The Chameleon Effect: The Lability of Global Self-esteem

Herbert W. Marsh & Alexander Seeshing Yeung UWS, Macarthur

University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560

Tel: (02) 9772-9633 FAX (02) 9772-1565, E-Mail: h.marsh@uws.edu.au

2 December, 1997

The chameleon effect occurs when the nature of global self esteem (GSE) responses is altered by the content of other items in the survey.

In three different studies GSE items were embedded in a broadly multidimensional self-concept instrument or within domain-specific instruments focusing on academic, artistic, or physical self-concept.

In each study, responses to GSE items embedded among items focusing on a specific self-concept domain (academic, artistic, or physical) were more highly related to that domain than GSE items from a broadly based self-concept instrument.

The Chameleon Effect

Patterns of correlations showed that GSE embedded in a particular domain (academic, physical, performing arts) took on nature of that domain. For example, responses to GSE items embedded in an academic self-concept instrument were more "academic" than responses to GSE items embedded in a physical self-concept instrument.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrated that the same GSE items embedded in different instruments measured different factors.

The results have theoretical implications for how individuals form GSE perceptions and practical limitations for the interpretation of GSE responses in correlational and experimental studies.

The Chameleon Effect

Global Self Esteem (GSE) is typically measured by "content free" items assumed to reflect a unidimensional construct that does not depend upon the other items with which they appear

Examples of GSE items are: "I feel good about myself," Overall, I have a lot to be proud of," "Overall I am no good."

For present purposes an alternative assumption is posited -- "chameleon effect." According to the chameleon effect, GSE responses assume the nature of the items with which they appear.

Critical tests of the chameleon effect are whether responses to GSE items embedded in two different instruments reflect one or two factors and the nature of relations between these GSE scales and other constructs within each instrument.

Nature of Context Effects

Changes in the context can produce mean shifts (e.g., Morse & Gergen, 1970). The effect of context on mean GSE responses is NOT the focus of our research.

We are asking a more basic question about whether the attributed meaning and underlying nature of GSE items is changed by the context within which they appear.

To use a loose analogy, we are not asking whether the size of the orange appears to be larger or smaller in different contexts, but whether what seems to be an orange in one context appears to be an apple in another context. If there is an "apples to oranges" shift in the meaning of the underlying construct, then the question about the relative size of the oranges is irrelevant.

Stabilty of GSE Responses

Theoretically GSE is assumed to be more stable than domain specific components of self-concept (e.g., academic, social, physical, emotional). This follows in that it is assumed that respondents subjectively evaluate and appropriately weight all specific components of self-concept in forming GSE responses.

Marsh (1990a, 1993a), however, suggested that respondents may simply base their GSE responses on their immediate experience, mood, or the contents of their short-term memory instead of pursuing the more cognitively demanding task of searching for and appropriately weighting relevant information.

Empirical results suggest that GSE is less stable-- not more stable.

The Present Investigation

A set of 3 related studies were designed to test the chameleon hypothesis.

GSE responses are correlated with responses to the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Academic SDQ. Both instruments contain Academic, Math, English, School, and GSE scales, the remaining SDQ scales are nonacademic whereas the remaining ASDQ scales are academic. ASDQ GSE are predicted to be more correlated with Academic responses than SDQ GSE responses.

In Studies 2 and 3, a different and stronger design is used to test the chameleon effect. In both studies, the same participants responded to the same GSE items embedded in both the SDQ and another instrument (ASPI in Study 2, PSDQ in Study 3). In Study 3 a subsample also completed the EASDQ (with no GSE items) on a separate occasion.

Study 1: Preliminary Results

ASDQ = Academic Self Description Questionnaire

Correlations between ASDQ GSE (GSE scale from the ASDQ) and the Academic, English, and Math scales from the ASDQ are much larger than the correlations between SDQ GSE and the Academic, English, and Math scales from the SDQ.

It is also interesting to note that PE self-concept is only modestly correlated with ASDQ GSE, but Physical self-concept is substantially correlated with SDQ GSE.

The results are consistent with the chameleon effect -- GSE items embedded in the ASDQ are more strongly related to the common academic scales than responses to GSE items embedded in the SDQ.

Study 1. Correlations Between GSE and Academic Self-concept Scales on the SDQII and ASDQ.

ASDQ SDQ-II

(n=616) (N=2664)

Common Scales GSE GSE

GSE 1.000 1.000

Academic .721 .566

English .519 .380

Math .480 .281

<<Physical .276 .464>>

Study 2: Results

(ASPI = Artistic Self Perceptions Inventory)

Here we compare correlations between the same GSE items embedded in the SDQ and the ASPI instruments. Critical comparisons are between correlations based on SDQ GSE and ASPI GSE responses.

For 9 of 10 SDQ-II scales, correlations are higher for the SDQ-II GSE scale than the ASPI GSE scale. The exception to this pattern is for the SDQ-II English scale, and this is the SDQ-II scale that is most strongly related to the ASPI artistic scales.

For all 4 ASPI scales, correlations with the ASPI GSE are larger than those involving the SDQ-II GSE scale.

Study 2. Correlations Relating the SDQ-II GSE and ASPI GSE to the Remaining SDQ Scales and the Remaining ASPI Scales

GSE SDQ GSE ASPI GSE

SDQ GSE .000 .839

ASPI GSE .839 1.000

SDQ

Physical Ability .283 .194

Appearance .587 .533

Opposite Sex .411 .370

Same Sex .498 .469

Honesty .390 .366

Parents .466 .390

Emotional .459 .317

Mathematics .339 .202

English .400 .414

Academic .674 .600

ASPI

Visual Art .165 .220

Dance .091 .148

Drama .189 .251

Music .130 .191

Note. Note. ASPI = Artistic Self Perceptions Inventory, SDQ = Self Description Questionnaire, GSE = Global Self Esteem. The same Global Self Esteem items were embedded in the ASPI (ASPI GSE) and SDQ (SDQ GSE) instruments.

Study 2: CFA Results

CFA models provided a stronger test of the chameleon hypothesis

Models positing separate SDQ GSE and ASPI GSE factors fit the data significantly better than models positing one GSE factor.

The correlation between the SDQ GSE and the ASPI GSE is substantial (r = .906, SE = .017), but significantly less than 1.0 .

SDQ GSE was more correlated with SDQ factors, APSI GSE was more correlated with ASPI factors. Requiring SDQ GSE correlations to be equal to corresponding ASPI GSE correlations led to a poorer fit.

In summary, the preliminary inspection of correlations based on SDQ and ASPI scale scores, a comparison of CFA models, and correlations from the best fitting CFA model all support the chameleon effect.

Study 3: Preliminary Results

(PSDQ = Physical Self Description Questionnaire. EASDQ = Elite Athlete SDQ.)

Correlations involving the SDQ-II GSE and PSDQ GSE scales are compared

For all 7 SDQ-II scales considered here, correlations are higher for the SDQ-II GSE scale than the PSDQ GSE scale,.

For all 10 PSDQ scales (except for Health) correlations with the PSDQ GSE are larger than those involving the SDQ-II GSE scale.

Consistent with the earlier results, the PSDQ GSE responses are more highly correlated with all EASDQ scales than the SDQ-II GSE responses.

The results support the chameleon hypothesis.

Study 3: Correlations Relating the SDQ-II GSE and PSDQ GSE

Total group Elite athletes

PSDQ SDQ-II PSDQ SDQ-II

GSE GSE GSE GSE GSE

PSDQ GSE 1.000 .897 1.000 .826

SDQ-II GSE .897 1.000 .826 1.000

SDQ-II

Academic .547 .580 .453 .530

English .359 .374 .283 .301

Math .312 .331 .333 .339

Emotional .552 .558 .518 .581

Parents .479 .495 .363 .487

Same Sex .484 .527 .425 .581

Opposite Sex .476 .485 .352 .424

PSDQ

Health .293 .292 .362 .360

Coordination .640 .577 .490 .363

Physical Act .451 .380 .247 .105

Body Fat .500 .428 .593 .511

Sport .605 .520 .560 .435

Global Phys .745 .711 .729 .688

Appearance .625 .593 .496 .482

Strength .527 .468 .468 .362

Flexibility .514 .461 .317 .231

Endurance .517 .434 .379 .252

EASDQ

Skills .332 .214

Body .228 .172

Aerobic .315 .200

Anaerobic .298 .224

Mental .268 .199

Performance .302 .233

Note. EASDQ = Elite Athlete Self Description Questionnaire, PSDQ = Physical Self Description Questionnaire, SDQ = Self Description Questionnaire, GSE = Global Self Esteem.

Study 3: CFA Results

CFA models provide a stronger test of the chameleon hypothesis

Models positing separate SDQ GSE and ASPI GSE factors fit the data significantly better than models positing one GSE factor.

The correlation between the SDQ GSE and the ASPI GSE is substantial (r = .906, SE = .017), but significantly less than 1.0 .

SDQ GSE was more correlated with SDQ factors, APSI GSE was more correlated with ASPI factors. Requiring SDQ GSE correlations to be equal to corresponding ASPI GSE correlations led to a poorer fit.

In summary, the preliminary inspection of correlations based on SDQ and ASPI scale scores, a comparison of CFA models, and correlations from the best fitting CFA model all support the chameleon effect.

OVERALL DISCUSSION

Collectively, the results of the three studies provide strong support for a priori predictions and the chameleon effect.

Further Implications include:

Nature of method effects (temporal, physical, content proximity)

Cognitive interpretations for how GSE responses are formed and stability of GSE responses

Broader implications for interpretation of GSE, particularly for "just throw it in and see what happens" studies.

Methodological implications even for random assignment and pre-post studies.

Usefulness of CFA.

REFERENCES

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 588-606.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Boyle, G. J. (1994). Self-Description Questionnaire II: A review. Test Critiques, 10, 632-643.

Brown, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing. In J. Suls, (Ed.) Psychological Perspectives on the self (vol. 4, pp. 27-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burns, R. B. (1979). The self-concept: Theory, measurement, development and behaviour. London: Longman.

Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54, 427-456.

Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer Verlag.

Fox, K. R. & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408-430.

Fox, K. R. (1990). The Physical Self-Perception Profile Manual. DeKalb, Ill: Office for Health Promotion, Northern Illinios University.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation models with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.

Joreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural models in longitudinal investigations. In J. R. Nesselroade & B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp. 303- 351). New York: Academic Press.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Marsh, H.W. (1974). Judgmental anchoring: Stimulus and response variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1224-1236.

Marsh, H. W. (1987a). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280-295.

Marsh, H. W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.

Marsh, H. W. (1990b). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636.

Marsh, H. W. (1992a). The content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 43-50.

Marsh, H. W. (1992b). Self-Description Questionnaire II: Manual. Publication Unit, Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.

Marsh, H. W. (1993a). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls, (Ed.) Psychological Perspectives on the self (vol. 4, pp. 59-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marsh, H. W. (1993b). Relations between global and specific domains of self: The importance of individual importance, certainty, and ideals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 975-992.

Marsh, H. W. (1993). Stability of individual differences in multiwave panel studies: Comparison of simplex models and one-factor models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 157-183.

Marsh, H. W. (1994a). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5-14.

Marsh, H. W. (1994b). The importance of being important: theoretical models of relations between specific and global components of physical self-concept. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 16, 306-325..

Marsh, H. W. (1995). A Jamesian model of self-investment and self-esteem: A response to Pelham (1995). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,69, 1151-1160.

Marsh, H. W. (in press). The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation approach. In K. F. J. Fox, (Ed.) The physical self-: From motivation to well-being. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Marsh, H. W., & Balla, J. (1994). Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effects of sample size and model parsimony. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 28,. 185-217.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 391-410..

Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380.

Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1994). Longitudinal stability of latent means and individual differences: A unified approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 317-359.

Marsh, H. W, Hey, J., Johnson, S. & Perry, C. (1996) Elite Athlete Self Description Questionnaire: Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of responses by two distinct groups of elite athletes . (in review).

Marsh, H. W, Hey, J., Roche, L. & Perry, C. (1996) Elite Athlete vs. non-elite groups in a test of the structure of physical self-concept: An application of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and implications for global esteem. (in review).

Marsh, H. W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQ-III): The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late-adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153-174.

Marsh, H. W. & Redmayne, R. S. (1994) A multidimensional physical self-concept and its relation to multiple components of physical fitness. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 16, 45-55.

Marsh, H. W. & Richards, G. E. (1988). The Tennessee Self Concept Scales: Reliability, Internal Structure, and Construct Validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 612-624.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S. Roche, L., & Tremayne, P. (1994). Physical Self Description Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments. Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 270-305.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G., & Barnes, J. (1986a). Multidimensional self-concepts: A longterm followup of the effect of participation in an Outward Bound program. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 475-492.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G., & Barnes, J. (1986b). Multidimensional self-concepts: The effect of participation in an Outward Bound program. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 173-187.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. (in press). The structure of artistic self-concepts for performing arts and non-performing arts students in a performing arts high school: "Setting the stage" with multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-125.

McDonald, R. P, & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.

Parducci, A. Categorical judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407-418.

Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pelham (1995a). Self-investment and self-esteem: Evidence for a Jamesian model of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1141-1150.

Pelham (1995b). Further Evidence on a Jamesian model of self-worth: A reply to Marsh (1995). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1161-1165.

Pelham, B. W. & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: on the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one's life: A judgment model of subjective well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (eds.), Subjective well-being (pp. 27-47). New York: Pergamon.

Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Kommer, D., & Wagner, D. (1987). Soccer, rooms, and the quality of life: Mood effects on judgment of satisfaction with life in general and with specific domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 69-79.

Shavelson, R. J. & Marsh, H. W. (1986). On the structure of self-concept. In R. Schwazer (Ed.), Anxiety and cognitions. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1969). Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.

Upshaw, H.S. (1969). The personal reference scale: An approach to social judgment. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 315-370.

Vispoel, W. P., Wang, T., Bleiler, T., & Tzou, H. (1993, April). Validation studies for early adolescent and adult versions of the Arts Self-Perception Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Vispoel, W. P. (1993). The development and validation of the Arts Self-Perception Inventory for Adolescents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1023-1033.

Vispoel, W. P. (1995). Self-concept in the arts: An extension of the Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 134-145.

Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. (Rev. ed., Vol. 1) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept. (Vol. 2) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

The Self-Esteem Chameleon Effect 7