Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
A study to investigate the relationship between self esteem
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

A study to investigate the relationship between self esteem

954
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
954
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6 A STUDY TO INVESTIGATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM AND MORAL JUDGMENT Sumaera Mehmood M.Phil (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan Nasir Ahmad PhD scholar (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan Shafqat Hussain PhD scholar (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan Kiran Joseph ls M.Phil (Education) at Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan oo dT anAbstract er ritThe current research was undertaken to investigate the relationship between self-esteem and WMoral Judgment among students. The study sample consisted of 81 students and the data ee Frwere collected from 3 different schools (i.e. Asif Public School, House of Secondary ithEducation and Al-Ameen Public School Rawalpindi). The sample consisted of students of rwages 13 to 18 years. Self-esteem Scale of Raffia(1999), comprising 29 items, was used to ito Edmeasure self-esteem while the Urdu version of Padua Moral Judgment scale, originally DFdeveloped by Anna L. ( Communion & Uwe P. Gielen 2001), was used to measure moral lPjudgment. Padua Moral Judgment Scale was a 28 items objective test grouped in four parts. FilEleven social values are assessed in the scale including contract, affiliation, life, property, PDlaw and legal justice. It was hypothesized that high levels of self-esteem result in highlevels of moral judgment but results of the present research showed that higher stages ofmoral judgment are not related with High Self-esteem.Key Words: Self Esteem, Moral judgmentIntroductionSelf-esteem is a significant constituent of personality. It is a way of assessing one’sfeelings, values, attitudes, fears, strengths and weaknesses (Burger & Schonoling, 1993).This refers how we feel about ourselves or how we value ourselves. Self-esteem is a key tosuccess in life. Although children cannot articulate a concept of self-worth until about ageeight, they show by their behavior that they have one. Self-esteem at this stage tends to beglobal such as “I am good” and may depend on adulthood approval. As children grow up, 134COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 2. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6evaluation of competence and adequacy becomes critical in shaping and maintaining asense of self-esteem or self worth. The development of Self-esteem is more affected byother’s opinions and appraisals (Harper, Burkhans, and Dweek, as cited in Papalia, 1998).Self-esteem plays an important role in one’s nature and the degree of one’s Self-esteemranges from high Self-esteem to low Self-esteem. It has an important part of a person’spersonality. It is the relative balance of positive and negative feeling she/he has abouthimself/herself. It may be greatly influenced by certain aspects of one’s appearance andbackground, or skills that are considered socially important. These features becameinfluential for children because they may seem to be sources of acceptance or rejection byothers (Mickinng, 1976). lsPeople have a different view and concept about the universe, the place of man in it that oo dTleads to various systems of ethics, philosophy and reality. Thus, most often human anrelationship to the universe is described in terms of one’s ethics, moral values, ideals, erreligions, which interrelate to and overlap each other. It is not hard to appreciate why ethics rit Wis vitally relevant to every person on the planet. Assessment of other people’s character is eeperhaps one of the most important moderators involved in interpersonal interaction such Fr ithassessments are based on evaluation of the moral trajectories of individuals (Kupperman rw1991). Ethic is a code of values that guides our choices and actions. Essentially, it asks and itoattempts to answer the questions “what is the purposes of my life?” and “how do I go about Ed DFachieving it?” The actions to answer it are conditional and motivated by some purpose. lPHence it gives rise to the term morality that refers to the code of values each of us uses to Fildecide on the choices and actions we make (Honderich, 1995). American Heritage PDDictionary (2002) defines morality as “a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct”. Amoral sense is inborn in man and through the ages it has served as the common means ofstandard moral behaviors, approving certain qualities and condemning others. While thisinstinctive faculty may vary from person to person, human conscience has consistentlydeclared certain moral qualities to be good and others to be bad. Justice courage andtruthfulness have always found praise. Similarly, in assessing the standards of good and badin the collective behavior of society as a whole, only those societies have been consideredworthy of honor which have possessed the virtue of organization, discipline, mutualattention and compassion and which have established a social order based on justice,freedom and equality (Mavldudi, 1948). 135COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 3. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6As human beings, we live our lives in groups. Because we are interdependent, one person’sactivities can affect the welfare of others. Consequently, if we are to live with one another --if society is to be possible -- we must share certain conceptions of what is right and what iswrong. Each of us must pursue our interests, be it for food, shelter, clothing, sex, power orfame, within the context of a moral order governed by rules. Morality involves how we goabout distributing the benefits and burdens of a cooperative group existence (Eisenberg,Reykowski & Staub, 1989: Wilson, 1993). Moral development refers to the process bywhich children adopt principles that lead them to evaluate given behaviors as “right” andothers as “wrong” and to govern their own actions in terms of these principles. If mediainterest is any indication, many Americans are quite concerned with the moral status of lscontemporary youngsters. And they look to the school to teach values to fill what they seem oo dTto be a “moral vacuum”. an er Historically, there have been three major philosophical doctrines regarding the rit Wmoral development of children. One is the doctrine of “original sin”, favored by theologians eesuch as Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430). According to the view, children are naturally Fr ithsinful beings. As such they require redemption through the deliberate and punitive rwintervention of adults. Another view, put forward by John Locke (1632-1740), maintains itothat the child is morally neutral- a tabula rasa- and that training and experience determine Ed DFwhether the child becomes righteous or sinful. The third doctrine, represented by the lPwritings of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), holds that children are characterized by Fil“innate purity” and that immoral behavior results from the corrupting influence of adults. PD The Lickona model (1983) proposes a four components program designed tofacilitate moral behavior. The four components include self-esteem, cooperative learning,moral reflection, and participatory decision-making. Lickona has collected data thatdemonstrate that the systematic use of this model produces an increase in moral behavioramong students. Lickona (1983) defines self-esteem as a student’s sense of mastery orcompetence. He contends that showing students that you respect their uniqueness as anindividual is powerful tool to raise their self-esteem. Higher self-esteem, writes Lickona,leads to the greater likelihood of moral behavior. Meriwether (2003) in his article hasmaintained that sanctions based upon emotional well-being or upon self-esteem areinsufficient for motivating consistent moral behaviour, and they reduce ultimately tohedonism. This is also the case even in the hypothetical event that all moral action results in 136COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 4. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6 heightened self-esteem, and all immoral action results in lower self-esteem (Meriwether, 2003). The present study attempts to measure the relationship between self-esteem and moral judgment. It attempts to show that if a teacher respects the uniqueness of a child his/her moral judgment is also high. Higher self-esteem leads to greater likelihood of moral judgment. But the result of this study shows a different picture of this model. The present study has enormous implications in the field of personality psychology. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-esteem and moral Judgment. The study aimed at the following objectives: i. To find out the relationship of demographic variables with self-esteem and stages of moral ls judgment of the secondary school students. oo dT ii. To investigate the effect of high self-esteem on the stages of moral judgment of secondary school students. an eriii. To examine the effect of age difference on the stages of Moral Judgment and Self-esteem of rit W secondary school students. eeiv. To explore the effect of number of siblings on the stages of moral judgment and self-esteem Fr ith of secondary school students. rw v. To find out the effect of parental income on the stages of moral judgment and selkf-esteem ito of secondary school students. Ed DFvi. To analyze the effect of gender difference on the stages of moral judgment and self-estem lP of the students of secondary school students. Filvii. To recommend practical measures for the high-ups in the light of the findings of the study. PD The following hypotheses were formulated and translated in this study. i. High self-esteem is positively correlated with moral judgment. ii. Moral judgment and Slef-esteem amoung school childern differs on the basis of gender difference. iii. Children who have less number of siblings shall have high level of moral values and Self-esteem as compared to children with more number of siblings. iv. Self-esteem and Moral Judgment differs on the basis of student’s age difference. v. High and low levels of parents’ income will have effect on children self-esteem and stages of moral judgment. vi. Higher self-esteem will lead to higher moral judgment 137 COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 5. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6METHODS The research design employed in the present study was the social survey. The basicidea behind the survey methodology is to measure variables by asking people questions andthen to examine relationships among the variables. Surveys attempt to capture attitude orpatterns of behavior. The present survey used the cross-sectional design, which asksquestions of students at one point in time. It was a small-scale survey involving probabilitysampling, and a sample size of 81 respondents. The sample of the study was randomly taken from the following public schools of Rawalpindi. ls i. Asif Public School oo dT ii. House of Secondary Education iii. Al-Ameen Public School an er rit Two questionnaires were used to obtain information from the sample about the W eerelationship between self-esteem and moral judgments scales. Fr i. Repharezed version of Self-esteem ith rw ii. Padua Moral Judgment Scale ito Data were analyized through different tests i.e. T test, Mean, Standard Deviation, EdANNOVA, Pearson “r” Percentages. DF lPOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES Fil PDSelf-esteemSelf-esteem scale was at four point rating scale. This scale was taken from Qaid-e-azamUniversity. The self-esteem scale used to assess the self-esteem of the respondent. Therewere 29 items the four response categories extremely true, some what true, neither true norfalse, and extremely false.Moral JudgmentUrdu version of Padua Moral Judgment scale was used which was originally developed byAnna L. (Communion & Uwe P. Gielen 2001). It was a 28 items objective test grouped infour parts. Eleven social values are assessed including contract, affiliation, life, property,law and legal justice. Each part consists of seven items (each items indicate a specific stage 138COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 6. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6and mixed stage of Gibbs theory of moral Judgment) whose answer on four points ratingscale ranging from strong disagree to agree. For scoring, one score was assigned to stronglydisagree and four score was assigned to strongly agree. It also has two open endedquestions. Item no.1, item no.5, item no.7, item no.9, item no.10, item no.11, item no.15,item no.17, item no.21, and item no.23 belonged to stage2 according to Gibbs Theory. Anditem no.3, item no.13, item no.18, item no.20, and item no.24 belonged to stage1 accordingto Gibbs Theory. While item no.4 and item no.27 belonged to stage3, according to GibbsTheory. And item no.2, item no.6, item no.8, item no.12, item no.14, item no.16, itemno.19, item no.22, item no.25, item no.26, and item no.28 belong to stage4 according toGibbs Theory. ls ooRESULTS dT anLow, Moderate, and High Self-esteem Scores of the Students (N=81) er ritGroups N WLow Self-esteem 33 ee FrModerate Self-esteem 29 ithHigh Self-esteem 19 rw ito EdThis table shows low, moderate, and high self-esteem scores of the students. The number DFstudent’s whose self-esteem was very high is very low while the number of students having lPlow self-esteem is high. All items were positive. High scores on the scale reflect a higher Filself-esteem. Scores were divided into three groups, scores for low self-esteem ranged from PD44-57, moderate self-esteem from 58-71 and high self-esteem from 72-98.Significance of the Difference between Mean Self-esteem of Male and FemaleStudents’ Scores.Gender N Mean SD t PMale 48 64.16 11.48Female 33 58.88 11.01 2.07 >.05df=79, t at.05=1.99 Table 6 shows the mean Self-esteem scores of the male and female students. The 139COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 7. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6results of the table shows that there was a significant difference between mean self-esteemof male and female students. Self-esteem level was a higher among male as compared tofemales. Females have a low level of self-esteem as compared to males.Mean and Standard Deviation of the Scores of Different Stages of Moral JudgmentScores of the Sample. (N=81). Stages Mean SD Stage 1 13.01 3.29 Stage 2 27.27 4.32 Stage 3 6.51 1.18 ls oo Stage 4 33.16 4.10 dT an Table 12 shows the mean scores of Moral Judgment stages. The result of the table er ritshows that student in stage-4 are more developed as compared to stage-1, stage-2, and Wstage-3. ee Fr ithSignificance of Correlation between Self-esteem Scores and Stages of Moral Judgment rwScores. ito Ed Stages Person r P DF Stage 1 0.08 0.47 lP Fil Stage 2 -0.11 0.30 PD Stage 3 0.18 0.10 Stage 4 -0.06 0.57df=79, r at 0.05=0.217The result of the table shows that there were no relationship between Self-esteem and moraljudgment. But as compare to other stages, stage-3 was statically correlated with self-esteemas compared to other stages. 140COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 8. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6Stages with Frequency of Students at Each Stage of Moral Judgments.Stage1 Stage2 Stage3 Stage4 TotalNo % No % No % No % No %20 25% 11 14% 26 32% 26 32% 81 100%Table 14 shows that mostly (32% each) the students were at stage-3 and stage-4 ascompared to other stages (i.e. stage-1 and stage-2).CONCLUSIONS ls oo Based on the above findings, the followings conclusions were made: dT i. an No relationship was found between self-esteem and moral judgment. er rit ii. No self-esteem differences were found between younger and older students. And W also, no consistent differences in stages of moral judgment were found among ee Fr younger and older students. ith iii. Significant self-esteem differences were found between male and female rw students. Also, real moral judgment differences were found between the male ito Ed and the female students at stages 3 and 4; whereas, they did not differ at stages 1 DF and 2. lP iv. The Self-esteem and Moral Judgment scores differences between the low and Fil PD high-income groups were found non-sifnificant. v. No differences of self-esteem and Moral Judgment were found among students with fewer and more number of siblings. vi. A greater number of students were on stage-3 and stage-4 in Moral Judgment scores. vii. Majority of students were having low levels of self-esteem. viii. Stage-1 (13 to14 yrs olds) and stage-3 (16 yrs olds) group percentage was low as compared to other stages (stage-2 and stage-4) so that results show those students were developed in some stages of Kohlberg’s and Gibb’s stages. 141COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 9. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6DISCUSSIONSThe present research aimed to analyze the relationship between self-esteem and moraljudgment. The main purpose was to determine the correlation between self-esteem andmoral judgment. To achieve this purpose, two instruments were administered to measureself-esteem: 1) self- esteem scale (of Riffai 1999) 2) translated version of Padua MoralJudgment scale (PMJS) (of Ann.L.Comunian & Gielen, 2001). The psychometric properties were determined for both the scales, which proved tobe satisfactory. The inter items of both the scales indicated a high internal consistency withthe total of both the scales. ls oo dT Kohlberg (1987) proposed that this theory of moral development is cross culturally an ervalid. The universality of the stage theory of moral development was also put into test by rit Wmany other researches (e.g. Gielen, 2001; colboy and Kohlberg, 19887). For the present eeresearch Gibbs’s (1992) revised four stage moral development model was used (as later Frresearches using Kohlberg’s theory in different cultures found no claims for stage 5 and ith rwstage 6. Miller 1990 and Gardines 1998). The self-esteem scale used to assess the self- itoesteem to the respondents developed by Raffia (1999). Ed DF First of all the study hypothesized that there is a relationship between stages of lP Filmoral judgment and self-esteem. However, it was found that the relationship between stages PDof PMJS and self-esteem scores was non-sifnificant. Thus, the study revealed that higherstage of moral reasoning is not related with self-esteem or vice versa. The first stage wasnegatively correlated with self-esteem.the value founded in the first stage was 0.08 whichmeans the results were non-sifnificant because the significant level for r is r=0.217(see table13). This indicates that there is no relationship between self-esteem and stage 1 of MoralJudgment. And the stage-2 of the self-esteem was negatively correlated (r=-.11) at thesignificant level r at=.05(see table 11). This indicated that the relationship was negative.The stage-3 was also non-sifnificant (r=.18) but comparatively it was more related to theself-esteem as compared to other stages. This implies that the students who have high self-esteem will be in stage-3 of moral judgment and the stage-4 is negatively correlated with 142COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 10. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6self-esteem (r=-.06) which implies that the students who have high self-esteem will be instage-1 of moral judgment. On the basis of literature review it was hypothesized that there are significant genderdifferences in self-esteem levels of the students; in this case the result of the study supportsthe hypothesis. The results show a significant difference (t=2.07) between self-esteemlevels of the boys and girls (see table 6). Findings show that girls have low self-esteem as compared to boys. There are manyresearches that strengthened these findings. O’ Malley and Bachman (1983) concluded thatgirls have low self-esteem as compared to boys. Simmons and Rosenberg (1975) also lsshowed the pre-adolescent girls scored lower than boys on self-esteem. oo dT It was hypothesized that the gender difference will effect on the stages of moral an erjudgment. The study shows a significant difference in gender with respect to the stage-3 and ritstage-4 of the moral judgdment (t=2.00 & 3.00) (see table 7). It implies that moral judgment W eeof the girls is higher as compared to the boys in stage-4. It shows that the girls are morally Frmore developed in stage-1 as compared to the boys. There was an non-sifnificant difference ith rwon the scores of others stages ( i.e,. stage 1, and stage2) of Moral Judgment which is in itoaccordance with the claim of other researchers who did cross cultural research in this regard Ed(Gielen & Communion, 2001). DF lP The study also hypothesized that the age will effect the self-esteem and stages of Fil PDmoral judgment of the students. Older students’ self-esteem is higher than the youngerstudents. And stages of moral judgment show significant differences and confirmed thestage progression hypothesis. Interestingly stage-3 was statistically significant as comparedto other stages (stage-1, stage-2 & stage-4). Also a major group of respondents gavejudgments at stage-2 and stage-4 form all the age groups (i.e., 13 to 14 years and 15 to 18years), which tends to support Miller’s (1990) claims that Indian people emphasizeinterpersonal considerations in rendering a moral decision. It is also evident from the factthat in Pakistani collectivistic society relationships are more important. However, nosignificant relationship between self-esteem and moral judgment were found. 143COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 11. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6 Another assumption related to socio-economic status was that student of lowparental income have low self-esteem as compared to students of middle parental income.In many studies, parental income has been divided into three levels, low, middle and high. It was hypothesized that students of low parental income have low moral judgment.But findings indicate no difference between the two groups. It implies that there is nosignificant difference between parental income and moral judgment. It also shows thatparental income has no-significant difference at stages of moral judgment. These findingshow that the students with middle parental income have high self-esteem and moraljudgment (see table 8 & 9). These findings also show a negative correlation between self-esteem and moral judgment. ls oo dT It was hypothesized that children who have less number of siblings have high self- anesteem as compared to children who have more number of siblings. It was assumed that erthere were non-sifnificant differences between the two groups. The hypothesis is rejected by rit Wthe results (see table 10) ee Fr It implies that children with less number of siblings are morally developed in the ith rwstages of Padua Moral Judgment. The result of the study shows there are non-sifnificant itodifferences on the stages of Padua Moral Judgment. Ed DF The content analysis of the two open-ended questions given at the end of PMJS lPshow mixed results of the stages of PMJS. In stage-1 and stage-4, the scores are frequently Fil PDhigher than other stages (i.e. stage 2 ,stage 3) and the female scores are higher than the malescores. In the stage-4, the relevant response was higher in the 16 years group as comparedto irrelevant responses in the 16 years age group. In no group the percentage is equal to100% because many students did not answer all the questions; they ignored many items.These students do not seem to have understood the objective of the study. There is a limitednumber of students of ages 17 to 18 years included in the study, whereas, a large number ofstudents of ages 15 to 16 years was included in the study. The mixed results of the relevantand irrelevant categories for lower and higher age groups are probably because of socialdesirability. 144COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 12. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6 The number of students with low self-esteem (N=33, scores=668) was higher thanthe number of students having high self-esteem (N=19, scores=1046). As regards MoralJudgment stages, more number of students was on stage-3 and stage-4 as compared to otherstages (stage-1 and stage-2). So that average scores were also high at stage-4 (M=33.16)and stage-2 (M=27.27) as compared to other stages i.e. stage-1 (M=13.01) and stage-3(M=6.51) (see table10). ls oo dT an er rit W ee Fr ith rw ito Ed DF lP Fil PD 145COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 13. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6ReferencesAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2000). 4th ed. Houghton: Mifflin Company.Burger, W. R., & Schmolling, P.rown, P. (1993). Human services in contemporary. (31d ed).California: Brooks/Cole publishing co.Berk, L. E. (1989). Child Developmentalt. Baston:AlIyn & Bacon.Gielen, U. P., & Comunian, A. L (2001). A paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of the society for cross-cultural research. Received July 6th 2002 from Gielen through ls oo email article. dT anGrcic, J, (n.d), Moral Chocies Etical Theories and Problems, West Published Company er rit St.Parl New York. Los Angles San Francisco. W eeHarper, J. F., & Marshall, F. (1991) Adolescents problems and their relationship to self- Fr ith esteem. Adolescence,26,799-807. rw itoHonderich, T. (1995), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Ed Press. DF lPJenkines, J.(1992), Contemparary Moral Issues, new edition, New York. Fil PDMckinney, F., Lorion, R. P., & Zax, M. (1976). Effective Behavior and Human Development. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.Parsons,D.R, Hinson, L.S, Brown, S.D. ( n.d), Educational Psychology, A Practitioner. Research Model of Testing. West Chaster University Canada.Riffai, F. (1999). Development and evaluation of a self-esteem scale. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.Feiser, J. (2003). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved 20th July 2007 from http://www.Utm.edu/jfieser/ . 146COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  • 14. ijcrb.webs.com OCTOBER 2011 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 6Meriwether, Nicolas. K, (2003). Can Self-Esteem Sanction Morality?.Retrived 25 July, 2007 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_Sea rchValue_0=%28Meriwether%2C+2003%29.+&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw&_ pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&newSearch=true&rnd=1203071428615&searchtype=ba sic.Maududi, A. (1948). Moral System of Islam. Lahore: Idara Tarjaman ul QuranKupperman, J. (1991) Character. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ls oo dT an er rit W ee Fr ith rw ito Ed DF lP Fil PD 147COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research