical activities, like physical education, technology,
music, and arts, was associated with both the self-referential and compara-
tive self-esteem.
In conclusion, our study stresses that each different aspect of Self-es-
teem, i.e., Comparative Self-esteem or Self-referential Esteem, shows differ-
ent magnitudes of association with domain-specific aspects of Self-efficacy.
These results could be considered in accord with Pajares's statements (1997)
that beliefs regardmg confidence are part of the in&vidualYs Self-concept
(Self-esteem), and with Bong and Clark (2000) who affirmed that self-effi-
cacy is a relatively unidimensional construct, while Self-concept (Self-esteem)
embraces a broader range of descriptions of oneself that include both evalu-
ative and affective reactions.
REFERENCES
BANDURA, A. (1997) Segeficacy: the exernie of control. New York: Freeman.
BATTLE, A. D. (1996) Culture Free Self-esteem Inventory for Children. In P. E. Tressoldi & C.
Vio (Eds.), Diagnosi del disturbi delf'apprendimento scolartico. Trenton, N J : Erickson. Pp.
145-147.
B L ~ D., A,, SIMMONS, R. G., &CARLTON-FORD, S. (1983) The adjustment of early adolescents
to school transidons. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 105-120.
BONG,M., &CLARK, R E. (2000) Comparison benveen self-concept and self-eficacy in aca-
demic motivation research. Edrrcatiorzal Psychologis!, 34, 139-154.
CHAPMAN, 1. W., & TUNMER, W. E. (1995) Reading self-perception and beginning reading
achievement of first- ear school children. Paper presented at the meecing of the American
Educational ~ e s e a r cAssociation,
i San Francisco, CA.
C O O P E R S MS.I (1967)
~, The antecedenf of seFesfeem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
HACKETT,G. (1995) Sell-efficacy in career choice and development. Ln A. Bandura (Ed.),SelJ-
e b c y in changing societies. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 232-258.
HARTER, S. (1986) Process underlying the construcuon, maintenance, and enhancement of the
selF concept in children. In J . Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspective on
the self. Vol. 3. Hdsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 137-181.
JAMES, W. (1890) The prinaples of psychology, Vols. 1 & 2. New York: Holt.
~ R S H H. ,W., WALKER, R., &DEBUS,R. (1991) Subject specific components of academic self
concept and sell-efficacy. Contemporary Edzrcational Psychology, 16, 331-345.
MONE,M. A., BAKER, D. D., & JEFFRIES. F. (1995) Predictive validiry and time dependency of
self-e£ficacy, self-esteem, personal goals, and academic Educafiorzal and Pry-
chological Measrrremenf,55, 716-727.
MULTON, K. D.. BROWN, S. D., &LENT, R. W. (1991) Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to aca-
demic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. ]orrrnal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-
38.
NOTTELMANN, E. D. (1987) Competence and self-esteem during cransidon from childhood to
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 441-450.
PAJARES,F. (1996) Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,
543-578.
PAJARES, F. (1997) Current direcuons in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich
754 A. D'AMICO & M. CARDACI

(Eds.), Advances in mofivotion and achieve men^. Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp.
1-49.
PAJARES,F., &MLLLER, IM. 0.(1994) The role of self-efficacy and self-conce t beliefs in mathe-
matical problem-solving: a path analysis. Jotrrrral ofEd~tco~iorm1
~ s y c h o ~86,
~ y193-203.
,
RELICH.1. D. (1983) Attribution and its relation to other affective variables in y d i c t i n g and
inducing arithmetic achievement: an attributional approach to increased se eff~cacyand
achievement in arithmetic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Sydney.
SCHUNK, D. H. (1989) Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educafiorzal Psvchology Reuiew,
1, 173-208.
SHARKEY, W. F., &SINGELIS, T M (1995) Embarrassability and self-construal: a theoretical inte-
grarion. Personality arid lr~diuidrrolDifferences, 19, 919-926.
SHAVELSON. R. J., HUBNER, j j . & STANTON, G. C. (1976) Self-concept: validation of construct
interpretations. Review oj Edrrcofional Research, 46, 407-441.
SINGELIS, T. M. (1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Persorzality and Son01 Psychology Bzilletin, 20, 580-591.
SINGELIS, T. M., & SHARKEY, W. F. (1995) Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. Jourrral
of Cross-Culfzrral Psychology, 26, 622-644.
SKAALVIK, E. M., &RANKIN, R. 1. (1996) Self-concept and self-efficacy: conceptual analysis. Pa-
per presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York.
ZIMMERMAN, B. 1. (1995) Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-
efficocy in charzging socie/ies. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 202-23 1.