Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-perceptions of learning disabled students.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Learning disabled (LD) children's self-perceptions were investigated using the Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982). This self-report instrument taps children's perceptions of their scholastic and athletic competence, social acceptance, and feelings of global self-worth. Participants in the study were 86 students in Grades 3-8 who attended a public school LD resource room. Results indicated that social comparison processes play an important role in the formation of LD students' perceived academic competence. LD students perceived themselves as becoming less academically competent across the grade span tested when they compared themselves with normally achieving students in their regular classes. When they compared their abilities with LD peers in their resource room, they maintained high perceptions of their own academic competence. Concern for the child's emotional and intellectual wellbeing has led those working with students who evidence learning disabilities to become interested in studies of selfconcept with this population. Because, by definition, learning disabled (LD) students have experienced academic failure, a number of practitioners and researchers have been interested in the extent to which LD students feel poorly about themselves. Research in the area of self-concept with LD students is inconclusive, however. Although a number of studies have revealed that LD students evidence worse feelings about themselves than do normally achieving students (Alley & Deschler, 1979; Black, 1974; Griffiths, 1970; Rogers & Saklofske, 1985; Rosenthal, 1973), other studies have not indicated such differences (Brunner & Starkey, 1974; Donnell, 1975; Endler & Minden, 1972; Ribner, 1978). Silverman and Zigmond (1983) have maintained that the contradictory findings in the literature on self-concept among LD students can be attributed, in part, to the inconsistency of the definitions of both the LD population and the construct of self-concept among studies. Furthermore, methodological differences, weaknesses in research designs, and the lack of data on the equivalence of the various self-concept inventories used preclude any conclusions based on these results. (p. 478)