The Development of Self-Representations During the Transition to Early Adolescence: The Role of Gender,Puberty,and School Transition

Abstract

The present study investigated the development of global and domain-specific self-representations in the transition from late childhood to early adolescence and tested whether gender, puberty, and school transition help explain individual differences in change. The study was based on three measurement occasions over 2 years and included 248 adolescents (average age at T1 = 10.6 years). Findings indicated both stability and change over time. Individual differences in change were partially explained by gender and school transition. It revealed that girls experienced steeper decreasing trajectories and were more negatively affected by school transition in comparison with boys. Time-varying associations between puberty and self-representations were evident in terms of perceived pubertal timing. Findings suggest that both biological (pubertal timing) and contextual factors (school transition) play a role in explaining individual differences of self-representation level as well as their development in girls’ and boys’ transition to early adolescence.

Keywords

global self-esteem domain-specific self-concepts self-representations adolescence gender puberty school transition

Introduction

The developmental period of adolescence—and especially the sensitive phase of early adolescence—is marked by significant biological, cognitive, and contextual changes that drive the individuals’ involvement with and differentiation of their self (Harter, 2006b; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). In this time, individuals are confronted with the developmental task of identity formation (Erikson, 1968) comprising the challenge to integrate different representations of one’s own person in consideration of the surrounding environment into a global abstraction of the self (cf. Côté, 2009). Individuals may vary with respect to both the degree and direction of change in their self-representations during adolescent development. By focusing on biological and contextual factors, the present study sought to examine whether gender, puberty, and school transition help explain individual differences in the development of global and domain-specific self-representations in the transition between late childhood and early adolescence.

Development in Early Adolescence

Adolescence in general represents a challenging life period in the transformation from being a child to becoming an adolescent and later an adult. In specific, we assume that the metaphor of “storm and stress” (Hall, 1904) that has been used to describe the adolescent development best applies to the early phase of adolescence (i.e., early adolescence) as especially in this time manifold biological, psychological, and social changes simultaneously occur. These changes are especially demanding for psychological adaptation processes (Simmons & Blyth, 1987). Accordingly, it is plausible that these changes are related to changes in self-representations.

Increased cognitive skills enable the early adolescents to abstractly think about themselves. In contrast, cognitive changes in early adolescence may be related to unfavorable outcomes such as heightened risk taking and increased sensation seeking (Steinberg, 2005). Bodily changes due to pubertal development may go along with an increased awareness of the own gender (cf. Perry & Pauletti, 2011), which may accentuate gender-stereotyped role behavior (Hill & Lynch, 1983). In addition, not only the onset and status of puberty but also the timing of it has been reported to affect the psychological adjustment in early adolescence (Susman & Dorn, 2009). For instance, being more advanced in the pubertal development in comparison with the peers of the own gender appears to be related to negative psychological outcomes (Mendle & Ferrero, 2012; Mendle, Turkheimer, & Emery, 2007). Hence, it is likely that early maturing individuals do not have enough time to adapt to and cope with their pubertal changes, which might promote psychosocial problems (i.e., stage-termination theory; Petersen & Taylor, 1980). A further developmental milestone in early adolescence refers to the transition from primary to secondary school that is usually accompanied by not only increased performance pressure but also social changes such as the reorganization of the peer network in secondary school (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2006). In conclusion, the manifold changes during the transition from childhood to early adolescence may promote intensified self-reflection that may result in changes in self-representations.

Development of Self-Representations

Self-representations can be manifested as global self-esteem and domain-specific self-concepts. Global self-esteem refers to the feelings and appraisals of oneself as a person (Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995). Domain-specific self-concepts refer to the beliefs about oneself and their values in different domains (Bosson & Swann, 2009). This study focused on four domains by examining the academic, social, physical, and behavioral self-concepts. Although numerous previous studies have investigated the development of self-representations in adolescence (e.g., Birkeland, Melkevik, Holsen, & Wold, 2012; Block & Robins, 1993; Cole et al., 2001; Marsh, 1989; Zimmerman, Copeland, Shope, & Dielman, 1997), developmental work that focuses concurrently on global and domain-specific self-representations are scarce, especially in the transition from childhood to early adolescence. Moreover, as will be discussed below, there is not a clear and consistent pattern of results across the available empirical studies.

Rank-order stability

Rank-order stability indicates the stability of the individuals’ relative ordering regarding their self-representations as assessed by re-test correlations. The stability of global self-esteem is relatively low in childhood from age 6 to 11 (rs = .25-.40; Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2003), but moderate across adolescence from age 12 to 17 (rs = .40-.61; cf. Donnellan, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2006). Thus, the general picture suggests that rank-order stability increases from childhood to adolescence. However, the early adolescent period is characterized by low stability in global self-esteem (Eccles et al., 1989; Trzesniewski et al., 2003).

With respect to domain-specific self-concepts, Cole et al. (2001) found decreases in the stability of the academic, social, and physical self-concepts in early adolescence, whereas the behavioral self-concept became increasingly stable. In summary, low-to-moderate rank-order stabilities can be expected for global and domain-specific self-representations in early adolescence.

Mean-level change

Mixed findings have been found with respect to mean-level change of global self-esteem in adolescence. Some studies reported an increase (e.g., Steiger, Allemand, Robins, & Fend, 2014), a decrease (e.g., McMullin & Cairney, 2004), or stability during adolescence (e.g., Kuzucu, Bontempo, Hofer, Stallings, & Piccinin, 2014). The inconsistent findings for global self-esteem trajectories might reflect the fact that different patterns emerge in different phases of adolescence. Decreases have been primarily observed in early adolescence followed by increases in later adolescence (Birkeland et al., 2012; Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002; Twenge & Campbell, 2001). This developmental pattern suggests that global self-esteem tends to increase after a successful adaptation to maturational and environmental changes such as puberty onset or school transition in early adolescence (cf. Huang, 2010).

The findings for domain-specific self-concepts are mixed as well. It appears that the academic self-concept decreases during early adolescence (Cole et al., 2001; Eccles et al., 1989; Marsh, 1989; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991), but then recovers in middle and later adolescence (Cole et al., 2001). In contrast, a recent study found a linear increase of the academic self-concept between the ages of 9 to 16 years (Kuzucu et al., 2014). Regarding the social self-concept, the available empirical evidence suggests an increase in early adolescence (e.g., Molloy, Ram, & Gest, 2011). Previous work on the physical self-concept reported stability (Cole et al., 2001) and a decrease in adolescence (Bolognini, Plancherel, Bettschart, & Halfon, 1996; Kuzucu et al., 2014). The behavioral self-concept tends to decrease during adolescence (Kuzucu et al., 2014). In summary, decreases can be expected for global self-esteem and academic and physical self-concepts because these domains might be most vulnerable in the transition to early adolescence.

Individual differences in mean-level change

In addition to changes at the mean level, adolescents may differ in the degree and direction of change (cf. Birkeland et al., 2012). Individual differences in change of self-representations can be expected because individuals may vary in the perceptions and evaluations of the manifold changes and their consequences at different time points (e.g., early vs. late puberty onset) in early adolescence. Indeed, individual differences in change have been reported for self-esteem, and the academic, social, physical, and behavioral self-concepts (e.g., Archambault, Eccles, & Vida, 2010; Kuzucu et al., 2014; Steiger et al., 2014). In summary, individual differences in change can be expected for the global and domain-specific self-representations.

Accordingly, it becomes a question for research regarding what leads to these different developmental trajectories, with three plausible candidates being (a) gender, (b) puberty, and (c) school transition.

The Role of Gender

Boys and girls may differ in self-representations as a result of how they deal with the challenges of the transition to early adolescence (Perry & Pauletti, 2011). Although gender differences in adolescence are generally small (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999; Perry & Pauletti, 2011), there are theoretical accounts and some empirical evidence for more pronounced gender effects in early adolescence as compared with later phases of adolescence (cf. Galambos, Berenbaum, & McHale, 2009; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). One prominent explanation for gender differences in self-representations assumes that changes related to pubertal development increase gender awareness, which, in turn, leads to a striving for gender-role conformity (i.e., acting masculine vs. feminine; cf. Eccles et al., 1993; Hill & Lynch, 1983; Simmons & Blyth, 1987).

Female adolescents tend to show lower scores in global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts (Gentile et al., 2009; Kling et al., 1999; Young & Mroczek, 2003), and they experience steeper decreases in these three domains of self-representations (Baldwin & Hoffmann, 2002; Cole et al., 2001; De Fraine, Van Damme, & Onghena, 2007; Zimmerman et al., 1997; but see Kuzucu et al., 2014, for a notable exception). Accordingly, we expected steeper decreases in global self-esteem and academic and physical self-concepts among girls in the transition to early adolescence.

The Role of Puberty

Adolescents may differ in their self-representations as a function of pubertal development. Pubertal development can be assessed by a variety of indicators, measures, and methods (cf. Dorn, Dahl, Woodward, & Biro, 2006). Therefore, it is difficult to establish a common sense of the construct and, in turn, to interpret and compare the psychological relevance of findings based on different methodological approaches. This study examined two established indicators of pubertal development. First, pubertal status describes the maturational stage of an individual in progression from pre-pubescence to full sexual maturity (Tanner, 1962). Second, pubertal timing captures individual differences in the onset of pubertal development and indicates the individuals’ stage of physical maturity relative to their same-sex peers (cf. Mendle, Harden, Brooks-Gunn, & Graber, 2010).

Research on psychological outcomes of pubertal status is underrepresented (cf. Susman & Dorn, 2009). In a study on gender differences in depressive symptoms during adolescence, Marcotte, Fortin, Potvin, and Papillon (2002, Table 2) reported correlations between pubertal status and global self-esteem. Based on the entire sample, the correlations were non-significant for both girls and boys. However, based on analyses of a subsample of adolescents who experienced the transition to high school (see Marcotte et al., 2002, Table 4), the authors found that girls’ advanced pubertal status was related to lower global self-esteem. This finding supports the idea that a simultaneous occurrence of various stressors (i.e., puberty onset and school transition) might have negative effects on individuals’ well-being and self-representations (Simmons & Blyth, 1987). In this study, we explored the associations between pubertal status and self-representations; however, we did not have a specific hypothesis, as this analysis was exploratory.

Early pubertal timing is negatively associated with adolescents’ global self-esteem and academic and physical self-concepts, especially for girls (Graber, Lewinsohn, Seeley, & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Mendle et al., 2007; Williams & Currie, 2000). It is possible though, that the negative association between pubertal timing and girls’ self-representations is limited to early adolescence, as early maturing was only related to lower self-esteem among 11-year-old girls whereas no significant association was found among 13-year-old girls (Williams & Currie, 2000). Moreover, it is possible that early pubertal timing plays a different role in boys and is positively associated with global self-esteem and the physical self-concept (e.g., Stojković, 2013). One explanation is that signs of maturity in boys such as having muscles or being tall are culturally valued, and therefore would be beneficial for boys’ self-representations (Simmons & Blyth, 1987). This would be in line with the gender-role conformity hypothesis cited above (Hill & Lynch, 1983). Regarding pubertal timing, we expected a negative association between early pubertal timing and global self-esteem and academic and physical self-concepts for girls. In contrast, we expected a positive association between early pubertal timing and global self-esteem and physical self-concept for boys.

The Role of School Transition

The transition from primary to secondary school is a challenging life experience due to shifts in social network compositions and the confrontation with stricter evaluative feedback, and higher competition and performance pressure (cf. Donnellan et al., 2006; Dusek & McIntyre, 2006). Hence, the transition to secondary school may create a misfit between individual needs and emotions of the developing adolescents and the experience of altered contextual requirements (cf. stage-environment fit theory; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). For instance, the adolescents could experience a discrepancy between their motivational striving for autonomy and the contextual requirement to adapt to new and tougher school rules. The experience of such a misfit may have negative psychological consequences such as declines in well-being (e.g., West, Sweeting, & Young, 2010).

Previous work suggests that the transition to secondary school is accompanied by a decrease in global self-esteem (Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994; Wigfield et al., 1991) and the academic self-concept (Anderman & Midgley, 1997; De Fraine et al., 2007; Molloy et al., 2011). The effects of the school transition tend to be stronger for girls (De Fraine et al., 2007; Zimmerman et al., 1997). In addition, Cole et al. (2001) reported a smaller increase with respect to the social self-concept after the transition, whereas Molloy et al. (2011) did not find school transition effects for the social self-concept. The development of the physical self-concept seems unrelated to the transition to secondary school, whereas the transitions tend to slow down the decrease of the behavioral self-concept (Cole et al., 2001). Thus, in general, we expected that the school transition is related to decreases in global self-esteem and the academic self-concept.

Goals and Hypotheses of the Present Study

This study aimed to complement and to extend previous research as follows. First, it examined global self-esteem and four domain-specific self-concepts that are particularly important in early adolescence. Second, it explicitly focused on the sensitive developmental period comprising the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Third, it investigated individual differences in the development of the self-representations, and tested whether biological factors (gender, pubertal status, and timing) and contextual factors (school transition) help to explain these individual differences in change. Due to the uniqueness of the present sample, the potential impact of school transition on changes in self-representations was examined in two groups of adolescents who experienced the transition to secondary school at two different time points (see “Method” section).

We tested the following hypotheses. First, we expected low to moderate rank-order stabilities of the self-representations. Second, based on available empirical evidence focusing on the early adolescent phase, we expected mean-level decreases for global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts. Third, we expected substantial individual differences in change across all self-representations. Fourth, with respect to gender, we expected steeper decreases in global self-esteem, and the academic and physical self-concepts in girls as compared with boys. Fifth, we explored the associations between pubertal status and self-representations for girls and boys. Moreover, we expected negative associations between early pubertal timing and global self-esteem, and academic and physical self-concepts for girls. For boys, we expected positive associations between early pubertal timing and global self-esteem and physical self-concept. Finally, we expected that the school transition is related to decreases in global self-esteem and the academic self-concept.

Method

Procedure and Participants

Data came from the Swiss longitudinal study “Family Stress in the Transition Into Puberty” and included three measurement occasions over 2 years. Most of the participants (77.3%) were recruited in schools in the city of Basle, Switzerland, and the surrounding area, whereas a smaller portion (22.7%) was recruited by means of registration offices. The study participation of both mother and child was an inclusion criterion. Trained interviewers conducted standardized interviews with the adolescents and their mothers. The study participation of the father was voluntary.

The original sample in 2008 (T1) consisted of 246 adolescents (51.2% girls) and their mothers. In 2009 (T2), 228 adolescents participated (attrition rate of 7.3%), and 208 participated again in 2010 (T3; attrition rate of 8.8%). For the present study, we used all available data and applied full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method to account for missing data. The mean age at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, were 10.61 years (SD = 0.41 years), 11.62 years (SD = 0.41 years), and 12.64 years (SD = 0.38 years).

Measures

Self-representations

Global self-esteem and the academic, social, physical, and behavioral self-concepts were assessed with the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC; Harter, 1985; Wünsche & Schneewind, 1989; the original labels are academic competence, social acceptance, physical attractiveness, and behavioral conduct). The original version of the SPPC additionally includes items regarding the athletic self-concept. This scale, however, was not used in the study.

Each scale consisted of six items in the format of structured-alternative questions (e.g., “Some kids are happy with themselves . . . BUT . . . other kids are unhappy with themselves”). The answers to the items were transformed into a 4-point Likert-type scale with higher scores reflecting higher levels in the constructs (see Harter, 1985, for details). Alpha reliability estimates across the three measurement occasions were .65 to .76 (global self-esteem), .83 to .86 (academic self-concept), .80 to .83 (social self-concept), .77 to .88 (physical self-concept), and .70 to .80 (behavioral self-concept).

Pubertal status

The pubertal status was measured with three gender-specific items from the Pubertal Developmental Scale (PDS; Petersen, Crockett, Richards, & Boxer, 1988; Watzlawik, 2009) that are valid and reliable markers of pubertal development (cf. Petersen et al., 1988). The three items for girls were about body hair, breast development, and menarche, whereas the items for boys were about body hair, facial hair, and voice changes. Except for the menarche item with a dichotomous response format, the items were rated by selecting the suitable description for the individual developmental stage of the respective puberty indicator (1 = not yet started, 2 = barely started, 3 = definitely started, 4 = seems complete). The pubertal status includes five stages of pubertal development (1 = pre-pubertal to 5 = post-pubertal; see Tanner, 1962, for details) and was constructed in several steps. First, a sum score across the three items was built for boys. Second, the sum score was recoded into the five developmental stages. The stages were defined as a function of how advanced the pubertal development of the boys was with respect to the three items. For instance, if boys selected the answer 1 (not yet started) across all three items, they received a sum score of 3 points that was, in turn, transformed into the first pubertal status “pre-pubertal.” Scores of 4 and 5 were defined as “beginning pubertal,” scores between 6 and 8 were defined as “mid-pubertal,” scores between 9 and 11 were defined as “advanced pubertal,” and a score of 12 was defined as “post-pubertal.” Similar to boys, the pubertal status of those girls who had not experienced any pubertal change was defined as “pre-pubertal.” For girls before menarche, the responses on body hair and breast development were summed up and recoded into the status 2 (beginning pubertal) or 3 (mid-pubertal). For girls after menarche the responses on body hair and breast development were summed up and recoded into the status 4 (advanced pubertal) or 5 (post-pubertal). Alpha reliability estimates across the three measurement occasions for girls were .46, .63, and .69, and for boys were .47, .58, and .67. The unsatisfactory reliability particularly at the first measurement occasion might be explained by the low number of (heterogeneous) items as well as the small variance in pubertal maturity at this developmental stage.

Pubertal timing

Adolescents were asked about their perceived pubertal timing in comparison with their same-sex peers using a single-item measure (Silbereisen & Schwarz, 1996). On a 5-point Likert-type scale, the participants rated how they subjectively perceived their body development in comparison with their peers (1 = much earlier, 2 = earlier, 3 = on time, 4 = later, 5 = much later). Although single-items measures are generally not ideal, Dorn et al. (2006) reported that the pubertal timing single item might have advantages (e.g., self-perceived categorization, easy to use in multiple indicator surveys) and is appropriate for research on self-esteem or self-competence.

School transition

This study is based on a sample from Switzerland. For a better understanding of the results, the Swiss school system needs to be briefly explained. The school structure, the time point of, and age at the school transition from primary to secondary school largely depends on the canton (federal state) in which the adolescents attend school. This study included participants from two cantons: Basle-City (n = 102, 41.5%) and Basle-Country (n = 144, 58.5%). In Basle-City, early adolescents make the transition to secondary school (called “Orientierungsschule”) after 4 years of primary school (10-11 years of age). In secondary school, the students are not yet separated according to their school level. In Basle-Country, early adolescents make the transition to secondary school (called “Sekundarschule”) after 5 years of primary school (11-12 years of age). The transition then goes along with a selection process based on school achievement in primary school. After the transition, students are divided into different secondary school levels: Level A (general—basic skills, preparation for level-correspondent professional training, special-needs teacher if required), Level E (advanced—extended skills in math and language, preparation for professional training or high school education or equivalent), Level P (high school level—high achievement motivation across various subjects required, preparation for high school education). Although we did not collect information about the specific characteristics of the secondary schools of our participants, we can assume that the change to secondary school in both cantons includes an increase in size of school and in the number of teachers who are responsible for the students and a longer way to school (the data collection in Basle-Country took place in greater agglomerations just before Basle-City and greater communities, thus, the length of ways to school are comparable with the city). In this respect, the school transitions in both groups are comparable. The difference of the school transitions is a combination of higher age and assignment to achievement segregated schools in Basle-Country compared with Basle-City.

For school transition analyses, we selected a subsample of adolescents (n = 156), who followed a normative school trajectory at the average age without having repeated the class or moving into another canton. One part of the subsample (n = 71, 45.5%) made the school transition between T1 and T2 (participants from Basle-City), whereas the second part of the subsample (n = 85, 54.5%) experienced the transition between T2 and T3 (participants from Basle-Country). Of the 85 adolescents from Basle-Country who experienced an achievement-separated school transition, eight adolescents (9.4%) changed to “Sekundarschule” Level A (general), 25 adolescents changed to “Sekundarschule” Level E (advanced; 29.4%), and 52 (61.2%) adolescents changed to “Sekundarschule” Level P (high school level).

Analytical Procedure

Rank-order stability

We assessed the rank-order stability of the self-representations by means of test-retest correlations across the three measurement occasions. Furthermore, we examined changes in rank-order stability by comparing the correlation coefficients using the Fisher r-to-z transformation approach.

Mean-level change and individual differences in mean-level change

We performed growth curve models to model the developmental trajectories of global self-esteem and the four self-concepts (see upper part of Figure 1). Intercept and slope were based on the manifest self-representation scores at the three measurement occasions T1 to T3 and included mean scores. The intercept was scaled by constraining the loadings at values of 1, whereas the loadings of the slope were fixed to 0 (T1), 1 (T2), and 2 (T3) according to the time intervals between the measurement occasions. Intercept and slope were allowed to correlate. For the slope factor, we estimated the mean-level change (slope mean) and individual differences in change (slope variance).

Figure 1.

The conceptual model utilized for the latent growth curve model analyses on the development of the self-representations across the three measurement occasions (T1 = 10.6 years, T2 = 11.6 years, T3 = 12.6 years).

Gender

We included gender as a predictor in the growth curve models to examine whether gender explained individual differences in intercept and slope of global and domain-specific self-representations.

Puberty

In order to examine the role of pubertal status and timing for the adolescents’ self-representations, we established separate growth curve models for girls and boys as they differ regarding their pubertal onset and the underlying biological processes (cf. Susman & Dorn, 2009). We used time-varying covariate analyses (see lower part of Figure 1) to assess effects of pubertal status and timing on girls’ and boys’ self-representations.¹

School transition

We examined the role of school transition for self-representations in two groups of adolescents that experienced the transition at two different time points either after the fourth or the fifth grade of primary school (see sample description). To do so, we adapted the latent congruence model approach (cf. Cheung, 2009) to examine latent differences between T1 to T2 and T2 to T3, respectively (see Figure 2). We constrained the loadings of the intercept to values of 1. In turn, the slope loadings were fixed to −0.5 (T1/T2) and +0.5 (T2/T3). Then, we used the dichotomous school variable (transition: 0 = no, 1 = yes) as a predictor of the intercept and slope factors of the self-representations. We also examined the possible impact of school transition in separate models for girls and boys.²

Figure 2.

The conceptual model utilized for analyzing the effects of school transition on intercept and slope of the self-representations based on adaptations of the latent congruence model.

All analyses were conducted using Mplus version 6.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square exact fit test and comparative fix index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as two additional fit indexes. In general, CFI values above .95 and RMSEA values below .06 are typically applied to indicate whether a model is adequately parameterized and reflects a good fit, although CFI values above .90 and RMSEA values below .08, respectively, are acceptable (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cohen’s d was used as measure of mean differences (Cohen, 1988).

Results

Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. In comparison with boys, girls had a lower global self-esteem at T3, t(206) = 2.75, p < .01, d = .37, and lower scores in the physical self-concept at T2, t(225) = 2.40, p < .05, d = .31, and T3, t(206) = 4.90, p < .001, d = .69. Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations among all study variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables.

	T1 (10.6 years): $\bar{X}$ (SD)			T2 (11.6 years): $\bar{X}$ (SD)			T3 (12.6 years): $\bar{X}$ (SD)
	All	Girls	Boys	All	Girls	Boys	All	Girls	Boys
Global SE	3.26 (0.46)	3.25 (0.50)	3.28 (0.41)	3.21 (0.49)	3.19 (0.51)	3.24 (0.46)	3.14 (0.49)	3.05 (0.51)	3.23 (0.46)
Academic SC	3.11 (0.59)	3.11 (0.61)	3.10 (0.58)	3.12 (0.59)	3.07 (0.60)	3.17 (0.57)	3.03 (0.58)	2.97 (0.62)	3.10 (0.54)
Social SC	3.10 (0.56)	3.09 (0.59)	3.10 (0.52)	3.13 (0.53)	3.11 (0.56)	3.14 (0.50)	3.13 (0.55)	3.11 (0.59)	3.16 (0.52)
Physical SC	3.18 (0.53)	3.13 (0.57)	3.24 (0.49)	3.07 (0.61)	2.98 (0.65)	3.17 (0.56)	3.02 (0.61)	2.82 (0.65)	3.22 (0.50)
Behavioral SC	3.05 (0.45)	3.08 (0.44)	3.01 (0.45)	3.08 (0.42)	3.08 (0.40)	3.08 (0.45)	3.08 (0.46)	3.07 (0.47)	3.09 (0.45)
PS	—	2.38 (0.82)	1.48 (0.57)	—	2.91 (0.67)	1.82 (0.67)	—	3.39 (0.56)	2.25 (0.70)
PT	—	2.90 (0.88)	2.91 (0.75)	—	2.94 (0.87)	2.87 (0.74)	—	2.95 (0.84)	2.89 (0.70)

Note. N_Total = 208-246; n_Girls = 105-126; n_Boys = 102-120; SE = self-esteem; SC = self-concept; PS = pubertal status (higher scores in PS indicate advanced pubertal status); PT = pubertal timing (higher scores in PT indicate late timing).

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables Separately for Girls and Boys.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
1	T1 GSE	-	.48	.46	.67	.66	.10	− .22	.37	.32	.26	.33	.32	.07	−.22	.38	.25	.25	.28	.35	.03	−.12
2	T1 ASC	.38	-	.51	.37	.55	.07	.01	.30	.67	.33	.29	.19	.06	−.09	.32	.56	.25	.24	.27	−.09	.00
3	T1 SSC	.57	.32	-	.43	.60	−.04	.02	.21	.38	.52	.20	.23	−.01	−.13	.13	.25	.49	.17	.14	−.08	−.03
4	T1 PSC	.63	.15	.42	-	.43	.08	−.13	.31	.19	.19	.44	.20	.00	−.08	.38	.16	.23	.35	.26	−.14	−.07
5	T1 BSC	.54	.55	.47	.29	-	.04	−.10	.34	.44	.39	.23	.40	.09	−.23	.30	.32	.25	.20	.31	.04	−.17
6	T1 PS	−.04	−.19	−.04	−.07	−.18	-	−.34	.18	.03	.06	.06	.12	.64	−.32	.09	−.00	.10	.05	.07	.43	− .37
7	T1 PT	.13	.24	.07	.06	.14	−.16	-	−.12	.01	−.20	−.10	−.15	− .35	.44	−.27	−.03	−.21	−.14	−.24	−.23	.52
8	T2 GSE	.39	.28	.23	.24	.38	.03	.07	-	.50	.49	.63	.69	.11	−.13	.46	.39	.27	.53	.49	.11	−.11
9	T2 ASC	.23	.50	.16	.14	.31	−.16	.12	.56	-	.53	.45	.47	.06	−.11	.30	.67	.24	.38	.37	−.04	−.01
10	T2 SSC	.31	.21	.53	.24	.27	−.09	.14	.50	.37	-	.41	.46	.12	−.31	.27	.35	.52	.37	.33	.15	− .31
11	T2 PSC	.41	.19	.11	.36	.27	−.01	.06	.66	.51	.44	-	.41	.00	−.17	.46	.38	.22	.71	.38	−.02	−.01
12	T2 BSC	.37	.41	.25	.21	.48	−.15	.12	.68	.52	.47	.50	-	.14	−.21	.34	.39	.25	.31	.47	.18	−.13
13	T2 PS	−.20	−.11	−.13	− .24	−.13	.68	−.15	.01	−.14	−.13	−.06	−.04	-	−.42	.14	.09	.21	.00	.19	.49	−.48
14	T2 PT	.15	.12	.02	.12	.05	−.21	.22	.22	.22	.09	.12	.16	−.12	-	−.11	−.08	−.22	−.13	− .27	−.47	.64
15	T3 GSE	.33	.28	.14	.04	.23	−.05	.17	.51	.38	.33	.42	.54	−.07	.16	-	.48	.39	.63	.67	−.02	−.16
16	T3 ASC	.27	.44	.17	.05	.24	−.04	.14	.50	.64	.31	.38	.53	−.01	.12	.55	-	.32	.32	.51	−.06	−.03
17	T3 SSC	.23	.23	.33	.12	.21	.03	.03	.30	.34	.52	.35	.38	−.06	−.03	.59	.39	-	.22	.48	.16	−.34
18	T3 PSC	.25	.08	.04	.18	.01	−.12	.13	.43	.39	.31	.57	.34	−.18	.12	.67	.40	.59	-	.42	−.06	.01
19	T3 BSC	.29	.37	.23	−.01	.30	−.04	.14	.50	.39	.37	.35	.62	−.05	.18	.81	.58	.56	.50	-	.12	−.28
20	T3 PS	−.24	−.07	−.19	−.22	−.23	.40	− .26	−.07	−.17	−.18	.05	−.05	.59	−.15	−.09	−.03	−.01	−.11	−.03	-	−.46
21	T3 PT	.14	.20	.12	.01	.15	−.24	.15	−.04	−.11	−.02	−.16	.02	−.19	.01	−.08	−.01	−.16	−.12	.04	−.37	-

Note. Correlations for girls are depicted above the diagonal; correlations for boys are depicted below the diagonal; correlations in boldface are significant at α = .05 or α = .01 (underlined). GSE = global self-esteem; ASC = academic self-concept; SSC = social self-concept; PSC = physical self-concept; BSC = behavioral self-concept; PS = pubertal status (higher scores in PS indicate advanced pubertal status); PT = pubertal timing (higher scores in PT indicate late timing).

Rank-Order Stability

Both the 1-year (rs = .38-.66) and the 2-year (rs = .30-.50) rank-order stabilities were moderate to high depending on the self-representation domain. The rank-order stabilities (rs, all ps < .001) between T1 and T2 were slightly lower than those between T2 and T3: global self-esteem: .38 (T1-T2), .49 (T2-T3); academic self-concept: .58 (T1-T2), .66 (T2-T3); social self-concept: .52 (T1-T2), .53 (T2-T3); physical self-concept: .42 (T1-T2), .66 (T2-T3); behavioral self-concept: .44 (T1-T2), .55 (T2-T3). However, the difference was only statistically significant with respect to the physical self-concept (z = −3.55, p < .001).

Mean-Level Change and Individual Differences in Mean-Level Change

The model fits across all estimated models reported below were good (see Appendix 1 for details). The results of the growth curve analyses are shown in Table 3. Global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts significantly decreased from late childhood to early adolescence, whereas stability over 2 years was found with respect to the social and behavioral self-concepts. The variances of the intercept factors were significant across all self-representations, suggesting individual differences at the initial level. Significant slope variances were found with respect to the academic, physical, and behavioral self-concepts. This indicates that adolescents vary in their development as they moved from late childhood to early adolescence.

Table 3.

Results From the Growth Curve Models.

	$\bar{X}$		Variances		Gender (predictor)		Pubertal status (covariate)			Pubertal timing (covariate)
	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
GSE
All	3.26	−.07***	0.09**	.02	−0.01	−.27*
Girls	3.26	−.10***	0.09*	.01			.05	.02	−.03	−.15*	−.11^†	−.12
Boys	3.27	−.03	0.09**	.03			.00	.02	.04	.14^†	.04	−.03
ASC
All	3.12	−.05**	0.24***	.04*	0.00	−.21*
Girls	3.12	−.09***	0.29***	.04			.05	.03	.01	−.03	−.03	−.05
Boys	3.12	−.01	0.19***	.04			−.18*	−.05	−.00	.15*	.21***	.21*
SSC
All	3.10	.01	0.17***	.02	−0.01	−.05
Girls	3.10	.01	0.15***	−.01^a			−.06	.09	.14*	.03	−.17**	−.32***
Boys	3.11	.02	0.19***	.05*			−.03	.01	.04	.04	.05	.05
PSC
All	3.17	−.08***	0.16***	.08***	−0.11	−.25**
Girls	3.13	−.15***	0.17**	.08***			.06	.01	−.01	−.13^†	−.10^†	−.05
Boys	3.22	−.01	0.15**	.07***			−.03	−.06	−.03	.06	−.01	−.01
BSC
All	3.05	.01	0.10***	.03*	0.11	−.14
Girls	3.09	−.01	0.07*	.01			.02	.07	.07	−.02	−.12^†	−.20*
Boys	3.01	.03	0.13***	.05**			−.09	.04	.10	.09	.07	.02

Note. Standardized coefficients; 0 = boys; 1 = girls; GSE = global self-esteem; ASC = academic self-concept; SSC = social self-concept; PSC = physical self-concept; BSC = behavioral self-concept.

See Note 2.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Gender Effects

There were no gender differences in the levels (intercepts) of self-representations, but girls and boys differed in their development (slopes) regarding the global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts (Table 3). It revealed that girls experienced steeper decreases in these self-representations than boys. This pattern was also evidenced in growth curve models separately for girls and boys. Decreases in global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts were only significant for girls, whereas boys demonstrated stability in these self-representations over 2 years.

Puberty Effects

Pubertal status was not significantly related to global self-esteem. In only two cases, pubertal status was significantly associated with domain-specific self-concepts (Table 3). More specifically, boys with an advanced pubertal status had lower scores in their academic self-concept at T1, whereas girls with an advanced pubertal status had higher scores in their social self-concept at T3. However, perceived pubertal timing was significantly associated with some self-representations of the adolescents (Table 3). In general, the subjective perception of later pubertal timing was negatively associated with the self-representations among girls, whereas the perception of later pubertal timing tended to be positively related to the self-representations among boys. More specifically, girls’ perceived later timing was related to lower scores in global self-esteem, social self-concept, and behavioral self-concept, and marginally related to lower physical self-concept in girls (Table 3). In turn, later timing was positively related to academic self-concept in boys.

School Transition Effects

Regarding the first school transition phase between T1 and T2 (school transition in Basle-City), there were substantial associations between school transition and decreases of the global self-esteem and the behavioral self-concept (Table 4). The slope of the academic self-concept was marginally affected by school transition, suggesting individual differences in change in part as a result of school transition. In contrast, there was a significant association between the school transition and decreases in the academic self-concept for the school transition between T2 and T3 (school transition in Basle-Country). Results based on models separately for girls and boys demonstrated that the corresponding effects were only statistically significant in the group of girls. This suggests that only self-representations of girls were longitudinally affected by the school transition.

Table 4.

Results From the Latent Difference Score Models and School Transition Effects.

	$\bar{X}$ T1-T2		Variances T1-T2		Transition T1-T2		$\bar{X}$ T2-T3		Variances T2-T3		Transition T2-T3
	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
GSE
All	3.23	−.05	0.15***	.28***	0.03	−.21**	3.17	−.08*	0.17***	.25***	0.07	−.08
Girls	3.22	−.06	0.17***	.32***	0.05	−.28**	3.12	−.14**	0.18***	.28***	0.03	−.21^†
Boys	3.25	−.05	0.13***	.23***	−0.01	−.13	3.23	−.01	0.16***	.21***	0.15	.10
ASC
All	3.11	.00	0.28***	.29***	−0.04	−.15^†	3.07	−.10**	0.28***	.23***	0.02	−.23**
Girls	3.08	−.07	0.31***	.24***	−0.08	−.29**	3.00	−.12*	0.31***	.24***	0.08	−.32**
Boys	3.13	.07	0.25***	.32***	0.00	−.02	3.13	−.07	0.24***	.22***	−0.04	−.12
SSC
All	3.11	.02	0.22***	.28***	−0.01	−.12	3.13	.0	0.22***	.28***	0.11	.04
Girls	3.10	.01	0.25***	.32***	0.02	−.16	3.11	−.00	0.25***	.31***	0.07	−.04
Boys	3.12	.04	0.20***	.24***	−0.05	−.10	3.15	.01	0.19***	.25***	0.18	.11
PSC
All	3.12	−.12**	0.23***	.38***	0.11	−.02	3.04	−.05	0.31***	.26***	−0.08	−.02
Girls	3.05	−.16**	0.26***	.41***	0.06	−.10	2.90	−.15**	0.35***	.25***	−0.05	−.14
Boys	3.20	−.08	0.19***	.34***	0.14	.08	3.19	.05	0.21***	.24***	−0.08	−.09
BSC
All	3.06	.03	0.14***	.21***	−0.06	−.21**	3.08	−.01	0.15***	.18***	0.19*	.00
Girls	3.08	−.01	0.12***	.21***	0.03	−.32**	3.07	−.02	0.14***	.20***	0.12	−.09
Boys	3.04	.07	0.15***	.21***	−0.15	−.11	3.08	.01	0.16***	.16***	0.28*	.11

Note. Standardized coefficients; 0 = no school transition; 1= school transition; GSE = global self-esteem; ASC = academic self-concept; SSC = social self-concept; PSC = physical self-concept; BSC = behavioral self-concept.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The present study examined the development of self-representations in the sensitive transition period from late childhood to early adolescence. We tested whether gender, puberty, and school transition help explain individual differences in change of self-representations. With respect to rank-order stability of the self-representations over 2 years, we found moderate stability coefficients for global self-esteem (T1-T2: .38, T2-T3: .49). These findings largely correspond to previous research (cf. Trzesniewski et al., 2003). In turn, the domain-specific self-concepts tended to be slightly more stable than expected (T1-T2:.42-.58, T2-T3: .53-.66). It might be that the stage of self-differentiation (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976), which is a result of improved cognitive abilities in adolescence, is advanced with respect to domain-specific self-concepts in comparison with the more complex representation of global self-esteem resulting in somewhat higher rank-order stabilities of the domain-specific self-concepts.

In line with our expectations and previous work (e.g., Bolognini et al., 1996; Cole et al., 2001; Robins et al., 2002), we found significant mean-level decreases of global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts from late childhood to early adolescence. It seems that the participants generally saw themselves in a more negative light in terms of self-esteem when they moved to early adolescence. This decrease might reflect a normative uncertainty related to the manifold biological and environmental changes individuals experience in this time period (Eccles, 1999). The decrease of the academic self-concept might reflect increased performance pressure and achievement expectations as well as structural and social changes arising with the transition to secondary school (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Because the academic self-concept is a relatively broad construct, it would be interesting for future research to know more about the underlying motivational, cognitive, or social processes behind the decrease in this particular self-concept. With respect to decreases in the physical self-concept, it is possible that undesirable bodily changes related to pubertal development such as weight gain or blemished skin lead to negative body conceptions (e.g., Tiggemann, 2005).

An important finding of the present study is that despite mean-level trends over 2 years, individual differences in change of self-representations were found. This suggests that not all adolescents follow the same developmental trajectories from late childhood to early adolescence. These findings are in line with other developmental research on self-representations in adolescence (e.g., Archambault et al., 2010; Steiger et al., 2014). Surprisingly, we did not find individual differences in mean-level change for global self-esteem and the social self-concept with respect to the results from the growth curve models. The lack of individual differences in mean-level change of global self-esteem may be due to a normative shift from overly positive self-evaluations in childhood to more realistic and differentiated reflections of the self in adolescence (Harter, 2006a; Robins et al., 2002). In contrast, the results from the year-to-year latent difference score analyses suggest individual differences in change from T1 to T2 and T2 to T3, respectively, for all self-representations. Consistent with our assumption about the moderating role of gender, our analyses revealed that girls compared with boys experienced steeper decreases in global self-esteem and the academic and physical self-concepts. Girls generally have more internalizing problems than boys often explained by gender-specific hormonal changes (Hayward & Sanborn, 2002). Thus, it is possible that underlying hormonal processes are responsible for gender effects. However, in our study, the “biological” indicator (pubertal development) based on subjective measures was not an explanatory variable for individual differences in change of these self-representations in the time-varying covariate analyses. Future research should explicitly include objective measures such as physiological indicators of hormonal processes over time. Closely related to hormonal changes in puberty are bodily changes. Previous research reported that particularly girls dislike the pubertal body changes that typically go along with deviations from the ideal conceptions of attractiveness in women such as skinniness (cf. Harter, 2012). This might explain, in part, why the girls’ physical self-concept decreased. The decrease in the academic self-concept of girls might reflect the fact that girls typically underestimate themselves regarding their academic competence, a tendency that has been reported to increase between Grades 3 and 8 (between ages 8 and 13; Cole, Martin, Peeke, Seroczynski, & Fier, 1999).

The effects of pubertal development on self-representations did not provide a clear pattern. First, our exploratory analyses with respect to the associations between pubertal status and self-representations showed just two substantial associations between pubertal status and the self-representations: Boys with an advanced pubertal status had lower academic self-concept scores at T1. In turn, girls with an advanced pubertal status had higher social self-concept scores at T3. However, the effects were only evidenced at one single measurement occasion whereas they remained non-significant at the remaining occasions.

Second, in contrast to our expectations and previous research (e.g., Stojković, 2013), the perceived earlier pubertal timing was weakly or only marginally significantly related to higher self-representation for girls. Therefore, these results need to be interpreted with caution. In our opinion, two results regarding perceived pubertal timing stood out. On the one hand, girls who perceived themselves as being early in pubertal timing had higher scores in their social self-concept, which is consistent with the positive association between pubertal status and the social self-concept regarding T3. This result fits with previous findings suggesting that girls’ early pubertal timing is related to popularity particularly with respect to the opposite sex (e.g., Flannery, Rowe, & Gulley, 1993). On the other hand, boys’ perceptions of later pubertal timing were positively related to their self-representations, particularly with respect to their academic self-concept. The latter goes along with the results of a negative association between pubertal status and the academic self-concept regarding T1. A possible interpretation is that late bloomers have more advantages at school, as they have more resources to focus on academic contents because they are less occupied by the various changes arising from pubertal development.

School transition was significantly related to decreases in global self-esteem, and the academic and behavioral self-concepts. Interestingly, there were some small differences between the two examined cantons. Whereas in the Canton Basle-City (early school transition but no achievement selection) substantial negative associations between school transition and global self-esteem and the behavioral self-concept were found, a significant negative relation with school transition was evidenced for the academic self-concept of adolescents from Basle-Country (later transition with achievement selection). Thus, it is possible that adolescents who are confronted by an earlier school transition are more vulnerable (cf. Dusek & McIntyre, 2006) to experience decreases in their self-assurance (i.e., global self-esteem, behavioral self-concept) as they are cognitively less prepared for integrating the aspects of change. In turn, a school transition that is accompanied by a selection process might focus adolescents’ perception more strongly on their academic achievement that, in turn, could negatively affect their academic self-concept. The big fish—little pond effect (Marsh, 1974; Marsh & Tau, 2003) might provide further explanations for the decline in the academic self-concept. Accordingly, it is postulated that due to comparison processes equally able students have a lower academic self-concept in schools with a high ability level than in low-ability schools as the contrast between the own achievement and that of the peers is less salient. From this perspective, it would be interesting to examine whether the decrease of the academic self-concept was more pronounced in students who made the transition from primary school to a higher level of secondary school (e.g., Level P; see “Method” section) in comparison with the other students.

It might be speculated that the variations in results regarding effects of school transition on self-representation changes for the cantons Basle-City and Basle-Country arise from a combination of differences in age and assignments of school achievement going along with the transition. However, the differences in results were small and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.

Our results based on separate analyses of school transition effects on self-representation changes in girls and boys revealed that the effects of school transition were particularly adverse for girls. Because girls tend to underestimate themselves with respect to academic performance (Cole et al., 1999), the school transition might cause even more strain for them, as they have to deal with new teachers, rules, and performance requirement resulting in stronger uncertainties of self-representations.

Limitations and Conclusion

Some limitations of the present study are worth noting as directions for future work. First, because of the limited sample size, we did not perform more complex analyses of subgroups based on different categories of pubertal timing. Second, the PDS (Petersen et al., 1988; Watzlawik, 2009) evidenced a lower than average reliability, likely due to the low number of items and the heterogeneous items. Moreover, as one would expect for early puberty, we found a small amount of variance, implying that the majority of participants did not show advanced signs of puberty. Furthermore, a single item was used to measure pubertal timing, which is not ideal from a psychometric point of view.

The findings of this study support the assumption that the transition from late childhood to early adolescence is a sensitive developmental period for global and domain-specific self-representations and is marked by individual differences in change. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that examined the role of gender, puberty, and school transition for early adolescents’ self-representation within the same study. An advance for future research would be to capture pubertal development as a process variable rather than as a status variable. Longitudinal models that consider individual differences in the timing (i.e., level) and tempo (i.e., slope) of puberty would be necessary (Mendle et al., 2010). Furthermore, future research should use longitudinal designs across longer time periods that include more measurement assessments to disentangle effects of gender and puberty on the development of self-representations in order to consider the different starting points for girls’ and boys’ pubertal development more precisely. Moreover, self-representation trajectories could be analyzed and compared in different phases of the adolescent development (e.g., early vs. late adolescence).

In conclusion, the present study contributes to the ongoing debate on the interplay of biological, social, and psychological changes in the development of self-representations in an understudied period of life from late childhood to early adolescence.

Footnotes

Appendix

Model Fits of all Models Applied in the Present Study.

		χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	RMSEA90% CI
Latent growth curve models (LGCM)	Global self-esteem	0.141	1	1.000	.000	.000; .123
	Academic self-concept	3.349	1	.989	.089	.000; .222
	Social self-concept	0.150	1	1.000	.000	.000; .124
	Physical self-concept	1.537	2	1.000	.000	.000; .117
	Behavioral self-concept	0.587	1	1.000	.000	.000; .153
LGCM: Gender as predictor	Global self-esteem	1.281	2	1.000	.000	.000; .111
	Academic self-concept	4.195	2	.990	.067	.000; .158
	Social self-concept	0.173	2	1.000	.000	.000; .046
	Physical self-concept	2.939	3	1.000	.000	.000; .107
	Behavioral self-concept	0.906	2	1.000	.000	.000; .100
LGCM: Separate models for girls	Global self-esteem	0.891	1	1.000	.000	.000; .230
	Academic self-concept	0.464	1	1.000	.000	.000; .206
	Social self-concept	0.033	1	1.000	.000	.000; .130
	Physical self-concept	0.365	2	1.000	.000	.000; .102
	Behavioral self-concept	0.042	1	1.000	.000	.000; .138
LGCM: Separate models for boys	Global self-esteem	0.343	1	1.000	.000	.000; .201
	Academic self-concept	3.409	1	.972	.142	.000; .319
	Social self-concept	0.151	1	1.000	.000	.000; .177
	Physical self-concept	2.811	2	.984	.058	.000; .200
	Behavioral self-concept	0.919	1	1.000	.000	.000; .237
LGCM: pubertal status as covariate (girls)	Global self-esteem	5.154	7	1.000	.000	.000; .090
	Academic self-concept	4.080	7	1.000	.000	.000; .075
	Social self-concept	6.384	7	1.000	.000	.000; .104
	Physical self-concept	4.733	8	1.000	.000	.000; .069
	Behavioral self-concept	3.954	7	1.000	.000	.000; .073
LGCM: pubertal status as covariate (boys)	Global self-esteem	8.927	7	.961	.048	.000; .128
	Academic self-concept	5.218	7	1.000	.000	.000; .093
	Social self-concept	5.551	7	1.000	.000	.000; .097
	Physical self-concept	12.751	8	.913	.070	.000; .139
	Behavioral self-concept	8.229	6	.972	.056	.000; .139
LGCM: pubertal timing as covariate (girls)	Global self-esteem	9.987	7	.944	.058	.000; .133
	Academic self-concept	2.767	7	1.000	.000	.000; .045
	Social self-concept	9.484	7	.974	.053	.000; .129
	Physical self-concept	6.717	8	1.000	.000	.000; .093
	Behavioral self-concept	5.030	6	1.000	.000	.000; .105
LGCM: pubertal timing as covariate (boys)	Global self-esteem	10.639	7	.932	.066	.000; .141
	Academic self-concept	8.601	6	.974	.060	.000; .142
	Social self-concept	2.915	6	1.000	.000	.000; .072
	Physical self-concept	7.937	8	1.000	.000	.000; .106
	Behavioral self-concept	7.200	7	.997	.015	.000; .114

Notes. N_Mixed = 208-246; N_Girls = 105-126; N_Boys = 102-120; as the school transition models (see Figure 2) were based on saturated models, no model fits are available.

Acknowledgements

We thank the families who volunteered to participate in the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication was supported by grants (SNF 100013-116500/1; SNF 100014-132278/1) awarded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) to the third author. Preparation of this article was supported by a grant from the SNSF (CRSI11-130432/1).

Notes

Author Biographies

Kathrin Schaffhuser is researcher in the Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich and fellow of the International Max Planck Research School “The Life Course: Evolutionary and Ontogenetic Dynamics” (LIFE). Her research focuses on the development of personality and self-esteem across the life span and on the co-development of personality and relationship outcomes in intimate relationships.

Mathias Allemand is a senior researcher in the Department of Psychology at the University of Zurich. His research is focused on adult personality, emotional, and social development.

Beate Schwarz is a professor at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences. Her research is focused on adolescent development and family psychology.

References

Anderman

E. M.

Midgley

(1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0926

Archambault

Eccles

J. S.

Vida

M. N.

(2010). Ability self-concepts and subjective value in literacy: Joint trajectories from grades 1 through 12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 804-816. doi:10.1037/a0021075

Baldwin

Hoffmann

(2002). The dynamics of self-esteem: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 101-113. doi:10.1023/A:1014065825598

Birkeland

M. S.

Melkevik

Holsen

Wold

(2012). Trajectories of global self-esteem development during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 43-54. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.06.006

Block

Robins

R. W.

(1993). A longitudinal study of consistency and change in self-esteem from early adolescence to early adulthood. Child Development, 64, 909-923. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9308115044

Bolognini

Plancherel

Bettschart

Halfon

(1996). Self-esteem and mental health in early adolescence: Development and gender differences. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 233-245. doi:10.1006/jado.1996.0022

Bosson

J. K.

Swann

W. B.

(2009). Self-esteem. In Leary

M. R.

Hoyle

R. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 527-546). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bolen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cheung

G. W.

(2009). Introducing the latent congruence model for improving the assessment of similarity, agreement, and fit in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 6-33. doi:10.1177/1094428107308914

10.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Cole

D. A.

Martin

J. M.

Peeke

L. A.

Seroczynski

A. D.

Fier

(1999). Children’s over- and underestimation of academic competence: A longitudinal study of gender differences, depression, and anxiety. Child Development, 70, 459-473. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00033

12.

Cole

D. A.

Maxwell

S. E.

Martin

J. M.

Peeke

L. G.

Seroczynski

A. D.

Tram

J. M.

. . . Maschman

(2001). The development of multiple domains of child and adolescent self-concept: A cohort sequential longitudinal design. Child Development, 72, 1723-1746. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00375

13.

Côté

J. E.

(2009). Identity formation and self-development in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 266-304). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

14.

De Fraine

Van Damme

Onghena

. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of gender differences in academic self-concept and language achievement: A multivariate multilevel latent growth approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 132-150. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.005

15.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

Robins

R. W.

(2006). Personality and self-esteem development in adolescence. In Mroczek

D. K.

Little

T. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 285-309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Dorn

L. D.

Dahl

R. E.

Woodward

H. R.

Biro

(2006). Defining the boundaries of early adolescence: A user’s guide to assessing pubertal status and pubertal timing in research with adolescents. Applied Developmental Sciences, 10, 30-56. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1001_3

17.

Dusek

J. B.

McIntyre

J. G.

(2006). Self-concept and self-esteem development. In Adams

G. R.

Berzonsky

M. D.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 290-309). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

18.

Eccles

J. S.

(1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children. When School Is Out, 9, 30-44. doi:10.2307/1602703

19.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

(1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In Ames

R. E.

Ames

(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

20.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

Wigfield

Buchanan

C. M.

Reuman

Flanagan

Mac Iver

(1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90

21.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

Flanagan

C. A.

Miller

Reuman

D. A.

Yee

(1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283-310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00484.x

22.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

23.

Flannery

D. J.

Rowe

D. C.

Gulley

B. L.

(1993). Impact of pubertal status, timing, and age on adolescent sexual experience and delinquency. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 21-40. doi:10.1177/074355489381003

24.

Galambos

N. L.

Berenbaum

S. A.

McHale

(2009). Gender development in adolescent. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 305-357). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

25.

Gentile

Grabe

Dolan-Pascoe

Twenge

J. M.

Wells

B. E.

Maitino

(2009). Gender differences in domain-specific self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 13, 34-45. doi:10.1037/a0013689

26.

Graber

J. A.

Lewinsohn

P. M.

Seeley

J. R.

Brooks-Gunn

(1997). Is psychopathology associated with the timing of pubertal development? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1768-1776.

27.

Hall

G. S.

(1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relation to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. I & II). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

28.

Harter

(1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

29.

Harter

(2006a). Development and individual difference perspectives on self-esteem. In Mroczek

D. K.

Little

T. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 311-334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Harter

(2006b). The self. In Eisenberg

Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 505-570). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

31.

Harter

(2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

32.

Hayward

Sanborn

(2002). Puberty and the emergence of gender differences in psychopathology. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 49-58.

33.

Hill

J. P.

Lynch

M. E.

(1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. In Brooks-Gunn

Petersen

A. C.

(Eds.), Girls at puberty: Biological and psychosocial perspectives (pp. 201-228). New York, NY: Plenum.

34.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

35.

Huang

(2010). Mean-level change in self-esteem from childhood through adulthood: Meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Review of General Psychology, 14, 251-260. doi:10.1037/a0020543

36.

Kling

K. C.

Hyde

J. S.

Showers

C. J.

Buswell

B. N.

(1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470-500. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.470

37.

Kuzucu

Bontempo

D. E.

Hofer

S. M.

Stallings

M. C.

Piccinin

A. M.

(2014). Developmental change and time-specific variation in global and specific aspects of self-concept in adolescence and associations with depressive symptoms. Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 638-666. doi:10.1177/0272431613507498

38.

Marcotte

Fortin

Potvin

Papillon

(2002). Gender differences in depressive symptoms during adolescence: Role of gender-typed characteristics, self-esteem, body image, stressful life events, and pubertal status. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 29-42. doi:10.1177/106342660201000104

39.

Marsh

H. W.

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

40.

Marsh

H. W.

(1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimension of self-concept: Preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 417-430. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.417

41.

Marsh

H. W.

Tau

K.-T.

(2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364-376. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.364

42.

McMullin

J. A.

Cairney

(2004). Self-esteem and the intersection of age, class, and gender. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 75-90. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2003.09.006

43.

Mendle

Ferrero

(2012). Detrimental psychological outcomes associated with pubertal timing in adolescent boys. Developmental Review, 32, 49-66. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.11.001

44.

Mendle

Harden

K. P.

Brooks-Gunn

Graber

J. A.

(2010). Development’s tortoise and hare: Pubertal timing, pubertal tempo, and depressive symptoms in boys and girls. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1341-1353. doi:10.1037/a0020205

45.

Mendle

Turkheimer

Emery

R. E.

(2007). Detrimental psychological outcomes associated with early pubertal timing in adolescent girls. Developmental Review, 27, 151-171. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.11.001

46.

Molloy

L. E.

Ram

Gest

S. D.

(2011). The storm and stress (or calm) of early adolescent self-concepts: Within- and between-subjects variability. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1589-1607. doi:10.1037/a0025413

47.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2010). Mplus software (Version 6). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

48.

Perry

D. G.

Pauletti

R. E.

(2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 61-74.

49.

Petersen

A. C.

Crockett

Richards

Boxer

(1988). A self-report measure of pubertal status: Reliability, validity and initial norms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 117-133. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00715.x

50.

Petersen

A. C.

Taylor

(1980). The biological approach to adolescence: Biological change and psychological adaptation. In Adelson

(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 117-155). New York, NY: Wiley.

51.

Robins

R. W.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Tracy

J. L.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 423-434. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.423

52.

Rosenberg

Schooler

Schoenbach

Rosenberg

(1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141-156.

53.

Ruble

D. N.

Martin

C. L.

Berenbaum

S. A.

(2006). Gender development. In. Eisenberg

Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 858-932). New York, NY: John Wiley.

54.

Seidman

Allen

L. R.

Aber

J. L.

Mitchell

Feinman

(1994). The impact of school transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. Child Development, 65, 507-522. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00766.x

55.

Shavelson

R. J.

Hubner

J. J.

Stanton

G. C.

(1976). Self-concept: Validation of construction interpretation. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

56.

Silbereisen

R. K.

Schwarz

(1996). Körperliche Entwicklung [Physical development]. In Zinnecker

Silbereisen

R. K.

(Eds.), Kindheit in Deutschland. Aktueller Survey über Kinder und ihre Eltern (pp. 147-157). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa.

57.

Simmons

R. G.

Blyth

D. A.

(1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

58.

Steiger

A. E.

Allemand

Robins

R. W.

Fend

H. A.

(2014). Low and decreasing self-esteem during adolescence predict adult depression two decades later. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 325-338. doi:10.1037/a0035133

59.

Steinberg

(2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 69-74. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005

60.

Steinberg

Morris

A. S.

(2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83-110. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83

61.

Stojković

(2013). Pubertal timing and self-esteem in adolescents: The mediating role of body-image and social relations. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 359-377. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.682145

62.

Susman

E. J.

Dorn

L. D.

(2009). Puberty: Its role in development. In Lerner

R. M

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 116-151). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

63.

Tanner

J. M.

(1962). Growth at adolescence (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

64.

Tiggemann

(2005). Body dissatisfaction and adolescent self-esteem: Prospective findings. Body Image, 2, 129-135.

65.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

Robins

R. W.

(2003). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 205-220. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205

66.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

(2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321-344. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_3

67.

Watzlawik

(2009). Die Erfassung des Pubertätsstatus anhand der Pubertal Development Scale. Erste Schritte zur Evaluation einer deutschen Übersetzung [Assessing pubertal status with the Pubertal Development Scale: First steps towards an evaluation of a German translation]. Diagnostica, 55, 55-65. doi:10.1026/0012-1924.55.1.55

68.

West

Sweeting

Young

(2010). Transition matters: Pupils’ experiences of the primary-secondary school transition in the West of Scotland and consequences for well-being and attainment. Research Papers in Education, 25, 21-50. doi:10.1080/02671520802308677

69.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

Mac Iver

Reuman

D. A.

Midgley

(1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552-565. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.552

70.

Williams

J. M.

Currie

(2000). Self-esteem and physical development in early adolescence: Pubertal timing and body image. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 129-149. doi:10.1177/0272431600020002002

71.

Wünsche

Schneewind

K. A.

(1989). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Selbst- und Kompetenzeinschätzungen bei Kindern (FSK-K) [Development of a questionnaire on perception of self and competence of children]. Diagnostica, 35, 217-235.

72.

Young

J. F.

Mroczek

D. K.

(2003). Predicting intraindividual self-concept trajectories during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 586-600. doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00058-7

73.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Copeland

L. A.

Shope

J. T.

Dielman

T. E.

(1997). A longitudinal study of self-esteem: Implications for adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 117-141. doi:10.1023/A:1024596313925