Self Esteem Discussion 2

Table of Contents

Self Esteem
Self Esteem

An APA style essay. The instructions are below and the two sources I want included are attached also. I will need to cite my book as well, but I can add that in later. 

382- Social Psychology

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Self Esteem Discussion 2
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Term paper instructions-Briones

Paper Specifics:

· 3 pages, double-spaced, (I will stop reading after 3 pages).

· Times New Roman

· 12 Pt. Ft.

· Margins must be 1” on all sides.

· Any paper that only uses examples that are found in the textbook or were reviewed in lecture will receive zero credit.

· At least 3 sources (including the textbook) must be cited.

· Original theorist must be cited.

· Paper is due in class no later than the first 20 minutes of lecture on Thursday, February 21, 2019.

· Paper must be submitted to “turn it in” prior to the due date. (Anything with an originality score higher than 30% will not be graded.)

· 50 points possible.

· Deductions will be taken for: not following directions, poor grammar or punctuation, incomplete explanation of theory, irrelevant or unclear examples and plagiarism.

Please follow all instructions carefully.\

Self Esteem

1. Choose a social psychological concept from the list of topics we will/have cover/ed this quarter. (posted on blackboard)

2. Look up the theory in our class textbook and review the concept, locate the original theorist work cited in the reference section of the textbook and find it in the library.

3. Conduct a database search of psych info/psych articles and locate a recent research study that is related to the theory you have chosen.

4. Read and review both the original source and the new study.

5. Write a 3-page literature review that clearly defines that concept as explained by the original theorist and reviews the more recent application.

6. Review of recent article must include: type of design, procedure and participants, hypotheses and findings.

The Relationship between Perceived Stress, Self Esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability among School

Going Adolescents

Prashant Srivastava and Manisha Kiran

ABSTRACT

Self Esteem

Background: Adolescence, a vital stage of growth and development, marks the period of transition from childhood to adulthood. Healthy self-esteem is the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life, stress and being worthy of happiness. Aims & Objectives: To see the relationship between perceived stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability among school going adolescents. Method: 200 school going adolescents (100 male & 100 female respondents) have been included randomly. Semi-Structured Socio Demographic datasheet, Perceived Stress Scale and Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, Way of coping Questionnaire and Problem Solving Inventory was used. Data collected was analyzed using SPSS- 20. Result: Positive correlation was found between perceived stress and way of coping as well as with problem solving ability. There was also significant negative correlation found between perceived stress and self-esteem, self-esteem and problem solving ability, way of coping and problem solving ability.

Key words: Perceived stress, Self-esteem, Way of coping, Problem solving ability.

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence, a vital stage of growth and development, marks the period of transition from childhood to adulthood. It is one of the important stages in the life span of a human being when very rapid changes take place both physically as well as psychologically. Adolescence is also the stage when young people extend their relationships beyond parents and family and are intensely influenced by their peers and the outside world in general.

Journal of Psychosocial Research Vol. 10, No. 2, 2015, 199-209

Corresponding author. Email : 21prashantsrivastava@gmail.com, drmanishakiran@yahoo.co.in, ISSN 0973-5410 print/ISSN 0976-3937 online ©2014 Prints Publications Pvt. Ltd.

This Paper was presented at International Seminar on: Social Work Practice: Concerns and Challenges for the 21st Century

held at Department of Social Work, Jain Vishwa Bharti Institute, Ladnun, Rajasthan on October 12-13, 2014.

200 Prashant Srivastava and Manisha Kiran

J. Psychosoc. Res.

Adolescent moral development has been conceptualized in three phases (i.e., pre- conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality) by (Kohlberg, 1978). (Gilligan, 1993) advanced understanding by exploring observed gender differences in how boys and girls approach moral dilemmas, demonstrating that generally, boys seek direct resolution and girls will avoid conflict to maintain a relationship (Rew, 2005). These differences are likely to be reflected in how boys and girls cope with stressors.

Adolescence and perceived stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability

Adolescence can be specifically turbulent as well as a dynamic period of one’s growth and development. Healthy self-esteem is the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life, stress and being worthy of happiness. Stress is the major source of many problems among adolescents and it may lead to low self-esteem, poor way of coping and poor problem solving ability. Many psychological problems such as depression and suicide occur as a result of low self-esteem, poor way of coping and poor problem solving ability

It is now quite widely accepted that adolescence is a time of involving multi- dimensional changes: biological, psychological (including cognitive) and social. Biologically, adolescents are experiencing pubertal changes, changes in brain structure and sexual interest, as a start. Psychologically, adolescents’ cognitive capacities are maturing. And finally, adolescents are experiencing social changes through school and other transitions and roles they are assumed to play in family, community and school (National Research Council [NRC], 2002). These changes occur simultaneously and at different paces for each adolescent within each gender, with structural and environmental factors often impacting adolescents’ development.

Self Esteem

Wilburn and Smith (2005) found in his study “Stress, Self Esteem and Suicidal Ideation in Late Adolescents”. Sample. The Life Experience Survey, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire were used for the study. The results revealed that both stress and self-esteem were significantly related to suicidal ideation and low self esteem and stressful life events significantly predict suicidal ideation.

Gayle et al. (2005) found among 37 highly stressed children with stress affected and highly stressed with stress coped children. The study showed that stress coped children to be more adjusted and competent. They had higher self esteem more positive coping strategies and problem solving skills than stress affected children.

Frydenberg and Lewis (1991) suggests that girls report using more social support strategies and less productive means of coping.

The Relationship between Perceived Stress, Self Esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability among School Going Adolescents

201

J. Psychosoc. Res.

11

MATERIAL & METHODS

Aim

To see the relationship among school going adolescent in terms of perceived stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability.

Universe of the study

Class 9th and 10th students of St. Joseph’s Boys High School and Anita Girls High School, Kanke, Ranchi, constituted as universe of the study as aim of the present study was to see the relationship among school going adolescent in terms of perceived stress, self- esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability.

Hypothesis

There will be no significant correlation among perceived stress self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability among school going adolescents.

Sample

The sample comprised of 200 adolescents who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria using simple random sampling technique. Samples were further divided into 100 male adolescents and 100 female adolescents.

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for both groups

� Studying in 9th and 10th standard.

� The age range 12-19 years.

� Both male and female.

� Willing to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria for both groups

� Not staying with biological parents.

� Absence/death of mother or father or both.

� Death of first degree relative in last one year.

� Student who goes for work after school.

� History Suggestive any significant life events.

� History suggestive of any psychiatric illness.

� History suggestive of any physical illness.

202 Prashant Srivastava and Manisha Kiran

J. Psychosoc. Res.

TOOLS USED FOR ASSESSMENT

� Socio Demographic Data Sheet.

� Perceived Stress Scale – 10 item version (Cohen and Williamson, 1988)

� Rosenberg Self Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)

� Way of coping (Folkman and Lazarus, 1978)

� Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner and Petersen, 1982)

DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS

Socio Demographic Data Sheet

Self designed semi-structured socio demographic data sheet was used for collecting the necessary information regarding age, sex, education, domicile, ethnicity, religion, type of family of students.

Perceived Stress Scale – 10 item version (Cohen and Williamson, 1988)

This concept was measured with the four-item version of the Cohen’s perceived stress scale (PSS). PSS-4 is an economical and simple psychological instrument that measures the degree to which situations in one’s life over the past month are appraised as stressful. The questions are of a general nature and items are designed to detect how unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded respondents find their lives, e.g. “How often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?” and, “How often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?”. Students responded on a five-point scale (0= “never”, 1= “almost never”, 2= “sometimes”, 3= “fairly often”, 4= “very often”). Items were recorded so that higher scores indicated more perceived stress. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.74 (Germany), 0.75 (Poland), 0.67 (Bulgaria), 0.50 (UK) and 0.54 (Slovakia). The PSS score was obtained by summing up answers to individual questions.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was developed by Rosenberg (1965) for measuring global self-esteem levels of adolescents. RSES is a Gutman-type scale with four response options ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4), and consists of 10 items, 5 positively scored and 5 negatively scored. RSES includes such statements as the following: “I do not have much to be proud of”, “I am proud of myself”, and “I take a positive attitude toward myself”. Reverse items are 3, 5, 8, 9, 10. The possible total score obtained from the scale ranges between 0-40. The higher score indicates the higher self-esteem.

The Relationship between Perceived Stress, Self Esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability among School Going Adolescents

203

J. Psychosoc. Res.

Way of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman and Lazarus, 1978)

Way of coping questionnaire was developed by Folkman and Lazarus, 1978. The ways of coping questionnaire is designed to identify the thoughts and actions an individual’s has used to cope with a specific stressful encounter. It measures coping processes, not coping disposition or styles. To assess coping styles with the instrument, the investigator would need to assess an individual’s coping processes in a range of stressful encounters, then evaluate consistencies in those processes across encounters. Ways of coping is likert type 4 point scale. In scale o indicates “does not apply/not used”, 1 indicates “used somewhat”, 2 indicates “used quite a bit”, and 3 indicates “used a great deal”. Inter-correlation of all domains shown relatively significant. Factor loading of the scale range from 0.25 to 0.79.

Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner and Petersen, 1982)

PSI was developed by Heppner and Petersen (1982) to measure people’s perceptions of their personal problem solving behaviours and attitudes. The PSI is composed of thirty*two 6- point Likert-type items, ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (6). Lower scores indicate assessment of oneself as a relatively effective problem solver, whereas higher scores indicate assessment of oneself as a relatively ineffective problem solver. The PSI is a self-rating questionnaire, and this information should not be considered synonymous with actual problem-solving skills. Reliability estimates revealed that the constructs were internally consistent ( .72 to .90) and stable over time (.83 to .89 ) (Heppner & Petersen, 1982). In Problem Solving Inventory high score suggests poor problem solving ability.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

For the statistical analysis SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 20.0 version was used. Frequencies, Chi Squared test, Pearson Correlation were used in the current study.

RESULTS

Table 1

Description of age and family size of male and female school going adolescents

Variables Male Female Total

(N = 100) (N = 100) (N = 200)

Age 14.66 + 1.13 14.27 + 0.78 14.46 + 0.99

Family Size 7.01 + 3.48 7.32 + 3.13 7.16 + 3.30

204 Prashant Srivastava and Manisha Kiran

J. Psychosoc. Res.

Table 1 gives descriptive information about the mean age and family size of male and female respondents. The mean age of the male respondent was 14.66 but the mean age of female respondents was 14.27 and in total the mean age of all respondents was 14.46. A result shows that in family size of male respondents, female respondents and total study respondents an average of 7 persons resides in family.

Table 2

Comparison of Socio-Demographic Characteristics of male and female school going adolescents

Variables Level Male Female  2 df P (N = 100) (N = 100)

Family Type Nuclear 50 (50.0%) 39 (39.0%) 2.450 1 .118

Joint 50 (50.0%) 61 (61.0%)

Domicile Rural 74 (74.0%) 72 (72.0%) .101 1 .750

Urban 26 (26.0%) 28 (28.0%)

Ethnicity Tribal 32 (32.0%) 44 (44.0%) 3.056 1 .080

Non- Tribal 68 (68.0%) 56 (56.0%)

Religion Hindu 31 (31.0%) 28 (28.0%) 6.032 3 .110

Muslim 26 (26.0%) 21 (21.0%)

Christian 23 (23.0%) 16 (16.0%)

Others 20 (20.0%) 35 (35.0%)

The result shows that majority of (50%) respondents in male group belongs to nuclear and joint family type but in female group majority of (61%) respondents belongs to joint family type and rest (39%) belongs to nuclear family type. Study finding shows that majority of male (74%) and female (72%) respondents belong to rural background and rest (26%) male respondents and (28%) female respondents belongs to urban background. Present study finding reveals that male respondents most of (68%) belongs to non-tribal ethnicity and (32%) belongs to tribal ethnicity but in female respondents majority of (56%) hails from non- tribal ethnicity and rest (44%) belongs to tribal ethnicity. Table shows that in male respondents majority of (31%) belongs to Hindu religion, (26%) belongs to Muslim religion, (23%) belongs to Christian religion and (20%) belongs to other religion, but on the other hand in female study respondents most (35%) respondents belongs to others religion, (28%) respondents belongs to Hindu religion, (21%) respondents belongs to Muslim religion and (16%) respondents belongs to Christian religion. Result shows no statistically significant difference was found between

The Relationship between Perceived Stress, Self Esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability among School Going Adolescents

205

J. Psychosoc. Res.

both the study groups.

Table 3

Inter-correlation matrix showing correlation among various domains of Perceived stress, Self-esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability along with socio-

demographic variables among school going adolescents

Variables Age Family Perceived Self Way of Problem Members Stress Esteem Coping Solving

Ability

Age 1 -.092 -.005 .103 .023 .023

Family Members 1 -.066 .063 .078 -.027

Perceived Stress 1 -.223** .184** .287**

Self Esteem 1 .008 -.223**

Way of Coping 1 -.185**

Problem Solving Ability 1

** Correlation was significant at the 0.01 level.

In the present study positive high correlation was found between perceived stress and way of coping at 0.01 level which suggests that whenever stress increased among respondents their ways of coping also increased, similarly in perceived stress and problem solving ability also positive high correlation was found at 0.01 level which shows that when stress increased among respondents their problem solving ability decreased.

However, the perceived stress showed significant negative correlation with self- esteem at 0.01 level. Finding suggests that whenever the perceived stress increased among respondents their self-esteem got decreased. Similarly self esteem and problem solving ability as well as way of coping and problem solving ability showed significant negative correlation at 0.01 level it suggest that when self-esteem and way of coping increased among respondents their problem solving ability also increased.

DISCUSSION

Two hundred adolescents (100 male school going adolescents and 100 female school going adolescents) were focus of the present study and the aim was to see the relationship among school going adolescent in terms of perceived stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability. The samples were collected from class 9th

and 10th students of St. Joseph’s Boys High School and Anita Girls High School, Kanke, Ranchi. The samples of both groups were matched with the variables like age, family size, family type, domicile, ethnicity, religion.

206 Prashant Srivastava and Manisha Kiran

J. Psychosoc. Res.

The analysis revealed positive high correlation was found between perceived stress and way of coping at 0.01 level which suggests that whenever stress increased among respondents their ways of coping also increased, similarly in perceived stress and problem solving ability also positive high correlation was found at 0.01 level which shows that when stress increased among respondents their problem solving ability decreased. Present study are in agreement with the study conducted by Jennifer (2011) found that adolescents face the challenges of stress nearly every day and often report that school, pressure to have good grades, money, relationships, parents, being a teen parent, jobs, sex, STD’s/AIDS, violence and fighting. Some teens choose unhealthy ways of coping to deal with stress and may smoke or use drugs, self-harm, become depressed, or give up on life altogether.

Another similar finding study conducted by Frydenburg et al. (2004) explored interventions for coping with pressures and stressors to help teach adolescents how to respond to stress later in life. Results indicated two specific ways to better adapt to stress by either reducing the demands of adolescents or increasing the number of coping resources. Students who learn to identify stressors and cope effectively report having less stress. Family members and educators may wish to work together to help teens with their 15 levels of stress and consider balance in academics, personal and social activities and community involvement that reduce environmental factors contributing to stress. Similarly in perceived stress and problem solving ability also positive high correlation was found at 0.01 level, which shows that when stress increased among respondents their problem solving ability decreased.

However, the perceived stress showed significant negative correlation with self- esteem at 0.01 level. Finding suggests that whenever the perceived stress increased among respondents their self-esteem got decreased. Similarly self esteem and problem solving ability as well as way of coping and problem solving ability showed significant negative correlation at 0.01 level it suggest that when self-esteem and way of coping increased among respondents their problem solving ability also increased. Present study are in agreement with the study conducted by Johnson et al. (1982) his research findings indicate the debilitating effect of stressful transitions and crises may have an equally deleterious impact in adolescent life, well-being and self esteem at the last decade. As a common claim in this stress, it was indicated that social support and self esteem becomes particularly critical when the individual feels threatened or overwhelmed.

Similarly in self esteem and problem solving ability statistically significant negative correlation was found at 0.01 level similarly in way of coping and problem solving ability showed significant negative correlation at 0.01 level. So according to study finding it means that when self-esteem and way of coping increased among respondents

The Relationship between Perceived Stress, Self Esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability among School Going Adolescents

207

J. Psychosoc. Res.

their problem solving ability also increased. Present study is in agreement with the study conducted by Europa (2002) on the problems and coping strategies of marginalized street children and adolescents. The study revealed that these children and adolescents were having poor coping strategies and low self esteem with feelings of insecurity.

Another study conducted by Gayle et al. (2005) among 37 highly stressed children with stress affected and highly stressed with stress coped children. The study showed that stress coped children to be more adjusted and competent. They had higher self esteem more positive coping strategies and problem solving skills than stress affected children.

LIMITATIONS

Being a time bound study only a small sample could be taken and hence the generalization of the result remains doubtful. If parents of the students would have also been included as respondents along with teacher, it would have been a more accurate study to identify behavioral problems in children. Students of class XIth and XIIth should have been included to obtain good and robust results.

CONCLUSION

Present study was conducted to see the relationship among school going adolescent in terms of perceived stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability. The study findings highlights significant positive and negative correlation also found between perceived stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability among school going adolescents.

With the help of present study findings adolescents can recognize what is causing them stress and learn how to manage their stress in a healthy and productive manner. Students need to know about the positive ways to cope with the stressors in their lives, and being able to manage the stress, increase self-esteem and improve problem solving ability, it may not only benefit the students, but may also help to enhance their academic performance too. Thus the findings of the present study will help adolescents as how to respond with stress, increase self-esteem and coping strategy as well as how to make better problem solving ability in their future life.

FUTURE DIRECTION AND IMPLICATIONS

Based on present study findings it is very clear that there are significant correlations found among school going adolescents in terms of stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability. With these findings it would be interesting to see the other contributing psycho-social factors such as parenting style, academic achievement, emotional intelligence, etc. and its impact on perceived stress, self-esteem, way of

208 Prashant Srivastava and Manisha Kiran

J. Psychosoc. Res.

coping and problem solving ability. Based on the present study finding psycho-social intervention program can be developed to enhance the self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability of the school going adolescents and its efficacy and feasibility can be assessed. Based on the present study finding intervention package can be developed for school going adolescents based on gender. Based on the present study more schools and classes would be covered for future studies. Present study findings suggest that there is elusive need to impart life skill techniques to the school going adolescents soon after they enter in high academics. These skills will help them to handle various life stressors and this will also facilitate them to perform well in their academics. Present study findings would help in implementing the school mental health program to tackle the problem related to stress, self-esteem, way of coping and problem solving ability among school going adolescents.

REFERENCES

Cohen, S., and Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. The Social Psychology of Health: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology Newbury Park, 31- 67.

Europa, E. (2002). Street Children En/Youth achiev Doc/Studies/the Saloniki-PDF.

Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. S. (1978). An analsyis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219-239.

Frydenberg, E., and Lewis, R. (1991). Adolescent coping: The different ways in which boys and girls cope. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 119-133.

Frydenberg, E., Lewis, R., Bugalski, K., Cotta, A., McCarthy, C., Luscombe-Smith, N., and Poole, C. (2004). Prevention is better than cure: Coping skills for adolescents at school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(2), 117-134.

Gayle, R., Parker E. L., and Cowen, W. C. (2005). University of Rochester, 575 Mt. Hope A Venu, 1460 Rochester, New York.

Gilligan, C. (1988). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Heppner, P. P., and Peterson, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem- solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 537-545.

Jennifer, K. L. (2011). Recognizing and Managing Stress: Coping Strategies for Adolescents. Graduate Degree/ Major: MS School Counseling, American Psychological Association, 6.

Johnson, J. (1982). Life events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. In Lahey, B. and Kazdin, A. (eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 2.

Kohlberg, L. (1978). Revisions in the theory and practice of moral development. New Directions for

The Relationship between Perceived Stress, Self Esteem, Way of Coping and Problem Solving Ability among School Going Adolescents

209

J. Psychosoc. Res.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Prashant Srivastava, Psychiatric Social Worker —Dept. of Pediatrics, Child Development Centre, Maulana Azad Medical College and Associated Lok Nayak Hospital and Ph.D. Scholar, Dept. of Social Work, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Manisha Kiran, Associate Professor —Dept. of Psychiatric Social Work, Ranchi Institute of Neuro- Psychiatry and Allied Sciences, Kanke, Ranchi-834 006.

Child Development, 2, 83–88.

National Research Council. (2002). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

Rew, L. (2005). Adolescent health a multidisciplinary approach to theory, research, and intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wilburn, V.R., and Smith, D. E. (2005). Stress, self esteem and suicidal ideation in late adolescents. Adolescence, 40(157), 33-43.

Copyright of Journal of Psychosocial Research is the property of Prints Publications Pvt. Ltd. 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.

Reciprocal Effects Between Academic Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Achievement, and Attainment Over Seven Adolescent Years: Unidimensional and Multidimensional Perspectives of Self-Concept

Herbert W. Marsh Alison O’Mara University of Oxford

2005; Hunter & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Marsh & Craven, 2006). In a potentially serious threat to this positive psychology movement, Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, and Vohs (2003, 2005) challenged the prevail- ing optimistic perspective of the value of positive self- beliefs in a highly influential review commissioned for Psychological Science in the Public Interest. They posed the question, “Does high self-esteem cause better per- formance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?” Arguing for a negative response to their question, Baumeister et al. (2003) concluded that “self- esteem per se is not the social panacea that many people hoped it was” (p. 38), a point reiterated by Baumeister et al. (2005) in their article in Scientific American when they concluded “that efforts to boost people’s self- esteem are of little value in fostering academic achieve- ment or preventing undesirable behaviour” (p. 84). Because of the strength of these conclusions and the prestige of the journals in which they appeared, this might seem to be the definitive word for mainstream psychology on this construct that has been so central in the development of psychology from the time of William James. However, as noted by Baumeister et al. (2003, see p. 7), their conclusions apply only to global

Authors’ Note: Requests for further information about this investiga- tion should be sent to Professor Herbert W. Marsh, Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK; e-mail: herb.marsh@education.ox.ac.uk.

PSPB, Vol. 34 No. 4, April 2008 542-552 DOI: 10.1177/0146167207312313 © 2008 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

In their influential review, Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, and Vohs (2003) concluded that self-esteem— the global component of self-concept—has no effect on subsequent academic performance. In contrast, Marsh and Craven’s (2006) review of reciprocal effects models from an explicitly multidimensional perspective demon- strated that academic self-concept and achievement are both a cause and an effect of each other. Ironically, both reviews cited classic Youth in Transition studies in support of their respective claims. In definitive tests of these counter claims, the authors reanalyze these data—including self-esteem (emphasized by Baumeister et al.), academic self-concept (emphasized by Marsh & Craven), and postsecondary edu- cational attainment—using stronger statistical methods based on five waves of data (grade 10 through 5 years after graduation; N = 2,213). Integrating apparently discrepant findings under a common theoretical framework based on a multidimensional perspective, academic self-concept had consistent reciprocal effects with both achievement and educational attainment, whereas self-esteem had almost none.

Keywords: self-concept; self-esteem; reciprocal effects model; structural equation modeling

There is a revolution sweeping psychology, one thatemphasizes a positive psychology focusing on how healthy, normal, and exceptional individuals can get the most from life (e.g., Fredrickson, 2006; Lopez et al., 2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Positive self-beliefs are at the heart of this revolution (Furr,

Marsh, O’Mara / SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-CONCEPT, AND PERFORMANCE 543

self-esteem and not to specific components of self-concept. Emphasizing the importance of this distinction, we demonstrate that Baumeister et al.’s conclusions need not sound the death knell for the relevance of self-beliefs to achievement if self-concept is appropriately consid- ered from a multidimensional perspective. Indeed, there is convincing evidence for the consistent positive effects of academic self-concept on subsequent achievement after controlling the effects of prior achievement (e.g., Byrne, 1996; Marsh & Craven, 2006; Valentine & DuBois, 2005; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004). Marsh and Craven argued that conclusions drawn by Baumeister and colleagues were based largely on research studies, statistical methodology, and theoretical concep- tualizations of self-concept that are no longer current. Here, we provide an empirical test of a theoretical model that integrates both of these apparently contra- dictory conclusions.

There were important areas of agreement between Baumeister et al. (2003; see also Baumeister et al., 2005) and Marsh and Craven (2006) on appropriate methodol- ogy. In particular, all parties agreed that correlations based on a single wave of data cannot be used to infer cau- sation and the need for longitudinal panel designs (as in the reciprocal effects model outlined by Marsh & Craven, 1997, 2006), in which achievement and self-beliefs are each measured on at least two different occasions. Noting the strength and appropriateness of this design, Baumeister et al. (2003) added the caveat,

Insisting that self-esteem [at Time 1] must predict achieve- ment at Time 2 after controlling for achievement at Time 1 could obscure some actual causal relationships, so it should be regarded as a highly conservative way of testing the hypothesis . . . one may be throwing a very large baby out with the statistical bathwater. (p. 9)

Despite such areas of agreement, there were key areas of disagreement between the two sets of reviews in terms of the following:

a. Use of current research: Baumeister et al. (2003) only considered publications from before 1990, whereas Marsh and Craven mostly considered studies from the past 10 years;

b. Research methodology: Research reviewed by Baumeister et al. (2003) was largely based on multiple regression that was typical of research of that earlier era, whereas Marsh and Craven (2006) focused on studies that used structural equation models (SEM) based on multiple indicators;

c. Unidimensional versus multidimensional perspective: Baumeister et al. (2003) focused on an implicit unidi- mensional perspective of self-concept through their sole reliance on self-esteem—the global component of multidimensional, hierarchical models of self-concept (see Marsh, 1993; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Marsh and Craven (2006) took an explicitly mul- tidimensional perspective based on multiple, relatively distinct components of self-concept.

CONSTRUCT DEFINITION OF SELF-CONCEPT: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL,

HIERARCHICAL CONSTRUCT

In their classic review of self-concept research, theory, and measurement, Shavelson et al. (1976) developed a multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept that fundamentally impacted self-concept research (Marsh & Hattie, 1996). Self-concept, broadly defined by Shavelson et al., is a person’s self-perceptions formed through expe- rience with and interpretations of one’s environment. These self-perceptions are influenced especially by evalu- ations by significant others, reinforcements, and attribu- tions for one’s own behavior. Self-concept is not an entity within the person but a hypothetical construct that is potentially useful in explaining and predicting how a person acts. Shavelson et al. noted that self-concept is important both as an outcome and as a mediating variable that helps to explain other outcomes. Self-perceptions influence the way one acts, and behaviors in turn influence one’s self-perceptions.

Although some researchers reserve the term self- esteem for the evaluative component of self-perception and use the term self-concept for descriptive compo- nents of self-perception, Shavelson et al. (1976) argue that self-concept is both descriptive and evaluative (also see Marsh, 1993; Marsh & Craven, 2006; Swann, Chang-Schneider, & Larsen McClarty, 2007). Thus, for example, statements such as “I am good at mathemat- ics,” “I can run a long way without stopping,” and “I am good looking” all have both evaluative and descrip- tive components and clearly reflect specific components of self-concept (math, physical and appearance self- |concepts, respectively). More recently, Swann et al. also concluded that there is little basis for such evaluative- descriptive and cognitive-affective distinctions, as both self-esteem and self-concepts involve cognitive and affective components, noting that researchers in related fields (attitude researchers, interpersonal expectancy researchers, trait theorists) have not found this to be a useful distinction.

In support of the conceptualization of self-esteem as a global component of self-concept, Rosenberg (1979) maintained that the self-esteem construct based on instruments such as the Rosenberg Scale emphasizes an overarching, general, or global construct that at least implicitly incorporates many (or all) specific compo- nents according to the subjective weight put on each by the respondent (also see Marsh, 1986). In higher order factor analysis studies (see Marsh & Hattie, 1996), global measures of self-esteem consistently correlated about .95 with the highest-order factor (representing the apex of Shavelson et al.’s hierarchical model) based on specific components of self-concept. It is important to note that multidimensional self-concept theorists (e.g., Marsh & Craven, 2006) do not deny the existence of an overarching, global self-concept or self-esteem.

Indeed, multidimensional hierarchical models of self- concept integrate specific and global self-esteem dimen- sions of self-concept, such that global self-esteem is a component of the multidimensional self-concept struc- ture (Marsh, 1993; Marsh, Craven, & Martin, 2006). Hence, for the purposes of this study, we use the term self-esteem to refer to the global component of self- concept and to distinguish between this and specific components of self-concept (e.g., physical, social, and academic).

Factor analytic research (e.g., Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988; Marsh & Hattie, 1996) showed that the hierarchical aspect of the multidimensional, hier- archical model proposed by Shavelson et al. (1976) was much weaker than originally hypothesized. In particular, specific components of self-concept were more differentiated and less highly correlated with each other than anticipated, so that much of the vari- ance in domain specific factors of self-concept could not be explained in terms of higher order self-concept factors or self-esteem. Thus, for example, factor analy- sis of adolescent responses to a recent adaptation of the multidimensional Self-Definition Questionnaire III clearly supported the 17 self-concept factors that the instrument was designed to measure (Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2006). Furthermore, the average correlation among the 17 self-concept factors—even after controlling for unreliability—was only .14, thus verifying the distinctiveness of these dimensions.

Consistent with a large amount of subsequent research in support of the model by Shavelson et al. (1976), Marsh and Craven (1997, 2006) argued for the importance of a multidimensional perspective of self- concept. They suggested that researchers should focus on specific components of self-concept most logically related to the goals of their particular research instead of, or in addition to, a global measure of self-esteem. The distinctive nature of the various domains of self- concept means that global self-esteem scales may con- ceal or distort the multiplicity of self-beliefs (Harter, 1999; Hattie, 1992). For example, if a child has a low reading self-concept and a high math self-concept, then a measure of global self-esteem is not useful as a diag- nostic tool. This has ramifications for self-concept inter- vention research, as the underuse of multidimensional instruments may lead researchers to underestimate the effectiveness of their intervention (Bracken, 1996; Craven, Marsh, & Burnett, 2003; O’Mara, Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 2006).

Swann et al. (2007) made a related point about the predictive power of content-specific components of self- concept compared to the more global component of self- esteem. Drawing on historical parallels from attitude

research, personality research, and trait-theory research, they emphasized the importance of the specificity matching principle, that specific predictors should be used to predict specific behaviors and general predictors should be used to predict general behaviors. More specifically, they concluded, “From the perspective of the specificity matching principle, then, recent reviews of the self-esteem literature (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2003) have violated the specificity matching principle by focusing on the capacity of global measures of self- esteem to predict specific outcomes (e.g., Does self- esteem predict grades in a math class?)” (p. 87). They reviewed evidence from different areas of research to support the contention that predictive validity is maxi- mized when predictors and outcomes referred to the same conceptual variable.

Particularly in educational psychological research, Marsh and Craven (2006; also see Byrne, 1996; Marsh, 1993) reviewed a large body of research showing that diverse academic outcomes were systematically related to academic self-concept but nearly unrelated (or even nega- tively related) to global self-esteem and other nonacademic components of self-concept. This extreme multidimensional- ity was highlighted by Marsh et al. (2006), who showed that nine academic outcomes (standardized test scores, school grades, and course work selection in different school subjects) were systematically related to corresponding academic self-concepts. For example, math self-concept for their late-adolescent sample was substantially related to math school grades (.71), math standardized achieve- ment test scores (.59), and advanced math courses (.51). In contrast, the academic outcomes were nearly unrelated to global self-esteem (rs ranging from –.03 to .05) as well as nine other nonacademic specific domains of self-con- cept. While support for this multidimensional perspective of self-concept was particularly strong in educational research, Marsh and Craven (1997, 2006) reviewed other research demonstrating its importance in social, personal- ity, developmental, and sport psychology, as well as elite sport, mental health, and gender studies. Hence, Marsh and Craven (1997) argued, “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 pro- vide 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” (p. 191).

THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION

For present purposes, the most important finding of the Marsh and Craven (2006) review was the consistent support for the reciprocal effects model predictions based on

544 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Marsh, O’Mara / SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-CONCEPT, AND PERFORMANCE 545

longitudinal panel studies showing that academic self-concept and achievement were mutually reinforcing constructs, each having an impact on the other. Indeed, they concluded that clear support for the reciprocal effects models based on aca- demic self-concept, coupled with the clear lack of support for the reciprocal effects models based on self-esteem, pro- vided good evidence for the discriminant validity of acade- mic self-concept in relation to self-esteem and for their multidimensional perspective. Whereas the Marsh and Craven review focused primarily on their own research program, Valentine’s (Valentine & DuBois, 2005; Valentine et al., 2004) comprehensive meta-analysis found consistent support for reciprocal effects between academic self-beliefs and achievement but little or no reciprocal effects based on self-esteem (also see Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2006). Because the substantial body of support for the reciprocal effects model focused primarily on academic self- concept, it was ignored in the Baumeister et al. (2003, 2005) reviews that focused on global self-esteem.

Indeed, a critical limitation in reviews by both Baumeister et al. (2003, 2005) and by Marsh and Craven, 1997, 2006)—as well as research reviewed by Valentine et al. (2004)—was the dearth of studies avail- able to compare and contrast the effects of academic self-concept and self-esteem based on appropriate SEM models that included both constructs. Furthermore, even though the Baumeister et al. (2003, 2005) and Marsh and Craven (1997, 2006) reviews addressed basically the same question about the effects of self- beliefs on subsequent academic performance, there was almost no overlap in the studies that they drew upon to support their apparently contradictory conclusions. Ironically, one exception was that both of these reviews emphasized publications based on the classic Youth in Transition study as critical in support of their appar- ently conflicting conclusions. Marsh and Craven pointed to Marsh’s (1990) Youth in Transition study of academic self-concept as the classic reciprocal effects model study—the first to propose the reciprocal effects model, superseding earlier self-enhancement and skill development models, and supporting reciprocal effects model predictions using an appropriate design and sta- tistical procedures (also see Byrne, 1996).

Baumeister et al. (2003) commented that the Bachman and O’Malley (1977) study was an “early and still well respected study” (p. 11) based on the large, nationally representative Youth in Transition database. Baumeister et al. interpreted their results to mean that “Although Bachman and O’Malley found that self-esteem correlated with school performance, their more sophisticated statis- tical tests (i.e., path analyses) did not point to any causal role for self-esteem” (p. 11). However, a careful reading of the original Bachman and O’Malley (1977) study shows that, whereas prior school performance did have a moderate effect on subsequent self-esteem, the authors

did not actually test effects of prior self-esteem to subse- quent high school performance. Indeed, their main focus was on postsecondary educational attainment rather than school performance per se, showing that self-esteem dur- ing high school had little positive, direct effect on educa- tional attainment 5 years after graduation from high school. Hence, although the Youth in Transition data are clearly appropriate for testing a reciprocal effects model based on self-esteem and school performance, this model was not actually tested by Bachman and O’Malley. Furthermore, although subsequent educational attain- ment is a critical outcome variable for testing the long- term effects of academic self-concept, Marsh (1990) did not include attainment in his Youth in Transition study.

While the two different studies based on the same Youth in Transition data yielded apparently contradictory conclu- sions about the effects of self-beliefs, Marsh and Craven (2006) argued that the findings were not inconsistent:

The juxtaposition of the two seemingly contradictory sets of conclusions based on analyses of the same data [the Bachman & O’Malley, 1977, and the Marsh, 1990, stud- ies] reinforces the importance of considering academic self- concept measures in causal-ordering studies of school performance and the need to account for the multidimen- sionality of the self-concept construct. (p. 150)

Given the critical role of the Youth in Transition data in this debate, we extended previous Youth in Transition stud- ies to include academic self-concept (emphasized by Marsh, 1990; Marsh & Craven, 2006), self-esteem (emphasized by Baumeister et al., 2003, 2005), and educational attain- ment (emphasized by Bachman & O’Malley, 1977), using current statistical procedures that provide a definitive test to the apparently contradictory conclusions about self-beliefs and their integration into the multidimensional perspective proposed by Marsh and Craven (2006). Consistent with the reciprocal effects model and the multidimensional per- spective, we predict that (a) there will be consistently posi- tive links relating prior academic self-concept to subsequent school achievement (school grades) and educational attain- ment, and relating prior achievement and attainment to subsequent academic self-concept; and (b) links relating self-esteem with school grades and attainment will be con- sistently smaller (or nonsignificant) than corresponding links involving academic self-concept.

METHOD

Database, Variables, and Model

The Youth in Transition database is a longitudinal, large, nationally representative database of 10th grade boys in U.S. public high schools in 1966; for more detailed description of the database and the variables

546 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

used here, see Bachman, 2002 (also see Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Marsh, 1990; appendix). Five waves of data were collected between 1966 and 1974: Time 1 (T1, early 10th grade; N = 2,213), Time 2 (T2, late 11th grade; N = 1,886), Time 3 (T3, late 12th grade; N = 1,799), Time 4 (T4, 1 year after graduation; N = 1,620), and Time 5 (T5, 5 years after graduation; N = 1,608). Following earlier Youth in Transition studies (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Marsh, 1990), we considered 15 latent constructs based on 73 indicators: socioeconomic status (SES; T1, 6 indicators); academic ability (T1, 4 standardized test scores); academic self-concept (T1, T2, and T3 based on 3, 3, and 2 items, respectively); global self-esteem (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, 10 items each); school grades (GPA; T1, T2, T3, 1 item each); and prior educational attainment (T4, T5, highest level of educa- tion completed; Bachman & O’Malley, 1977).

Statistical Analyses

The initial a priori model (see Figure 1) was primar- ily based on the temporal ordering of the data collection (i.e., T1 variables precede T2 variables). Control vari- ables (ability and SES) came first in the posited causal

ordering, followed by school grades and then academic self-concept and global self-esteem (school grades came before academic self-concept and self-esteem, because students reported their grades from the previous year). Academic self-concept and self-esteem were posited to be correlated with no causal ordering within a single wave of data. Educational attainment at T4 followed T3 variables, from before the end of high school, but proceeded T4 academic self-concept and T4 self-esteem.

Statistical analyses were SEMs using the complex modeling procedure in MPLUS (Version 4.0; Muthén & Muthén, 2006) that takes into account the nonindepen- dence of the scores for students from the same school— the clustering effect of students nested within schools. We used the robust maximum likelihood estimator with maximum likelihood parameter estimates, standard errors, and a chi-square test statistic that are robust to nonnormality and nonindependence of observations and full information estimation for missing data (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). We considered a very restrictive measurement model in which each indicator was allowed to load on only the latent variable it was designed to measure.

Figure 1 A structural equation model of the reciprocal relations between academic self-concept, global self-esteem, academic achievement, and educational attainment.

NOTE: A structural equation model of the reciprocal relations between academic self-concept (ASC), global self-esteem (Estm), academic achieve- ment (GPA), and educational attainment (EdAt), controlling for initial academic ability and socioeconomic status (SES) across five data collec- tion waves (T1-T3, last 3 years of high school; T4-T5, 1 and 5 years postsecondary). Path coefficients not relevant to the reciprocal effects model or not significant are excluded for purposes of clarity (but see the Appendix for the presentation of all parameter estimates). Critical significant paths representing reciprocal effects of ASC with GPA and attainment are represented with bold black lines (and path coefficients in black boxes with gray shading). Critical significant paths representing reciprocal effects of self-esteem with GPA and attainment are represented with bold gray lines (and white path coefficients in solid black boxes). Despite a significant chi square (χ2(2318) = 4893.9, p < .001) due in part to the large sample size, goodness of fit indices provided good support for the ability of the a priori model to fit the data: root mean square error of approx- imation = .022; Tucker-Lewis Index = .93; confirmatory fit index = .94; and standardized root mean square residual = .046.

Marsh, O’Mara / SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-CONCEPT, AND PERFORMANCE 547

Error Structure

School grades and educational attainment measures were each based on one indicator, so that it was not possible to estimate their reliabilities (and correct for measurement error) as part of the analysis. Consistent with Marsh (1990) and more general recommendations (e.g., Jöreskog, 1979), we constrained the standardized uniqueness for each of these measures to be .10 (reflect- ing a conservative estimate of reliability of .90). Also, consistent with analyses by Marsh (1990) and recom- mendations for longitudinal panel data more generally (Jöreskog, 1979; Marsh & Hau, 1996), correlated residuals were posited a priori between matching indi- cators of the same construct administered on different occasions (e.g., responses to the first self-esteem item administered at T1-T5). Failure to control this error structure would result in positively biased estimates of stability over time and distort parameter estimates based on the reciprocal effects model (see Marsh & Hau, 1996). Responses to the many variations of the Rosenberg self-esteem instrument do not have a simple unidimensional structure. Consistent with recommen- dations and empirical results by Marsh (1996), the orig- inal design of the scale, and the way it was used by Bachman and O’Malley (1977), we posited one substan- tive global self-esteem factor based on all (positively and negatively worded items) and a negative item–method effect represented by correlated uniquenesses among responses to just the negatively worded items administered within the same data collection wave. Although the a priori error structure posited in this study is complex, it is important to emphasize that all correlated unique- nesses were posited a priori, following from previous empirical research and theory.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Relations Between Academic Self-Concept and Self-Esteem to School Grades

In terms of testing the reciprocal effects model, the most important predictions are the reciprocal effects relating academic self-concept and school grades. Critical paths (bold black arrows with path coefficients in black boxes with gray shading, Figure 1; also see appendix) are those leading from prior school grades to subsequent academic self-concept and those leading from prior academic self-concept to subsequent school grades (controlling for SES, ability, and prior school grades). All of these paths are statistically significant, at least moderate in size (.14 to .36), and highly consistent

across the different waves. These results replicate the findings of the Marsh (1990) study within the context of this larger model and stronger statistical methodology.

Results based on the corresponding paths relating self-esteem and school grades (GPA; bold gray arrows with white coefficients in black boxes, Figure 1; also see appendix) are all small; only the path from T2 self- esteem to T3 school grades (.07) is marginally signifi- cant, and no paths from school grades to self-esteem are significant. Whereas the results provide some minimal support for the effect of prior self-esteem on subsequent school grades, the reciprocal effects involving academic self-concept are clearly stronger and more consistent. Even though academic self-concept and self-esteem are moderately correlated (rs = .44 to .46 for different waves; see appendix), academic self-concept shows a strong pattern of reciprocal effects with subsequent achieve- ment, whereas self-esteem shows almost none.

Relations Between Academic Self-Concept and Self-Esteem to Attainment

The most important new feature of the present inves- tigation is the inclusion of educational attainment col- lected 1 (T4) and 5 years (T5) after the normal graduation from high school. Both T1 academic self- concept and T2 academic self-concept (recalling that there is no T3 academic self-concept) are significant pre- dictors of T4 attainment, T4 attainment is a significant predictor of T4 academic self-concept, and T4 academic self-concept is a significant predictor of T5 attainment. Hence, there is a clear pattern of reciprocal effects relat- ing academic self-concept and attainment. Particularly given that T4 attainment is, not surprisingly, the best predictor of T5 attainment and that there is a 4-year gap between T4 and T5, the contribution of T4 acade- mic self-concept (.22) is strong—clearly larger than any other predictors of T5 attainment (school grades, abil- ity, SES, self-esteem). Hence, T4 academic self-concept is a significant predictor of subsequent growth in edu- cational attainment between 1 and 5 years after the nor- mal graduation of high school.

In contrast to the consistent pattern of relations between academic self-concept and attainment, rela- tions involving self-esteem are small and mostly non- significant. Whereas T1 self-esteem has a small (.08) statistically significant effect on T4 attainment, T2 and T3 self-esteem do not. T4 self-esteem has no significant effect on T5 attainment. It is interesting that T3 self- esteem had a small (.08) statistically significant effect on T5 attainment but not on T4 attainment. T5 attain- ment, however, was a statistically significant predictor of T5 self-esteem.

In summary, the results clearly support reciprocal effects between academic self-concept and educational attainment. However, the results also suggest that prior self-esteem has a small positive effect on subsequent educational attainment beyond what can be explained in terms of prior measures of SES, test scores, school grades, and academic self-concept. Although somewhat at odds with Baumeister et al.’s (2003, 2005) depiction of results based on these data in their interpretation of the Bachman and O’Malley’s (1977) study, these find- ings are consistent findings actually reported by Bachman and O’Malley’s results that were based on a very different analytical strategy and different variables.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Marsh and Craven (2006) sought a rapprochement between Baumeister et al.’s (2003) pessimistic conclu- sions about the importance of self-beliefs and their own more optimistic perspective based on their research showing a pattern of reciprocal effects between acade- mic self-concept and academic achievement. From their multidimensional perspective (also see related support for the specificity matching hypothesis by Swann et al., 2007), Marsh and Craven argued that it is entirely log- ical that there are few, if any, significant linkages between self-esteem and school grades even though the reciprocal linkages between academic self-concept and school grades are consistently positive. They lamented that Baumeister et al. had limited their consideration to older studies of self-esteem and had not considered the growing body of newer academic self-concept studies based on stronger statistical methodology and theory, but they conceded that their reciprocal effects model studies had focused on academic self-concept to the vir- tual exclusion of self-esteem. What was needed, they argued, was more research that considered the compli- cated pattern of reciprocal effects between academic self- concept, self-esteem, academic achievement, and other academic criterion measures. Noting that the reviews by Baumeister et al. and by Marsh and Craven both emphasized apparently contradictory interpretations of Youth in Transition studies, we reanalyzed this classic database, including the self-esteem measures empha- sized by Baumeister et al., the academic self-concept measures emphasized by Marsh and Craven, and the educational attainment measures originally emphasized by Bachman and O’Malley (1977). Based on a wider selection of variables and stronger statistical methodology, we found (a) consistent support for positive reciprocal effects between academic self-concept and school grades, (b) consistent support for reciprocal effects relating acade- mic self-concept and educational attainment, and (c) only

weak and inconsistent support for linkages between self-esteem and either school grades or attainment.

It is also important to emphasize that we are not claiming that self-esteem is never a useful construct. Rather, consistent with the specificity matching princi- ple (Swann et al., 2007), our conclusion is that when the focus of a study is on educational outcomes, it is impor- tant to focus on academic components of self-concept. While our results provide clear support for the specificity- matching principle, they also demonstrate implications of this principle when taken to its logical extreme. Indeed, a growing body of educational research reviewed by Marsh and Craven (2006) shows that global self-esteem is nearly unrelated to a wide variety of academic outcomes, even though these outcomes are substantially and logically related to specific compo- nents of academic self-concept. Nevertheless, the results of the present investigation provide some weak support for the positive effects of prior global self-esteem on sub- sequent academic achievement and educational attain- ment. Swann et al. (2007) also reviewed other research consistent with the specificity-matching principle, show- ing that self-esteem significantly but weakly predicted specific outcomes and more strongly predicted global out- comes (e.g., Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005; Trzesniewski et al., 2006). Although beyond the scope of the present investigation, there is need for more rig- orous tests of the specificity-matching principle, comparing the predictive power of self-esteem and a comprehensive set of specific components of self-concept across a range of specific and global outcome measures (e.g., Marsh et al., 2006) to evaluate when (or if) global self-esteem is better able to predict substantively important out- comes than appropriately constructed specific compo- nents of self-esteem.

Following from this, we suggest that the behavioral implications of enhancing academic self-concept are clear. Some examples of the behavioral implications of having higher academic self-concept include a reduction in test anxiety (e.g., Zeidner & Schleyer, 1999), taking advanced course work (e.g., Marsh, 1993; Marsh & Yeung, 1998), not dropping out of school (e.g., House, 1993), and as shown in the present investigation, higher lev- els of long-term educational attainment. Thus, unlike global self-esteem, which has no clear behavioral implications for academic achievement or future educational attain- ment, improved academic self-concept has obvious direct and indirect implications.

In summary, our new results extend support for the reciprocal effects model debate in three important direc- tions. First, they provide definitive support for Marsh and Craven’s (2006) proposed rapprochement in their debate with Baumeister et al. (2003, 2005), integrating apparently contradictory results into a single theoretical

548 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

Marsh, O’Mara / SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-CONCEPT, AND PERFORMANCE 549

framework based on a multidimensional perspective of self-concept. Second, they extend previous reciprocal effects model research, demonstrating the effects of prior academic self-concept on subsequent educational attainment, beyond the effects of prior attainment, SES, academic ability, school grades, and self-esteem. Third, the integration of Baumeister’s et al.’s implicit unidi- mensional approach with Marsh and Craven’s explicit multidimensional approach provides a substantively important, new application of the specificity matching principle (Swann et al., 2007).

Despite the high quality of the Youth in Transition data, the application of new, more powerful statistical analyses, and new theoretical developments underpin- ning our research, there are limitations that dictate caution in the interpretation of our results. Because the data are based on responses by boys, the general- izability to girls cannot be tested (although Marsh and Craven, 2006, reported that the pattern of results is similar for boys and girls based on other research; also see Marsh, 1989; Marsh & Yeung, 1998). In addition, the use of historical data suggests the need for further research to test the generalizability of the results (although the results are consistent with Valentine and DuBois’s 2005 meta-analysis). Although self-concept is necessarily based on self-perceptions, school grades and educational attainment were also based on self- report measures (even though these measures were ver- ified in interviews and are clearly less subjective than self-concept responses). While the reciprocal effects model clearly posits causal relations and the results support these predictions, it is important to be cau- tious about drawing causal interpretations from corre- lational data. However, we agree with Baumeister et al. (2003) that longitudinal panel studies provide the strongest tests of the reciprocal effects model—and indeed may even be overly conservative—and that the Youth in Transition is one of the best longitudinal panel studies for this purpose. Finally, although the statistical methods used here are clearly stronger than those used by Marsh (1990) and particularly those used by Bachman and O’Malley (1977) and those in studies reviewed by Baumeister et al., this is a rapidly developing area in which further methodological developments are likely.

Our results also bear on another concern expressed by Baumeister et al. (2003) who argued that it was counter- productive to enhance self-esteem in ways that were not contingent upon meritorious performances; they were particularly critical of the so-called self-esteem movement. Although we take a somewhat different perspective, the Marsh and Craven (2006) review of reciprocal effects model research and the results of the present investigation largely support Baumeister et al.’s concerns and have important practical implications for practitioners,

counselors, and policy makers. Support for our reciprocal effects model implies that academic self-concept and per- formance are reciprocally related and mutually reinforc- ing. Improved academic self-concepts lead to better performance, and improved performance leads to better academic self-concepts. However, if practitioners enhance academic self-concepts without improving performance, then the gains in academic self-concept are likely to be short lived. Even less useful would be interventions such as those criticized by Baumeister et al. that aim to improve self-concept in areas unrelated to intended areas of per- formance gain. Drawing from the reciprocal effects model research, if practitioners improve performances without also fostering participants’ self-beliefs in their capabilities, then the performance gains are also unlikely to be long lasting. Worse yet, interventions may unintentionally undermine academic self-concept in ways that will even- tually undermine the short-term gains in performance (e.g., the social comparison/competitive intervention in Marsh & Peart, 1988). Importantly, if practitioners focus on either one of these constructs to the exclusion of the other, then both are likely to suffer. Hence, based on the reciprocal effects model results, practitioners should strive to improve both academic self-concept and performance. Thus, for example, Hilyer and Mitchell (1979) found the need to supplement performance training with a counsel- ing intervention to enhance self-concepts of participants with initially low levels of self-concept (also see Marsh & Peart, 1988).

The juxtaposition of research in support of the mul- tidimensional perspective and the reciprocal effects model suggests that practitioners need to target specific components of self-concept logically related to their per- formance goals and intended outcomes. Whereas target- ing global components such as self-esteem may result in increased happiness, as suggested by Baumeister et al. (2003), these results may not generalize to the desired outcomes. This has particular implications for interven- tion research, as the success in enhancing academic self- concept or its relation with the desired outcome (e.g., achievement) may be inaccurately assessed and substan- tially underestimate the true effects of the intervention in relation to appropriate, specific components of self- concept, as has been shown to be the case in recent meta-analytic research (O’Mara et al., 2006).

Finally, although our focus has been on substantive issues, it is significant to emphasize that the study demonstrates the importance of methodological– substantive synergies that combine strong theory, the most appropriate methodologies, and the best statistical analyses to evaluate substantively important issues (Marsh & Hau, 2007). Marsh and Hau argued that important methodological advances in latent variable modelling allow researchers to evaluate new theoretical models and revisit unresolved issues in ways that were

T A

B L E

A 1 :

Fa ct

or L

oa di

ng s

on L

at en

t Fa

ct or

s

C on

tr ol

T 1

T 2

T 3

T 4

T 5

In di

ca to

r SE

S A

B IL

G P

A A

SC E

st m

G P

A A

SC E

st m

G P

A E

st m

E dA

t A

SC E

st m

E dA

t E

st m

1 .6

7 .7

6 .9

5 .6

8 .6

1 .9

5 .7

2 .6

3 .9

5 .6

2 .9

5 .7

4 .6

5 .9

5 .7

0 2

.7 6

.8 8

.7 9

.6 6

.8 0

.6 3

.6 6

.5 3

.6 9

.7 5

3 .6

4 .7

2 .5

2 .6

2 .5

8 .6

0 .6

3 .6

5 .6

7 4

.5 6

.8 1

.2 6

.3 1

.3 8

.3 2

.2 8

5 .5

4 .5

3 .6

2 .6

1 .6

4 .6

2 6

.4 1

.2 8

.3 9

.4 3

.4 4

.4 4

7 .4

7 .5

.4 9

.5 1

.5 9

8 .2

8 .3

3 .4

0 .3

8 .3

8 9

.4 6

.4 3

.4 5

.4 9

.4 4

10 .3

5 .3

5 .3

8 .3

9 .3

3

N O

T E

: S el

ec te

d es

tim at

ed p

ar am

et er

s ar

e pr

es en

te d

in a

c om

pl et

el y

st an

da rd

iz ed

f or

m at

( M

ut hé

n &

M ut

hé n,

2 00

6) . S

E S

= so

ci oe

co no

m ic

s ta

tu s;

A B

IL =

ac ad

em ic

a bi

lit y;

G PA

= gr

ad e

po in

t av

er ag

e; A

SC =

ac ad

em ic

s el

f- co

nc ep

t; E

st m

= se

lf- es

te em

; E dA

t = ed

uc at

io na

l a tt

ai nm

en t.

T 1-

T 5

= T

im e

1, T

im e

2, .

. . T

im e

5. F

ac to

r lo

ad in

gs a

re p

re se

nt ed

in c

on de

ns ed

fo rm

at in

w hi

ch e

ac h

of t

he 1

5 la

te nt

f ac

to rs

h as

b et

w ee

n 1

an d

10 in

di ca

to rs

. F or

e xa

m pl

e, e

ac h

of t

he s

el f-

es te

em f

ac to

rs h

as 1

0 in

di ca

to rs

s o

th at

t he

re a

re 1

0 fa

ct or

lo ad

in gs

, w he

re as

G PA

h as

a s

in gl

e in

di ca

to r

so t

ha t

th er

e is

o nl

y 1

fa ct

or lo

ad in

g. I

m po

rt an

tly , e

ac h

in di

ca to

r is

a llo

w ed

t o

lo ad

o n

on e

an d

on ly

o ne

f ac

to r.

S ev

en ty

-t hr

ee in

di ca

to rs

w er

e us

ed t

o in

fe r

15 la

te nt

c on

st ru

ct s.

550

A P

P E

N D

IX S

E L

E C

T E

D P

A R

A M

E T

E R

E S

T IM

A T

E S

F R

O M

T H

E S

T R

U C

T U

R A

L E

Q U

A T

IO N

M O

D E

L

Marsh, O’Mara / SELF-ESTEEM, SELF-CONCEPT, AND PERFORMANCE 551

TABLE A2: Path Coefficients

Independent Latent Factors Dependent Latent Factors

SES — ABIL .39 — T1GPA –.15 .11 — T1ASC .22 .28 .35 — T1Estm .00 –.08 –.01 (.12) — T2GPA –.11 –.04 .4 .14 .03 — T2ASC .04 .39 –.08 .62 .11 .30 — T2Estm –.04 –.05 –.03 .01 .42 .02 (.09) — T3GPA .01 .07 .21 –.05 –.02 .50 .15 .07 — T3Estm –.07 –.18 –.00 .03 .17 .01 .13 .57 .07 — T4EdAt .21 .19 .04 .09 .09 .06 .14 .04 .35 .08 — T4ASC –.01 –.15 –.05 .14 –.09 –.00 .64 .02 .36 .66 –.03 — T4Estm .10 .20 .03 –.01 .08 –.06 –.12 .17 –.11 .04 .25 (.27) — T5EdAt .10 .06 .06 –.00 –.00 .07 .01 –.05 .12 .08 .49 .22 .05 — T5Estm –.04 .03 –.02 .01 .00 .01 .06 .06 .01 .02 .02 .26 .56 .16 —

NOTE: Selected estimated parameters are presented in a completely standardized format (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). SES = socioeconomic status; ABIL = academic ability; GPA = grade point average; ASC = academic self-concept; Estm = self-esteem; EdAt = educational attainment. T1-T5 = Time 1, Time 2, . . . Time 5. Path coefficients (also see Figure 1) relate each predictor factor (independent variables, the factors listed along the top) to each predicted factor (dependent factors, the variables listed in the left-hand column). Thus, for example, consistent with the a priori model, SES—the first factor in the causal ordering—is a predictor of all subsequent variables. Those paths that are statistically significant and that are pertinent to the reciprocal effects model are shown in Figure 1. Numbers in parentheses indicate a correlation between the variables rather than a path coefficient, as no causal ordering is posited between ASC and Estm at Times 1, 2, and 4.

TABLE A3: Latent Factor Correlations

Latent Factor Correlations

SES 1.00 ABIL .56 1.00 T1GPA .28 .54 1.00 T1ASC .46 .64 .64 1.00 T1Estm .17 .21 .27 .46 1.00 T2GPA .28 .51 .73 .62 .26 1.00 T2ASC .43 .64 .58 .85 .37 .64 1.00 T2Estm .14 .22 .25 .42 .64 .28 .46 1.00 T3GPA .31 .50 .66 .54 .23 .73 .58 .26 1.00 T3Estm .12 .18 .24 .38 .58 .25 .40 .76 .24 1.00 T4EdAt .46 .53 .51 .49 .24 .51 .48 .21 .55 .20 1.00 T4ASC .34 .48 .48 .72 .30 .52 .79 .39 .51 .42 .37 1.00 T4Estm .17 .23 .19 .33 .50 .18 .34 .66 .18 .75 .16 .44 1.00 T5EdAt .34 .39 .40 .33 .16 .40 .34 .14 .41 .17 .55 .26 .14 1.00 T5Estm .12 .21 .16 .28 .34 .18 .29 .46 .17 .49 .16 .29 .56 .16 1.00

NOTE: Selected estimated parameters are presented in completely standardized format (Muthén & Muthén, 2006). SES = socioeconomic status; ABIL = academic ability; GPA = grade point average; ASC = academic self-concept; Estm = self-esteem; EdAt = educational attainment. T1-T5 = Time 1, Time 2, . . . Time 5. Estimated latent factor correlations reflect that correlation between each factor within the context of the a priori model. Because some latent factors are substantially correlated, it is useful to compare path coefficients with corresponding correlations. Thus, for example, even though SES has a small negative effect on T1GPA (path coefficient of –.15) the corresponding correlation is positive (.28), indi- cating that the indirect effect of SES on T1GPA mediated through ability is substantial and positive.

not previously possible. More specifically, methodolog- ical and statistical approaches used here were not avail- able for either the earlier Youth in Transition studies (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Marsh, 1990) or studies reviewed by Baumeister et al. (2003), so that issues emphasized here could not be pursued appropriately in that earlier research. Combining these methodological

advances with strong theory allowed us to demonstrate that apparently contradictory conclusions—those by Marsh and Craven (1997, 2006) and those by Baumeister et al. (2003, 2005)—were actually consistent with each other and consistent with a growing body of research emphasizing a multidimensional perspective to self-concept.

552 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

REFERENCES

Bachman, J. G. (2002). Volume I of the documentation manual. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of educational and occupa- tional attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 365-380.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interper- sonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Exploding the self-esteem myth. Scientific American, 292, 84-92.

Bracken, B. A. (1996). Clinical applications of a context-dependent, multidimensional model of self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 463-503). New York: John Wiley.

Byrne, B. M. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure, measurement, and relation to academic achievement. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287-316). New York: John Wiley.

Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Burnett, P. C. (2003). Cracking the self-concept enhancement conundrum: A call and blueprint for the next generation of self-concept enhancement research. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (Vol. 1, pp. 67-90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Donnellan, B., Trzesniewski, K., Robins, R., Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behav- ior, and delinquency. Psychological Science, 16, 328-335.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Unpacking positive emotions: Investigating the seeds of human flourishing. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 57-59.

Furr, R. M. (2005). Differentiating happiness and self-esteem. Individual Differences Research, 3, 105-127.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental per- spective. New York: Guilford.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hilyer, J. C., & Mitchell, W. (1979). Effect of systematic physical-

fitness training combined with counseling on the self-concept of college-students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 427-436.

House, J. D. (1993). The relationship between academic self-concept and school withdrawal. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 125-127.

Hunter, J. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The positive psychol- ogy of interested adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 27-35.

Jöreskog, 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.

Lopez, S. J., Magyar-Moe, J. L., Petersen, S. E., Ryder, J. A., Krieshok, T. S., O’Byrne, K. K., et al. (2006). Counseling psychol- ogy’s focus on positive aspects of human functioning. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 205-227.

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. (1989). Sex differences in the development of verbal and math constructs: The High School and Beyond study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 191-225.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 646-656.

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

Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A sub- stantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 810-819.

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

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 131-198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self- concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 133-163.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Martin, A. (2006). What is the nature of self-esteem? Unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 16-25). New York: Psychology Press.

Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the structure on self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 38-90). New York: John Wiley.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2007). Applications of latent-variable models in educational psychology: The need for methodological- substantive synergies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 151-171.

Marsh, H. W., & Peart, N. (1988). Competitive and cooperative physical fitness training programs for girls: Effects on physical fit- ness and on multidimensional self-concepts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 390-407.

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Integration of multidimensional self-concept and core per- sonality constructs: Construct validation and relations to well- being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74, 403-455.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equa- tion models of academic self-concept and achievement: Gender differences in the development of math and English constructs. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 705-738.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (Version 4). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

O’Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41, 181-206.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-

ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Validation of

construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

Swann, W. B. Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & Larsen McClarty, K. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self- esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 84-94.

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Self- esteem, academic self-concept, and achievement: How the learning environment moderates the dynamics of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 334-349.

Trzesniewski, K., Donnellan, B., Moffitt, T., Robins, R., Poulton, R., & Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42, 381-390.

Valentine, J. C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Effects of self-beliefs on aca- demic achievement and vice-versa: Separating the chicken from the egg. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (Vol. 2, pp. 53-78). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relations between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111-133.

Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999). The big-fish-little-pond effect for academic self-concept, test anxiety, and school grades in gifted children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 305-329.

Received July 8, 2007 Revision accepted October 2, 2007

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Ornaments /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-Roman /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /AssemblyLightSSK /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Garamond-Antiqua /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /Goudy-ExtraBold /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /Helvetica-Oblique /HelvLight /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Lithos-Black /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaMath-Symbol /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

image

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

image

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

  • Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
  • Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
  • Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
  • Paper Formatting $05FREE
  • Cover Page $05FREE
  • Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
  • Dedicated User Area $08FREE
  • 24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
  • Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE
image

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

  • On-time Delivery
  • 24/7 Order Tracking
  • Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

image

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

[display_samples]

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate
image

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

image

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

  • Clear elicitation of your requirements.
  • Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

  • Proactive analysis of your writing.
  • Active communication to understand requirements.
image
image

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

  • Thorough research and analysis for every order.
  • Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
Place an Order Start Chat Now
image

Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp