ABSTRACT
Self-concept researchers continue to debate about the relative usefulness of a unidimensional perspective that emphasizes a single, global domain of self-concept, typically referred to as self-esteem, and a multidimensional perspective based on multiple, relatively distinct components of self-concept with a weak hierarchical ordering (Marsh & Craven, in press). Analogous debates reverberate across different psychological disciplines, where researchers are increasingly recognizing the value of multidimensional perspectives (e.g., multiple intelligences vs. a global measure of IQ to characterize a profile of intellectual abilities). The case for a multidimensional self-concept perspective is particularly strong because the multiple dimensions of self-concept are so distinct that they cannot be explained in terms of a single global component and have dramatically different patterns of relations with different background variables, outcomes, and experimental manipulations. Hence, Marsh and Craven (1997, p. 191) argued that: “If the role of self-concept research is to better understand the complexity of self in different contexts, to predict a wide variety of behaviors, to provide outcome measures for diverse interventions, and to relate self-concept to other constructs, then the specific domains of self-concept are more useful than a general domain.” For example, from an educational perspective, if a child has a low reading self-concept and a high math self-concept then a measure of global self-esteem is not a useful diagnostic tool. It also follows logically that if a child’s reading self-concept needed enhancement, then an intervention targeting reading self-concept would be far more useful than one targeting global self-esteem (see Craven, Marsh, & Burnett, 2003).
