Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing © 2015 Indian Association of Health,

2015, 6(2), 207-211 Research and Welfare

http://www.iahrw.com/index.php/home/journal_detail/19#list

Enhancement of adolescents’ self-esteem by intervention module

Veena Dani
Department of Psychology, S. N. Govt. Girls P. G. College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Self-Esteem (SE) is an evaluative component of self-concept, A person having healthy SE enjoys physical and
mental health (Brown et al., 1990; Rutter, 1992), higher levels of academic achievement (Lockett & Harrell, 2003;
Wong & Watkins, 2001) and escalated performance level (McMillan, Singh & Simonnetta, 2001). The formation
of SE and shaping of personality is of pronounced significance during the adolescent period. If adolescents are
given suitable instructions/intervention during this period; their SE levels can be elevated, which will affect their
personality development. The present study was undertaken to enhance the SE level of adolescent students by
introducing an intervention module; developed by the investigator. Initially, a purposive sample of 416 boys and
242 girls of 8th and 9th standard was taken. The Co-opersmith SE inventory (CSEI) was administered (pre-test).
Students having low levels of SE (<25%) were screened out and divided into experimental and control group
randomly (N=155). The experimental group was given intervention module for 15 sessions; each session lasted for
45 min. At the end, the CSEI was again administered on both the groups (post-test). Results are analyzed with the
help of t test. Significant differences were obtained between the pre-test and post-test SE means for experimental
groups comprising of boys and girls group, boys group, and girls group. A significant t value between the mean
SE difference for experimental and control group was also observed. These results indicated efficacy of the
intervention module. On the other hand, no significant difference was observed between the pre-test and post-test
means of the control group.

Keywords: adolescent, enhancement, self-esteem

Nathaniel Branden (1969), the father of self-esteem (SE)
philosophy, explains that SE is the integrated sum of self-efficacy
and self-respect. Sanford and Donovan (1985) opines the SE is “the
measure of how much we like and approve of ourselves.” In other
words, SE is the extent to which one approves of, values and likes
oneself. It depends on a person’s attitude, and on other areas such as
purpose of life, independency, potential for success, strengths and
weaknesses, social status, and his relationships. SE partly depends
upon an individuals’ confidence about his skills, abilities and
experiences of personal success. It also acts as a facilitator to cope
up with difficult challenges and escalates his morale to face them.
A host of studies recognize SE as an important aspect of well-
being (Rosenberg, 1985). It is also considered as an indication
of mental and social life adjustment and a mediator of adaptive
behavior (Marsh, 1993). Researchers agree that there are multiple
benefits of having a positive self-opinion. It is argued that
individuals with high SE are psychologically healthy and happy
(Branden, 1994; Taylor & Brown, 1988). On the other hand,
persons with low SE are reported to be a sufferer of psychological
distress (Tennen & Affleck, 1993). A positive correlation between
SE and achievement scores is reported (Covington, 1989; Gecas &
Burke, 1995). Research has shown that SE is associated with many
positive achievements and social behavior such as leadership
ability, decreased anxiety, and improved academic and physical
performance (Fox, 1992).
On the other hand, low SE is associated with neurosis, anxiety,
defensiveness, alcoholism and drug abuse (Keegan, 1987). It is
claimed that low SE leads to low life satisfaction, loneliness, anxiety,
resentment, irritability, depression (Rosenberg, 1985). If people
Correspondence should be sent to Veena Dani
Department of Psychology, Sarojini Naidu
Government Girls PG College, Bhopal - 462 016,
Madhya Pradesh, India. Phone: 094250‑37338;
Email: drdani@rediffmail.com, veena.dani.10@gmail.com
have low SE, they are more likely to develop self-rejection, self-
dissatisfaction and self-contempt. Chester (2005) asserted that there is
a relationship between SE, emotional intelligence, academic success,
and ultimate success in life. Looking at the importance of this construct
in day-to-day life, it is not surprising that intervention strategies have
been constructed by psychologists to uplift SE (Barrett et al., 1999;
McVey, 2004; Dalgas-Pelish, 2006; Trzesniewski et al., 2006).
However, very few studies are targeted at adolescents, who face
a very critical time especially for formation of self-concept and SE
(Harter, 1999; Hirsch & DuBois, 1991; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994).
Therefore, the present investigation is undertaken to enhance the
SE level of adolescent students. For this purpose an intervention
module is developed by the investigator, which is an independent
variable of this study, the dependent variable is the level of SE and
organismic variable is gender.
Problems
1. Whether there is a significant difference between the pre-test
and post-test means of SE for the experimental group?
2. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test and post-
test SE means of the control group?
3. Does any significant difference exist between the post-test
mean SE scores of the experimental and control group?
4. Is there any significant difference between the mean SE scores
(post-test) for boys’ and girls’ group?
Hypotheses of the study
The hypotheses formulated for the present investigation are as
under:
1. There will be a significant positive difference between the
pre-test and post-test means of SE of the experimental group,
for the boys and girls group together, for boys and for girls
(separately).
2. The pre-test and post-test SE means of the control group will
not show any difference to the significant extent.
208 VEENA/Enhancement of Adolescent’s self-esteem
3. The post-test SE means between the experimental and control
group will differ to the significant level, and experimental
group may show greater SE as compared to the control group.
4. There will be a significant difference between mean SE scores
for boys and girls group (for pre-test as well as post-test).
Method
Participants
The initial sample is selected from two schools of Bhopal. It
consisted of 416 boys and 242 girls students of 8th and 9th standard
(n=658). After gauging the base level of SE; the students having low
SE score, <25% are screened out. A total number of 155 students
(boys=91 and girls=64) are screened out for the final sample.
Instrument
Coopersmith SE Inventory (CSEI): The inventory is constructed
by Coopersmith (1981). It measures SE in four areas: Social,
academic, family and personal. The school form of this inventory
consists of 58 items. The reliability coefficient is reported as 0.86.
The validity of the test is established by computing correlation with
achievement. The coefficient is reported as 0.33 (P<0.01).
Research design
The experimental design opted for the study is pre-test, post-test
with one experimental (n=125) and one control group (n=30).
In the pre-testing condition, the initial sample (N=658) is tested
with the help of the Coopersmith SE Inventory (CSEI). The
students with lower levels of SE are screened and divided into
experimental and control group, randomly. The experimental
group is imparted the intervention module, whereas, the control
group received no intervention. The module comprises of 13
sessions, each of duration of 40-45 min. When the intervention
is over, both the groups are again assessed for SE. The design, in
short, is as follows:
Experimental group: X1 O X 2
Control group:X3  X 4
Where, X1 and X3: Pre-testing conditions,
X2 and X4: Post-testing conditions
O: Intervention module
Procedure
After seeking permission of the principles, an orientation session
is conducted for the students. The need of the study and various
steps is explained to them. Based on the pre-test scores, the student
having <25% are screened out and divided randomly into two groups,
viz., experimental and control. The students of the experimental group
are imparted the intervention module for 13 sessions. The activities
of the sessions are given below. The control group is not imparted
any intervention. After the completion of the intervention module
with the experimental group, both the groups are once again tested
on the SE inventory; to assess the changes in their SE level, if any.
The scoring is done as per the instructions led down in the manual.
Higher score is indicative of high level of SE and vice-versa.
Sessions and activities
Session 1:
1. Aim: To build rapport with subjects and win their confidence.
Introduction and overview of the program.
2. Exercise 1: Icebreaker: Baggage claim exercise.
Session 2:
1. Aim: To create an understanding of the concept of SE.
2. Exercise 2: Who am I?
3. Exercise 3: Talents and abilities.
Session 3:
1. Aim: To generate a congenial, cooperative and healthy
environment.To accept one’s strengths and limitations in equal
stride.
2. Exercise 4: To make a list of things that they really enjoy
doing.
Session 4:
1. Aim: To develop an overview of SE.
2. Theoretical session: Six pillars of SE.
3. Exercise 5: Role model.
Session 5:
1. Aim: Development of SE through various tools.
Session 6:
1. Aim: Use of audio-visual inputs.
Session 7:
1. Aim: Affirmations as a strategy.
Session 8:
1. Aim: Affirmations as a strategy.
Session 9:
1. Aim: Putting the theoretical input of sessions 5-8 into practice.
How to raise your SE: Group exercise.
Session 10:
1. Aim: Generate understanding of self and modify behavior.
Self-ability to rise SE.
Session 11:
1. Aim: To identify methods to raise their own SE.
Session 12:
1. Aim: To choose realistic and measurable goals goal-setting
activity.
Session 13:
1. Wrapping up: An overview of the program, feedback and
suggestions.
Results
The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of the
intervention module, which is constructed to enhance SE level of
adolescent students. For this purpose, the data are analyzed with the
help of test. The first hypothesis states that there will be a significant
positive difference between the pre-test and post-test SE mean scores
of the experimental group. To verify the significance of the difference
between means of the experimental group, t-tests are applied between
pre-test and post-test means of: (i) boys and girls combined group,
(ii) boys group, and (iii) girls group. The results are depicted in Table 1.
For the combined group (B+G) the means for pre-test and post-
test are 47.66 and 71.17, respectively. The mean difference is 24.51.
The t-test for correlated group is applied to the data, which accrues
to the t-value as 20.82, being significant at 0.01. Similarly for the
boys’ group the pre-test and post-test SE means are 47.28 and 72.03.
The resultant t is 25.52. For the girls’ group, the obtained value
is 11.52. All the t-values are significant beyond 0.01. Therefore,
the first hypothesis of the study is accepted. To summarize the
obtained results and to give a birds’ eye view, all the three results
are graphically represented in Figure 1.
 Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing 2015, 6(2), 207-211 209

Table 1: SE means, SD, SED and t value for pre‑test and post‑test
conditions (experimental group)
Condition N M SD SED t
Pre‑test (B and G) 125 47.66 8.11 1.129 20.82*
Post‑test (B and G) 71.17 9.53
Pre‑test (B) 69 47.28 7.99 0.97 25.52**
Post‑test (B) 72.03 8.91
Pre‑test (G) 56 48.14 8.21 1.907 11.52***
Post‑test (G) 70.11 10.14
*df=124, **df=68, ***df=55, All t values are significant at 0.01 level, B: Boys,
G: Girls, SD: Standard deviation, SE: Self‑esteem

Table 2: SE means SD, SED and t value for pre‑test and post‑test
conditions (control group)
Condition N M SD SED t
Figure 1: Mean self-esteem scores of combined group, boys group and girls
group in pre-test and post-test conditions (experimental group) Pre‑test 30 53.2 6.84 1.59 0.71*
Post‑test 30 52.07 9.27
df=29, *insignificant at 0.05 level, critical value for 0.05 level=1.96, SD: Standard
deviation, SE: Self‑esteem

Table 3: Means, SD, SED and t value for experimental and control
group
Group N M SD SED t
Experimental 125 71.17 9.53 1.89 10.11**
Control 30 52.07 9.27
df=153, **significant at 0.01 level, critical value of t at 0.01 level=2.33,
SD: Standard deviatino, SE: Self‑esteem

Table 4: SE means, SD, SED and t value for boys and

girls (experimental group)
Figure 2: Mean self-esteem scores of the experimental and control group
(post-test) Group N M SD SED t
Boys 69 72.03 8.91 1.73 1.109*
The second hypothesis states that the pre-test and post-test Girls 56 70.11 10.14
SE means of the control group will not show any difference to
df=123, *insignificant at 0.05 level, critical value for t at 0.05 level=1.96,
the significant extent. For verifying this hypothesis, t-test (for SD: Standard deviation, SE: Self‑esteem
correlated means) is applied to find out the significance of the
difference between means for the control group. The results are
shown in Table 2. The mean for boy’s group is 72.03 and for girls, it is 70.11. The
The mean SE scores are 53.2 and 52.07 for pre-test and post- resultant t = 1.11, which is insignificant at 0.05 level (Table 4). This
test, respectively. The mean difference is 1.13. The t = 0.71 is implies that there is no significant difference between the mean SE
insignificant at 0.05 levels at 29 df. Therefore, the second hypothesis scores of boys and girls group. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is
of the study stands accepted. not accepted in the present study.
The third hypothesis states that the post-test SE means between
the experimental and control group will differ to the significant Discussion and interpretation
extent, and experimental group may show higher SE score. The
The present research is aimed at developing, administrating and
t-test, for independent samples, is applied to the data. The results
are reported in Table 3. finding the efficacy of SE intervention program. It is based on pre-
The mean SE scores are 71.17 and 52.07 for experimental and test post-test design. Four hypotheses are formed, and the obtained
control group respectively. The obtained t-value, 10.11 is significant results are as under:
at 0.01 level of significance, indicating that the mean difference i. That significant positive difference is observed between the
between experimental and control group is statistically significant. pre-test and post-test SE means of the experimental group:
Thus, the third hypothesis is accepted. The mean SE scores of the For boys, for girls and boys and girls combined group. All the
groups (post-test only) are depicted in Figure 2. three t-values are statistically significant beyond 0.01 levels.
The 4th hypothesis states that there will be a significant difference Therefore, it can be surmised that there is a positive change
between post-test SE scores of boys and girls group and the girls in the SE level of the subjects belonging to the experimental
will exhibit higher SE scores. To find out the effect of gender and group. The change can be attributed to the intervention
to verify the hypothesis, t-test for independent sample is applied. instructions being imparted to the experimental group.
210 VEENA/Enhancement of Adolescent’s self-esteem
ii. That the control group has not exhibited any significant
difference between the pre-test and post-test means.
iii. That significant difference between the post-test means of
experimental and control group is observed.
iv. That no significant difference is observed between the boys’
and girls’ group for SE post-test means.
The positive effects of the intervention module on SE level
of the subjects (experimental group) became obvious to the
investigator during the course of the intervention. In the initial
sessions, the subjects performed some exercises, which involved
introspection and self-knowledge (exercise 1, 2 and 3). Due to
lack of self-knowledge and partly due to hesitation, the subjects
could mention only a few characteristics, achievements and talents.
However, toward the end of the intervention (in session 11), where
the subjects are required to perform/prepare something they are
good at; they willingly performed and could readily mention their
talents. The results point out that the intervention program has
indeed proved to be beneficial to the students; as the intervening
variables, viz., age and socio-economic factors are kept constant
(as far as possible) for both the groups. The positive effect of SE
intervention module has been demonstrated by several researches
in the past (McVey, 2004; Dalgas-Pelish, 2006; Trzesniewski et al.,
2006, Amudhadevi, & Velayudhan,2007). The results of this study
are in consonance with the above-mentioned researches.
The results also indicate that there exists no significant
difference in the mean SE scores for boys and girls. These results
are contradictory to the general trend in gender and SE research.
Most studies noted that women exhibit lower SE in general (Sanford
and Donovan, 1984; Harter, 1999). The reason can be attributed
to the fast changing psychosocial scenario of our society. During
the last decade, our social system has undergone tremendous
metamorphosis. The increasing rate of literacy and economic
independence among women has left a deep-rooted impact on their
psyche. They have their independent thinking; they enjoy their
economic independence and liberty to take their own decisions. As
a result women no longer exhibit a higher suggestibility. Their SE
is almost at par with menfolk. This escalated SE percolates even to
the adolescent girls. O’Brien, Lietzel and Mensky (1996) suggested
that gender difference is getting less prominent day-by-day.
Practical relevance of the study
SE indicates the worth an individual places on himself. It has been
reported in several studies that high SE accrues a lot of benefits.
For example, Garmezy (1984) and Glick and Zigler (1992) pointed
out that low SE leads to maladjustment; whereas, positive SE
actively seems to contribute to well-being. Several researchers have
demonstrated a positive correlation between academic achievement
and SE (Covington, 1989; Wong & Watkins, 2001; Bankston &
Zhou, 2002; Verkuyten & Brug, 2002; Lockett & Harrell, 2003).
Adams (1996) conducted a longitudinal study and indicated that
children with high SE have higher cognitive aptitudes.
The protective nature of high SE in prevention of psychological
disorders is also documented vastly. For example, high SE acts as a
buffer against development of depressive symptoms (Penninx et al.,
1998). Broers et al. (1998) indicated that high SE prior to surgery
is related to longer survival; and a key element of mental health
(Tudor, 1999).
Above mentioned studies indicate that SE is the axis of a
person’s development. Therefore, enhancing SE can consequently
lead to all round growth of an individual’s personality. Therefore,
the present investigation holds a very high practical relevance. As
is apparent from the references cited above that there are very few
studies reported by Indian researchers. It deals with adolescent
sample who are at the crossroads of development of personality.
Studies have found that one-third to one-half of the adolescents
struggle with low SE, especially in early adolescence (Harter,
1990; Hirsch & DuBois, 1991). A decrease in SE is reported when
the students move from elementary to middle school (Wigfield &
Eccles, 1994). Imparting an intervention module to the students
has proved beneficial for enhancing SE and self-confidence. This
in turn may help them further to flourish in the academic field.
The other accrued benefits are acquisition of a healthy disposition,
better interpersonal relations and positive mental state.
References
Adams, M.J. (1996). Youth in crisis: An examination of adverse risk factors effecting
children’s cognitive and behavioral-emotional development, children ages 10-16.
Dissertation Abstracts International A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 56(8-A),
331.
Amudhadevi, N.V., & Velayudhan, A. (2007). The impact of self enhancement
programme on college students. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis.
Bankston, C.L. III., & Zhou, M. (2002). Being well vs doing well: Self esteem and
school performance among immigrant and non-immigrant racial and ethnic groups.
International Migration Review, 36, 389-415.
Barrett, P.M., Webster, H.M., & Wallis, J.R. (1999). Adolescent self-esteem and
cognitive skills training: A school-based intervention. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 8(2), 217-227.
Branden, N. (1969). The Psychology of Self-Esteem: A New Concept of Man’s
Psychological Nature. Vol. 1. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing Corporation.
Branden, N. (1994). Our urgent need for self-esteem: Our responses to events are
shaped by whom and what we think we are. Executive Excellence, 11, 14.
Broers, S., Hengeveld, M.W., Kaptein, A.A., Le-Cessie, S., van de Loo, F., & de
Vries, T. (1998). Are pretransplant psychological variables related to survival after
bone marrow transplantation? A prospective study of 123 consecutive patients.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 45, 341-351.
Brown, J., & Taylor, R. (1988). Collective self-esteem and in-group bias. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67.
Brown, K.M., McMahon, R.P., Biro, F.M., Crawford, P., Schreiber, G.B., Similo, S.L.,
& Striegel-Moore, R. (1998). Changes in self-esteem in black and white girls
between the ages of 9 and 14 years: The NHLBI growth and health study. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 23(1), 7-19.
Chester, K. (2005). Emotional Intelligence and Self-Esteem: The Necessary Ingredients
for Success in the Classroom’ (K-12). EDU.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-Esteem Inventories (SEI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Covington, M. (1989). Self-esteem and failure in school: The social importance of self-
esteem. U.C. Press, Berkeley, CA.
Dalgas-Pelish, P. (2006). Effects of a self-esteem intervention program on school-age
children. Pediatric Nursing, 32(4), 341-348.
Fox, K.R. (1992). Physical education and the development of self-esteem in children.
In Armstrong, N. (Ed.), New Directions in Physical Education. Leeds: Human
Kinetics. pp. 33-54.
Garmezy, N. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block
for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111.
Gecas, V., & Burke, P.J. (1995). Self and identity. Sociological Perspectives on Social
Psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. pp. 41-67.
Glick, M., & Zigler, E. (1992). Premorbid competence and the courses and outcomes
of psychiatric disorders. In Rolf, J., Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H.,
& Weintraub, S. (Eds.), Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of
Psychopathology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 497-513.
Harter, S. (1999). The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hirsch, B.J., & DuBois, D.L. (1992). The relation of peer social support and
psychological symptomatology during the transition to junior high school: A two-
year longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(3),
333-347.
Keegan, A. (1987). Positive Self-Image-A Cornerstone of Success. Guidepost.
February, 19.
Lockett, C.T., & Harrell, J.P. (2003). Racial identity, self esteem and academic
achievement: Too much interpretation, too Lottle supporting data. Journal of Black
Psychology, 29, 325-336.
Marsh, H.W. (1993). Relations between global and specific domains of self: The
importance of individual importance, certainty, and ideals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65(5), 975.
 Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing 2015, 6(2), 207-211
McMillan, J.H., Singh, J., & Simonetta, L.G. (2001). The tyranny of self- oriented
self- esteem. Educational Horizons, 7(2), 92-95.
McVey, G.L. (2004). Evaluation of a school based program designed to improve
body image satisfaction, global self esteem and eating attitudes and behaviors:
A replication study. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 36(1), 1-11.
O’Brien, E.J., Lietzel, J., & Mensky, L. (1996). Gender Difference in the Self Esteem
of Adolscents: A Meta-analysis. Poster Session Presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Penninx, B.W., van Tilburg, T., Boeke, A.J.P., Deeg, D.J., Kriegsman, D.M., & van
Eijk, J.T. (1998). Effects of social support and personal coping resources on
depressive symptoms: Different for various chronic diseases? Health Psychology,
17, 551-558.
Rosenberg, M. (1985). Self-concept and psychological well-being in adolescence. The
development of the self. New York: Academic Press; pp. 205-246.
Rutter, M. (1992). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In Rolf, J.,
Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H., & Weintraub, S. (Eds.), Risk and
Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology. New York: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 181-214.
Sanford, L.T., & Donovan, M.E. (1984). Women and Self-Esteem: Understanding and
Improving the Way we Think and Feel about Ourselves. New York: Anchor Press/
211
Doubleday.
Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1993). The puzzles of self-esteem: A clinical perspective.
New York: Plenum.
Trzwsniewski, K.H., Donnellan, M.B. Moffitt, T.E., Robins, R.W., Poulton, R. &
Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal
behaviour, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 42(1), 381-390.
Tudor, K. (1996). Mental Health Promotion Paradigms and Practice. London, UK:
Routledge.
Verkuyten, M., & Brug, P. (2002). Ethnic identity achievement, self esteem and
discrimination among surinamese adolescents in the Netherlands. Journal of Black
Psychology, 28, 122-141.
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs, achievement values,
and general self-esteem: Change across elementary and middle school. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 14(2), 107-138.
Wong, M.S.W., & Watkins, D. (2001). Self esteem and ability grouping: A Hong
Kong investigation of the big fish little pond effect. Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 21, 79-87.
Copyright of Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing is the property of Indian Association of
Health, Research & Welfare and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.