a study to investigate the relationship between self esteem

ijcrb.webs.com INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

134

OCTOBER 2011 VOL 3, NO 6

A STUDY TO INVESTIGATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM

AND MORAL JUDGMENT

Sumaera Mehmood

M.Phil (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan

Nasir Ahmad

PhD scholar (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan

Shafqat Hussain

PhD scholar (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan

Kiran Joseph M.Phil (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract The current research was undertaken to investigate the relationship between self-esteem and

Moral Judgment among students. The study sample consisted of 81 students and the data

were collected from 3 different schools (i.e. Asif Public School, House of Secondary

Education and Al-Ameen Public School Rawalpindi). The sample consisted of students of

ages 13 to 18 years. Self-esteem Scale of Raffia(1999), comprising 29 items, was used to

measure self-esteem while the Urdu version of Padua Moral Judgment scale, originally

developed by Anna L. ( Communion & Uwe P. Gielen 2001), was used to measure moral

judgment. Padua Moral Judgment Scale was a 28 items objective test grouped in four parts.

Eleven social values are assessed in the scale including contract, affiliation, life, property,

law and legal justice. It was hypothesized that high levels of self-esteem result in high

levels of moral judgment but results of the present research showed that higher stages of

moral judgment are not related with High Self-esteem.

Key Words: Self Esteem, Moral judgment

Introduction

Self-esteem is a significant constituent of personality. It is a way of assessing one’s

feelings, values, attitudes, fears, strengths and weaknesses (Burger & Schonoling, 1993).

This refers how we feel about ourselves or how we value ourselves. Self-esteem is a key to

success in life. Although children cannot articulate a concept of self-worth until about age

eight, they show by their behavior that they have one. Self-esteem at this stage tends to be

global such as “I am good” and may depend on adulthood approval. As children grow up,

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools

http://www.pdfill.com



135


evaluation of competence and adequacy becomes critical in shaping and maintaining a

sense of self-esteem or self worth. The development of Self-esteem is more affected by

other’s opinions and appraisals (Harper, Burkhans, and Dweek, as cited in Papalia, 1998).

Self-esteem plays an important role in one’s nature and the degree of one’s Self-esteem

ranges from high Self-esteem to low Self-esteem. It has an important part of a person’s

personality. It is the relative balance of positive and negative feeling she/he has about

himself/herself. It may be greatly influenced by certain aspects of one’s appearance and

background, or skills that are considered socially important. These features became

influential for children because they may seem to be sources of acceptance or rejection by

others (Mickinng, 1976).

People have a different view and concept about the universe, the place of man in it that

leads to various systems of ethics, philosophy and reality. Thus, most often human

relationship to the universe is described in terms of one’s ethics, moral values, ideals,

religions, which interrelate to and overlap each other. It is not hard to appreciate why ethics

is vitally relevant to every person on the planet. Assessment of other people’s character is

perhaps one of the most important moderators involved in interpersonal interaction such

assessments are based on evaluation of the moral trajectories of individuals (Kupperman

1991). Ethic is a code of values that guides our choices and actions. Essentially, it asks and

attempts to answer the questions “what is the purposes of my life?” and “how do I go about

achieving it?” The actions to answer it are conditional and motivated by some purpose.

Hence it gives rise to the term morality that refers to the code of values each of us uses to

decide on the choices and actions we make (Honderich, 1995). American Heritage

Dictionary (2002) defines morality as “a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct”. A

moral sense is inborn in man and through the ages it has served as the common means of

standard moral behaviors, approving certain qualities and condemning others. While this

instinctive faculty may vary from person to person, human conscience has consistently

declared certain moral qualities to be good and others to be bad. Justice courage and

truthfulness have always found praise. Similarly, in assessing the standards of good and bad

in the collective behavior of society as a whole, only those societies have been considered

worthy of honor which have possessed the virtue of organization, discipline, mutual

attention and compassion and which have established a social order based on justice,

freedom and equality (Mavldudi, 1948).

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




136


As human beings, we live our lives in groups. Because we are interdependent, one person’s

activities can affect the welfare of others. Consequently, if we are to live with one another --

if society is to be possible -- we must share certain conceptions of what is right and what is

wrong. Each of us must pursue our interests, be it for food, shelter, clothing, sex, power or

fame, within the context of a moral order governed by rules. Morality involves how we go

about distributing the benefits and burdens of a cooperative group existence (Eisenberg,

Reykowski & Staub, 1989: Wilson, 1993). Moral development refers to the process by

which children adopt principles that lead them to evaluate given behaviors as “right” and

others as “wrong” and to govern their own actions in terms of these principles. If media

interest is any indication, many Americans are quite concerned with the moral status of

contemporary youngsters. And they look to the school to teach values to fill what they seem

to be a “moral vacuum”.

Historically, there have been three major philosophical doctrines regarding the

moral development of children. One is the doctrine of “original sin”, favored by theologians

such as Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430). According to the view, children are naturally

sinful beings. As such they require redemption through the deliberate and punitive

intervention of adults. Another view, put forward by John Locke (1632-1740), maintains

that the child is morally neutral- a tabula rasa- and that training and experience determine

whether the child becomes righteous or sinful. The third doctrine, represented by the

writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), holds that children are characterized by

“innate purity” and that immoral behavior results from the corrupting influence of adults.

The Lickona model (1983) proposes a four components program designed to

facilitate moral behavior. The four components include self-esteem, cooperative learning,

moral reflection, and participatory decision-making. Lickona has collected data that

demonstrate that the systematic use of this model produces an increase in moral behavior

among students. Lickona (1983) defines self-esteem as a student’s sense of mastery or

competence. He contends that showing students that you respect their uniqueness as an

individual is powerful tool to raise their self-esteem. Higher self-esteem, writes Lickona,

leads to the greater likelihood of moral behavior. Meriwether (2003) in his article has

maintained that sanctions based upon emotional well-being or upon self-esteem are

insufficient for motivating consistent moral behaviour, and they reduce ultimately to

hedonism. This is also the case even in the hypothetical event that all moral action results in

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




137


heightened self-esteem, and all immoral action results in lower self-esteem (Meriwether,

2003). The present study attempts to measure the relationship between self-esteem and

moral judgment. It attempts to show that if a teacher respects the uniqueness of a child

his/her moral judgment is also high. Higher self-esteem leads to greater likelihood of moral

judgment. But the result of this study shows a different picture of this model.

The present study has enormous implications in the field of personality psychology. The

purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-esteem and moral

Judgment.

The study aimed at the following objectives:

i. To find out the relationship of demographic variables with self-esteem and stages of moral

judgment of the secondary school students.

ii. To investigate the effect of high self-esteem on the stages of moral judgment of secondary

school students.

iii. To examine the effect of age difference on the stages of Moral Judgment and Self-esteem of

secondary school students.

iv. To explore the effect of number of siblings on the stages of moral judgment and self-esteem

of secondary school students.

v. To find out the effect of parental income on the stages of moral judgment and selkf-esteem

of secondary school students.

vi. To analyze the effect of gender difference on the stages of moral judgment and self-estem

of the students of secondary school students.

vii. To recommend practical measures for the high-ups in the light of the findings of the study.

The following hypotheses were formulated and translated in this study.

i. High self-esteem is positively correlated with moral judgment.

ii. Moral judgment and Slef-esteem amoung school childern differs on the basis of

gender difference.

iii. Children who have less number of siblings shall have high level of moral values

and Self-esteem as compared to children with more number of siblings.

iv. Self-esteem and Moral Judgment differs on the basis of student’s age difference.

v. High and low levels of parents’ income will have effect on children self-esteem

and stages of moral judgment.

vi. Higher self-esteem will lead to higher moral judgment

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




138


METHODS

The research design employed in the present study was the social survey. The basic

idea behind the survey methodology is to measure variables by asking people questions and

then to examine relationships among the variables. Surveys attempt to capture attitude or

patterns of behavior. The present survey used the cross-sectional design, which asks

questions of students at one point in time. It was a small-scale survey involving probability

sampling, and a sample size of 81 respondents.

The sample of the study was randomly taken from the following public schools of

Rawalpindi.

i. Asif Public School

ii. House of Secondary Education

iii. Al-Ameen Public School

Two questionnaires were used to obtain information from the sample about the

relationship between self-esteem and moral judgments scales.

i. Repharezed version of Self-esteem

ii. Padua Moral Judgment Scale

Data were analyized through different tests i.e. T test, Mean, Standard Deviation,

ANNOVA, Pearson “r” Percentages.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES

Self-esteem

Self-esteem scale was at four point rating scale. This scale was taken from Qaid-e-azam

University. The self-esteem scale used to assess the self-esteem of the respondent. There

were 29 items the four response categories extremely true, some what true, neither true nor

false, and extremely false. Moral Judgment

Urdu version of Padua Moral Judgment scale was used which was originally developed by

Anna L. (Communion & Uwe P. Gielen 2001). It was a 28 items objective test grouped in

four parts. Eleven social values are assessed including contract, affiliation, life, property,

law and legal justice. Each part consists of seven items (each items indicate a specific stage

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




139


and mixed stage of Gibbs theory of moral Judgment) whose answer on four points rating

scale ranging from strong disagree to agree. For scoring, one score was assigned to strongly

disagree and four score was assigned to strongly agree. It also has two open ended

questions. Item no.1, item no.5, item no.7, item no.9, item no.10, item no.11, item no.15,

item no.17, item no.21, and item no.23 belonged to stage2 according to Gibbs Theory. And

item no.3, item no.13, item no.18, item no.20, and item no.24 belonged to stage1 according

to Gibbs Theory. While item no.4 and item no.27 belonged to stage3, according to Gibbs

Theory. And item no.2, item no.6, item no.8, item no.12, item no.14, item no.16, item

no.19, item no.22, item no.25, item no.26, and item no.28 belong to stage4 according to

Gibbs Theory.

RESULTS

Low, Moderate, and High Self-esteem Scores of the Students (N=81)

Groups N

Low Self-esteem 33

Moderate Self-esteem 29

High Self-esteem 19

This table shows low, moderate, and high self-esteem scores of the students. The number

student’s whose self-esteem was very high is very low while the number of students having

low self-esteem is high. All items were positive. High scores on the scale reflect a higher

self-esteem. Scores were divided into three groups, scores for low self-esteem ranged from

44-57, moderate self-esteem from 58-71 and high self-esteem from 72-98.

Significance of the Difference between Mean Self-esteem of Male and Female

Students’ Scores.

Gender N Mean SD t P

Male 48 64.16 11.48

Female 33 58.88 11.01

2.07

>.05

df=79, t at.05=1.99

Table 6 shows the mean Self-esteem scores of the male and female students. The

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




140


results of the table shows that there was a significant difference between mean self-esteem

of male and female students. Self-esteem level was a higher among male as compared to

females. Females have a low level of self-esteem as compared to males.

Mean and Standard Deviation of the Scores of Different Stages of Moral Judgment

Scores of the Sample. (N=81).

Stages Mean SD

Stage 1 13.01 3.29

Stage 2 27.27 4.32

Stage 3 6.51 1.18

Stage 4 33.16 4.10

Table 12 shows the mean scores of Moral Judgment stages. The result of the table

shows that student in stage-4 are more developed as compared to stage-1, stage-2, and

stage-3.

Significance of Correlation between Self-esteem Scores and Stages of Moral Judgment

Scores.

Stages Person r P

Stage 1 0.08 0.47

Stage 2 -0.11 0.30

Stage 3 0.18 0.10

Stage 4 -0.06 0.57

df=79, r at 0.05=0.217

The result of the table shows that there were no relationship between Self-esteem and moral

judgment. But as compare to other stages, stage-3 was statically correlated with self-esteem

as compared to other stages.

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




141


Stages with Frequency of Students at Each Stage of Moral Judgments.

Stage1

No %

Stage2

No %

Stage3

No %

Stage4

No %

Total

No %

20 25% 11 14% 26 32% 26 32% 81 100%

Table 14 shows that mostly (32% each) the students were at stage-3 and stage-4 as

compared to other stages (i.e. stage-1 and stage-2).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the above findings, the followings conclusions were made:

i. No relationship was found between self-esteem and moral judgment.

ii. No self-esteem differences were found between younger and older students. And

also, no consistent differences in stages of moral judgment were found among

younger and older students.

iii. Significant self-esteem differences were found between male and female

students. Also, real moral judgment differences were found between the male

and the female students at stages 3 and 4; whereas, they did not differ at stages 1

and 2.

iv. The Self-esteem and Moral Judgment scores differences between the low and

high-income groups were found non-sifnificant.

v. No differences of self-esteem and Moral Judgment were found among students

with fewer and more number of siblings.

vi. A greater number of students were on stage-3 and stage-4 in Moral Judgment

scores.

vii. Majority of students were having low levels of self-esteem.

viii. Stage-1 (13 to14 yrs olds) and stage-3 (16 yrs olds) group percentage was low as

compared to other stages (stage-2 and stage-4) so that results show those

students were developed in some stages of Kohlberg’s and Gibb’s stages.

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




142


DISCUSSIONS

The present research aimed to analyze the relationship between self-esteem and moral

judgment. The main purpose was to determine the correlation between self-esteem and

moral judgment. To achieve this purpose, two instruments were administered to measure

self-esteem: 1) self- esteem scale (of Riffai 1999) 2) translated version of Padua Moral

Judgment scale (PMJS) (of Ann.L.Comunian & Gielen, 2001).

The psychometric properties were determined for both the scales, which proved to

be satisfactory. The inter items of both the scales indicated a high internal consistency with

the total of both the scales.

Kohlberg (1987) proposed that this theory of moral development is cross culturally

valid. The universality of the stage theory of moral development was also put into test by

many other researches (e.g. Gielen, 2001; colboy and Kohlberg, 19887). For the present

research Gibbs’s (1992) revised four stage moral development model was used (as later

researches using Kohlberg’s theory in different cultures found no claims for stage 5 and

stage 6. Miller 1990 and Gardines 1998). The self-esteem scale used to assess the self-

esteem to the respondents developed by Raffia (1999).

First of all the study hypothesized that there is a relationship between stages of

moral judgment and self-esteem. However, it was found that the relationship between stages

of PMJS and self-esteem scores was non-sifnificant. Thus, the study revealed that higher

stage of moral reasoning is not related with self-esteem or vice versa. The first stage was

negatively correlated with self-esteem.the value founded in the first stage was 0.08 which

means the results were non-sifnificant because the significant level for r is r=0.217(see table

13). This indicates that there is no relationship between self-esteem and stage 1 of Moral

Judgment. And the stage-2 of the self-esteem was negatively correlated (r=-.11) at the

significant level r at=.05(see table 11). This indicated that the relationship was negative.

The stage-3 was also non-sifnificant (r=.18) but comparatively it was more related to the

self-esteem as compared to other stages. This implies that the students who have high self-

esteem will be in stage-3 of moral judgment and the stage-4 is negatively correlated with

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




143


self-esteem (r=-.06) which implies that the students who have high self-esteem will be in

stage-1 of moral judgment.

On the basis of literature review it was hypothesized that there are significant gender

differences in self-esteem levels of the students; in this case the result of the study supports

the hypothesis. The results show a significant difference (t=2.07) between self-esteem

levels of the boys and girls (see table 6).

Findings show that girls have low self-esteem as compared to boys. There are many

researches that strengthened these findings. O’ Malley and Bachman (1983) concluded that

girls have low self-esteem as compared to boys. Simmons and Rosenberg (1975) also

showed the pre-adolescent girls scored lower than boys on self-esteem.

It was hypothesized that the gender difference will effect on the stages of moral

judgment. The study shows a significant difference in gender with respect to the stage-3 and

stage-4 of the moral judgdment (t=2.00 & 3.00) (see table 7). It implies that moral judgment

of the girls is higher as compared to the boys in stage-4. It shows that the girls are morally

more developed in stage-1 as compared to the boys. There was an non-sifnificant difference

on the scores of others stages ( i.e,. stage 1, and stage2) of Moral Judgment which is in

accordance with the claim of other researchers who did cross cultural research in this regard

(Gielen & Communion, 2001).

The study also hypothesized that the age will effect the self-esteem and stages of

moral judgment of the students. Older students’ self-esteem is higher than the younger

students. And stages of moral judgment show significant differences and confirmed the

stage progression hypothesis. Interestingly stage-3 was statistically significant as compared

to other stages (stage-1, stage-2 & stage-4). Also a major group of respondents gave

judgments at stage-2 and stage-4 form all the age groups (i.e., 13 to 14 years and 15 to 18

years), which tends to support Miller’s (1990) claims that Indian people emphasize

interpersonal considerations in rendering a moral decision. It is also evident from the fact

that in Pakistani collectivistic society relationships are more important. However, no

significant relationship between self-esteem and moral judgment were found.

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




144


Another assumption related to socio-economic status was that student of low

parental income have low self-esteem as compared to students of middle parental income.

In many studies, parental income has been divided into three levels, low, middle and high.

It was hypothesized that students of low parental income have low moral judgment.

But findings indicate no difference between the two groups. It implies that there is no

significant difference between parental income and moral judgment. It also shows that

parental income has no-significant difference at stages of moral judgment. These finding

show that the students with middle parental income have high self-esteem and moral

judgment (see table 8 & 9). These findings also show a negative correlation between self-

esteem and moral judgment.

It was hypothesized that children who have less number of siblings have high self-

esteem as compared to children who have more number of siblings. It was assumed that

there were non-sifnificant differences between the two groups. The hypothesis is rejected by

the results (see table 10)

It implies that children with less number of siblings are morally developed in the

stages of Padua Moral Judgment. The result of the study shows there are non-sifnificant

differences on the stages of Padua Moral Judgment.

The content analysis of the two open-ended questions given at the end of PMJS

show mixed results of the stages of PMJS. In stage-1 and stage-4, the scores are frequently

higher than other stages (i.e. stage 2 ,stage 3) and the female scores are higher than the male

scores.

In the stage-4, the relevant response was higher in the 16 years group as compared

to irrelevant responses in the 16 years age group. In no group the percentage is equal to

100% because many students did not answer all the questions; they ignored many items.

These students do not seem to have understood the objective of the study. There is a limited

number of students of ages 17 to 18 years included in the study, whereas, a large number of

students of ages 15 to 16 years was included in the study. The mixed results of the relevant

and irrelevant categories for lower and higher age groups are probably because of social

desirability.

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




145


The number of students with low self-esteem (N=33, scores=668) was higher than

the number of students having high self-esteem (N=19, scores=1046). As regards Moral

Judgment stages, more number of students was on stage-3 and stage-4 as compared to other

stages (stage-1 and stage-2). So that average scores were also high at stage-4 (M=33.16)

and stage-2 (M=27.27) as compared to other stages i.e. stage-1 (M=13.01) and stage-3

(M=6.51) (see table10).

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




146


References

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2000). 4th ed. Houghton: Mifflin

Company.

Burger, W. R., & Schmolling, P.rown, P. (1993). Human services in contemporary. (31'd

ed).California: Brooks/Cole publishing co.

Berk, L. E. (1989). Child Developmentalt. Baston:AlIyn & Bacon.

Gielen, U. P., & Comunian, A. L (2001). A paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of

the society for cross-cultural research. Received July 6th 2002 from Gielen through

email article.

Grcic, J, (n.d), Moral Chocies Etical Theories and Problems, West Published Company

St.Parl New York. Los Angles San Francisco.

Harper, J. F., & Marshall, F. (1991) Adolescents problems and their relationship to self-

esteem. Adolescence,26,799-807.

Honderich, T. (1995), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Jenkines, J.(1992), Contemparary Moral Issues, new edition, New York.

Mckinney, F., Lorion, R. P., & Zax, M. (1976). Effective Behavior and Human

Development. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Parsons,D.R, Hinson, L.S, Brown, S.D. ( n.d), Educational Psychology, A Practitioner.

Research Model of Testing. West Chaster University Canada.

Riffai, F. (1999). Development and evaluation of a self-esteem scale. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation. National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Feiser, J. (2003). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved 20th July 2007 from

http://www.Utm.edu/jfieser/ .

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools




147


Meriwether, Nicolas. K, (2003). Can Self-Esteem Sanction Morality?.Retrived 25 July, 2007 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%28Meriwether%2C+2003%29.+&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw&_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&newSearch=true&rnd=1203071428615&searchtype=basic.

Maududi, A. (1948). Moral System of Islam. Lahore: Idara Tarjaman ul Quran

Kupperman, J. (1991) Character. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PDFi

ll PD

F Ed

itor w

ith F

ree

Writ

er a

nd T

ools


a study to investigate the relationship between self esteem

Education

foundation university islamabad

ls oo dt

padua moral judgment

secondary school students

middle parental income

parental income

moral judgment

moral judgment