Self-Esteem

Christian H Jordan, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA
Jessica J Cameron, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Self-esteem has been studied extensively by psychologists, with thousands of empirical articles exploring its potential causes,
consequences, and correlates. Despite this considerable attention, disagreements persist over how best to define and
conceptualize self-esteem. Most psychologists view it as a global evaluation of the value of the self or self-worth. Self-esteem is
also dimensional with ‘low self-esteem’ and ‘high self-esteem’ representing the ends of a continuum. Self-esteem’s enduring
fascination reflects, in part, its associations with important life outcomes, such as psychological adjustment, academic
success, physical health, and relationship satisfaction. The extent to which self-esteem actually causes these outcomes,
however, remains controversial.

What Is Self-Esteem? self-esteem. Self-concept structure can vary in a number of

ways, such as its complexity or the degree to which positive and
Self-esteem can be conceptualized at global or domain-specific negative beliefs about the self are integrated with each other
levels. Global self-esteem is an overall evaluation of self-worth, versus being compartmentalized. Self-concept structure deter-
whereas domain-specific self-evaluations reflect self-appraisals mines the accessibility of specific self-beliefs, which affects their
within more circumscribed domains (e.g., academic, social, ability to influence self-esteem (see Showers and Zeigler-Hill,
or appearance self-esteem; Shavelson et al., 1976). Global self- 2012).
esteem and domain-specific self-evaluations are typically
positively correlated, raising questions about how they relate to
each other. Early conceptualizations – such as that of philos- Measuring Self-Esteem
opher and psychologist William James (1890) – suggest that
global self-esteem reflects an averaging of specific self- Self-esteem is most commonly measured by self-report scales.
evaluations, weighted by their subjective importance to the Because self-esteem is considered to be a subjective judgment,
individual (Marsh, 1986). It is now clear, however, that asking people how they feel about themselves is a sensible and
domain-specific self-evaluations are also colored by global self- direct way to assess self-esteem. For children, the most
esteem (Brown et al., 2001) such that individuals with higher commonly used self-report measure is Coopersmith’s (1967).
self-esteem view their specific attributes more positively in part Self-Esteem Inventory and for adults it is Rosenberg’s (1965)
because of their high self-esteem. Self-Esteem Scale. More recently, Robins et al. (2001) created
Self-esteem is distinguished from self-concept. Self-esteem a single-item self-esteem scale to assess global self-esteem,
is most typically viewed as reflecting self-feelings (e.g., ‘I like which simply assesses agreement with the statement, “I have
myself’), rather than self-knowledge. The self-concept rather is high self-esteem.” This single-item measure demonstrates
viewed as reflecting self-knowledge or self-beliefs (e.g., ‘I am impressively high correlations with longer, more established
outgoing,’ ‘I am smart’). This distinction is not universally measures of self-esteem. Other researchers have developed
accepted, however, and can become blurry (e.g., people have multidimensional measures of self-esteem. Tafarodi and
strong feelings about their self-beliefs, such as being heavily Swann (2001), for example, devised the Self-Liking and Self-
invested in seeing oneself as competent; Marsh and Craven, Competence Scale to assess distinct dimensions of global
2006). The self-concept has clear implications for self-esteem. self-esteem in order to provide, in their view, a more compre-
Individuals who possess more positive self-beliefs tend to hensive assessment of self-esteem.
report feeling better about themselves overall than those with People also possess distinct trait and state self-esteem.
less positive self-beliefs (e.g., Segal, 1988). There are also, Whereas trait self-esteem refers to relatively stable and
however, important indirect links between the self-concept and enduring self-evaluations, state self-esteem refers to momen-
self-esteem (Showers and Zeigler-Hill, 2006). Early models of tary self-evaluations that can fluctuate across time and situa-
the self often viewed it as a single monolithic entity, but more tions. The two most common methods for assessing state
modern conceptualizations typically consider the self-concept self-esteem are Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) State Self-
to be multifaceted, consisting of a variety of self-aspects esteem Scale and MacFarland and Ross’ (1982) state self-
defined by such factors as situations, roles, and psychological esteem assessment. In both scales, respondents are asked to
states of the individual. This multifaceted view of the self- consider their feelings in the present moment. However, in
concept highlights the importance of self-concept structure Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) State Self-esteem Scale, test-
(i.e., how self-concept content is mentally organized) for takers report their self-evaluations in three domains: appear-
moderating the connection between self-concept content and ance, performance, and social acceptance. The items reflect

522 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25090-3
 domain specific vs. domain general
unidimensional vs. multidimensional Self-Esteem 523

cognitive evaluations in each of these domains, such as ‘I feel Associations with Psychopathology and Well-Being
unattractive.’ In contrast, the state self-esteem measure devel- Self-esteem is closely linked with psychopathology. This
oped by MacFarland and Ross (1982) asks respondents to connection is evident in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
indicate how much certain emotional terms describe their of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American
present feelings. Some of these emotional terms represent low Psychiatric Association, 2013), which contains various refer-
state self-esteem (e.g., ‘shame’) whereas others represent high ences to self-esteem and terms that are related to self-esteem
state self-esteem (e.g., ‘pride’). (e.g., ‘grandiose sense of self-importance’). Low self-esteem is
included as a diagnostic criterion or associated feature for
a variety of disorders including major depressive disorder and
Implicit Self-Esteem
bulimia (see Zeigler-Hill, 2011). There are two primary models
Self-esteem has traditionally been studied in terms of explicit concerning the connection between low self-esteem and
self-esteem – fully conscious, deliberative self-evaluations that psychopathology. The first model is the ‘vulnerability model of
are measured by self-report scales. This approach to studying low self-esteem,’ which suggests that low self-esteem serves as
self-esteem may be limited, however, because people may be a risk factor for psychopathology. The second model is the ‘scar
unwilling or unable to report all aspects of their self- model of low self-esteem,’ which argues that low self-esteem
evaluations (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). Accordingly, is a consequence of psychopathology rather than one of its
researchers have developed several nonreactive or implicit causes.
measures of self-esteem, including the Name-Letter Task Self-esteem is also consistently related to subjective well-
(Koole et al., 2001) and a self-esteem variant of the Implicit being: people with higher self-esteem report greater life satis-
Association Test (IAT; Greenwald and Farnham, 2000). The faction and happiness than those with lower self-esteem
Name-Letter Task is premised on the observation that people (Baumeister et al., 2003). Moreover, people with lower self-
value things associated with themselves, and so people tend to esteem experience more negative moods and fewer positive
like the letters of their name, particularly their initials, more moods than those with higher self-esteem (MacDonald and
than people whose names do not share those letters. The IAT Leary, 2012). Some have argued that the greater well-being
examines people’s reaction times in associating positive and reported by higher self-esteem individuals might be derived
negative stimuli with the self. Some theorists suggest that from their tendency to rely on more effective coping mecha-
implicit self-esteem, as assessed by these measures, reflects nisms and their tendency to see the world more optimistically
a construct that is distinct from explicit self-esteem with (Baumeister et al., 2003). However, the link between self-
unique implications for psychological functioning (see esteem and well-being might not be so straightforward. For
Zeigler-Hill and Jordan, 2010). Implicit self-esteem is one thing, the association between self-esteem and well-being
considered to be relatively automatic, associative, uncontrol- seems influenced by cultural variables. For example, the link
lable, and intuitive in nature. Implicit self-esteem, in combi- between these variables is stronger in individualistic cultures
nation with explicit self-esteem, predicts important (e.g., United States) than in collectivist cultures (e.g., China;
psychological outcomes, such as defensiveness and aggres- Diener and Diener, 1995), suggesting that high self-esteem is
sion. Some researchers have questioned the validity of not universally tied to greater life satisfaction.
implicit measures of self-esteem, however (Buhrmester et al.,
2010). Associations with Physical Health
People with higher self-esteem report greater physical health
and an enhanced ability to recover after illnesses compared
The Importance of Self-Esteem with those with lower self-esteem (see Stinson et al., 2008).
Though it may be tempting to conclude that being ill reduces
Relation of Self-Esteem to Important Life Outcomes
self-esteem, the causal relationship appears to go in the other
Interest in self-esteem began to build steadily during the 1970s direction. There are three main reasons why lower self-esteem
as research began to emerge suggesting that low self-esteem was might lead to health detriments. First, people with lower self-
linked to a variety of social problems such as drug abuse, esteem are less likely to engage in behaviors that promote
unemployment, academic underachievement, and violence. physical health (e.g., Smits and Kee, 1992), and thus their
The ‘self-esteem movement’ was in full swing by the 1980s as habits tend to undermine good health. Second, lower self-
exemplified by the California Task Force to Promote Self- esteem individuals’ physiological experience of stress is apt
esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility (1990), which to erode their physical health. Specifically, lower self-esteem
focused on raising the self-esteem of the citizens of California individuals are more likely to experience elevated and pro-
in the hope that this would reduce the social problems longed cortisol levels after stress (Pruessner et al., 1999),
plaguing California at that time. Various self-esteem enhance- which might explain why they suffer greater health problems
ment programs have been implemented over the years but they after periods of stress. Third, lower self-esteem might lead to
have not had the sort of benefits originally envisioned by the detriments in physical heath because low self-esteem indi-
self-esteem movement. There continues to be intense debate viduals experience poorer quality interpersonal relationships
about the role of self-esteem in important life outcomes, with (Stinson et al., 2008). Positive, supportive relationships
some researchers arguing that self-esteem is important for foster more optimal physical functioning (e.g., lowered
productivity and well-being (e.g., Swann et al., 2007) and cortisol levels). Lacking such relationships may thus predis-
others arguing that it has severely limited value (e.g., pose lower self-esteem individuals to suffer poorer physical
Baumeister et al., 2003). health.
524 Self-Esteem

Associations with Academic and Career Success self-esteem should be associated with aggressive behavior.
Is self-esteem associated with success? Most research investi- Indeed, an impressive longitudinal study of adolescents
gating this question has focused on performance at school and suggests that this is the case (Donnellan et al., 2005). However,
work. In the case of academic performance, people with higher laboratory experiments have demonstrated a more complex
self-esteem report somewhat greater academic success than relationship between self-esteem and aggression. Baumeister
those with lower self-esteem (Hansford and Hattie, 1982). This et al. (1996) conclude that it is actually people with higher
partly reflects the fact that high self-esteem predicts the self-esteem who will act more aggressively than individuals
subjective experience of academic achievement (i.e., individ- with lower self-esteem but only when their positive self-views
uals with higher self-esteem perceive themselves to be better are threatened. Numerous studies both in and outside the lab
students) but is not strongly related to objective indicators of have confirmed this view: people with higher self-esteem and
academic achievement such as grade point average (Baumeister narcissists who report excessively high self-esteem are more
et al., 2003). In addition, mounting evidence suggests that the likely to aggress against others than their lower self-esteem
association between self-esteem and academic performance counterparts when self-views are threatened.
may be driven by the association of each of these variables with
intelligence, family background, and academic achievement in
The Protective Function of Self-Esteem
earlier grades (e.g., Maruyama et al., 1981). For example, being
more intelligent seems to lead to both greater academic success People with high self-esteem handle negative events better than
and higher self-esteem, and thus, the association between self- those with low self-esteem. In particular, individuals with
esteem and academic performance is actually spurious. lower self-esteem experience more prolonged distress after
Higher self-esteem is also associated with greater success at negative events such as failure or social rejection (Brown,
work. Research suggests, however, that self-esteem is a conse- 2010). In fact, Brown suggested that “high self-esteem func-
quence, not a cause, of performing well at work (Pierce and tions primarily to enable people to fail without feeling bad
Gardner, 2004). In their review of this literature, Baumeister about themselves” (Brown, 2010: p. 1389). Self-affirmation
et al. (2003) concluded that although self-esteem does not theory suggests one reason why this might be the case. It
directly lead to better job performance, those with higher self- argues that people can maintain their self-esteem in the face of
esteem might still perform somewhat better in the work force. negative outcomes by affirming their positive qualities, even in
Backing this view are several experimental studies revealing that unrelated domains (e.g., a person rejected romantically may
higher self-esteem individuals exhibit better coping skills that console himself with his occupational success). Because people
would directly relate to occupational performance. For with high self-esteem perceive themselves positively in more
instance, higher self-esteem individuals are more likely to domains than low self-esteem people, they have more
persist on difficult tasks than lower self-esteem individuals, psychological resources on which to draw when their self-
especially when such persistence is likely to be rewarded. Pierce esteem is threatened (Spencer et al., 1993). Indeed, when
and Gardner (2004) suggest that organization-based self- confronted by failure, high self-esteem people are more likely
esteem (i.e., self-appraisals as a ‘good’ organizational member) to spontaneously focus on their personal strengths and
and job performance have a reciprocal relationship: Self-esteem suppress thoughts of their personal weaknesses, compared to
is enhanced by success on the job and this enhanced self- low self-esteem individuals (Dodgson and Wood, 1998). Self-
esteem contributes to positive organizational behaviors. esteem may even protect people from the anxiety that can stem
from the knowledge of one’s own mortality. Humans have the
Associations with Crime, Delinquency, and Aggression arguably unique capacity to understand that they will die one
Is self-esteem associated with detrimental behavior, such as day. This knowledge creates the potential for intolerable
delinquency, crime, and aggressive behavior? Although much anxiety. Terror Management Theory, however, posits that self-
of the research to date has produced conflicting findings, recent esteem is part of a psychological system that allows people to
longitudinal studies provide a more rigorous test of the causal cope with existential anxiety (Pyszczynski et al., 2004).
association between self-esteem and destructive behaviors. This According to Terror Management Theory, people construct
research demonstrates that lower self-esteem is associated with worldviews – culturally specific ways of understanding the
self-reported delinquent behaviors and that these reports are world and our place in it – to create a sense of stability and
corroborated by students’ teachers (Donnellan et al., 2005). meaning and offer the possibility of symbolic immortality. In
Importantly, when these researchers assessed delinquent this view, high self-esteem results when people believe they are
behavior 2 years later, those with lower self-esteem were again living up to the standards prescribed by their worldviews (i.e.,
more likely to engage in negative behaviors than their higher when they view themselves as being ‘good’ people). Self-esteem
self-esteem counterparts. Criminal behavior seems to follow thus serves an anxiety-buffering function. Consistent with
the same pattern: Having lower self-esteem in adolescence Terror Management Theory, people with higher self-esteem
predicts a greater propensity to engage in criminal behavior in experience less anxiety, are less prone to deny their vulnera-
adulthood (Trzesniewski et al., 2006). For both delinquent and bility to early death, and respond less defensively to reminders
criminal behavior, controlling for other variables known to be of death.
associated with these behaviors does not alter the strength of
self-esteem’s predictive power nor does self-esteem seem to be
The Role of Self-Esteem in Interpersonal Relationships
a consequence of engaging in delinquent or criminal acts.
If lower self-esteem is linked with increased delinquent Self-esteem is rooted in interpersonal and social functioning.
and criminal behavior, it seems logical to conclude that lower Indeed, mounting evidence suggests that self-esteem is best
 Self-Esteem 525

defined as a ‘sociometer’ or gauge of social acceptance and behavior and perceptions of acceptance from an attractive
relational value (see MacDonald and Leary, 2012). From this person are only observed when the risk of potential rejection is
perspective, self-esteem is not merely a consequence of inter- present and when such risk is removed, self-esteem differences
personal functioning but drops in self-esteem triggered by disappear or reverse (Cameron et al., 2010). Thus, when risk is
rejection serve to alert people to act to repair social relation- relatively low, self-esteem appears to be unrelated to interper-
ships. In support of this theory, rejection consistently leads to sonal outcomes but when interpersonal risk is high – as may
drops in state self-esteem and poor social relationships lead to often be the case in romantic relationships – lower self-esteem
reduced trait self-esteem over time. As such, lower self-esteem individuals behave in a manner that impedes or harms their
individuals experience more loneliness, report less social interpersonal bonds. Thus, risk regulation theory not only
acceptance and support from others and see their ongoing predicts the actual interpersonal behaviors of those with lower
relationships as being of poorer quality relative to those with and higher self-esteem but may also explain the conflicting
higher self-esteem. findings in this literature.
Do lower self-esteem individuals create their poor rela-
tionships? The answer to this question is rather complicated.
On the one hand, lower self-esteem individuals may report The Pursuit of Self-Esteem
poorer social ties simply because they tend to see the world
more negatively in general (Baumeister et al., 2003). From this People generally appear to be strongly motivated to achieve or
perspective, underreporting the quantity and quality of rela- maintain positive self-views. They display a variety of cognitive
tionships may simply stem from their tendency to see every- biases and behavioral tendencies – such as attributing successes
thing in a more negative light. In support of this argument, to ability but failures to bad luck – that seem calibrated to
several studies have reported that self-esteem is unrelated to promote self-esteem (Campbell and Sedikides, 1999). People
actual acceptance from others. For instance, Campbell and Fehr may be fundamentally motivated to see themselves as essen-
(1990) asked participants to engage in a series of first-meetings tially moral and competent individuals, and a number of
and report their perceptions of how much their interaction deleterious human tendencies may serve this goal, including
partners liked them and how much they liked their interaction closed-mindedness, rationalizing decisions, and prejudice
partners. Although lower self-esteem individuals reported (Sherman and Cohen, 2006). Indeed, if people have an overall
lower perceptions of acceptance than higher self-esteem indi- positive sense of self-esteem affirmed (e.g., by reflecting on an
viduals, actual liking was unrelated to self-esteem. Lower important personal value), they display fewer of these self-
self-esteem individuals are also apt to miss indicators of serving tendencies; they are, for example, more open-minded
acceptance from dating partners. For example, people with and less prone to rationalization. Perhaps as a consequence
lower self-esteem believe their romantic partners see them of pervasive self-serving biases, most people have ‘positive
more negatively than they actually do and they are less likely to illusions’ or somewhat unrealistic positive self-views (Taylor
see the support that is provided by a romantic partner after and Brown, 1988).
a difficult self-disclosure (see MacDonald and Leary, 2012). Is the pursuit of high self-esteem adaptive? Positive illu-
Some theorists have argued that it is not simply a matter of sions may foster greater psychological well-being (Taylor and
lower self-esteem individuals neglecting the positivity coming Brown, 1988), but this point remains controversial. Indeed,
from their romantic partners. Rather, low self-esteem individ- some theorists suggest that pursuing self-esteem is costly
uals might actively discount their romantic partners’ efforts, (Crocker and Park, 2004). Self-determination theory posits
assuming that they are insincere attempts to appease them that people have fundamental needs for competence, relat-
rather than being genuine gestures of caring (Lemay and Clark, edness, and autonomy that must be fulfilled in order for
2008). people to thrive (Deci and Ryan, 1995). From this perspective,
On the other hand, however, self-esteem may indeed be the pursuit of self-esteem (which is seen as a common motive
linked with actual behaviors that affect the quantity and quality but not a fundamental need) can have negative psychological
of social bonds. For example, the partners of those with lower consequences because it interferes with the fulfillment of basic
self-esteem report experiencing less relationship satisfaction needs. Consistent with this possibility, students whose self-
and commitment than those partnered with higher self-esteem esteem depends on their academic achievement (i.e., whose
individuals (Robinson and Cameron, 2012), suggesting an feelings of self-worth plummet when they perform poorly in
actual behavioral difference between such relationships. school) are more interested in doing well in exams than
Murray et al. (2006) outline how self-esteem differences in in mastering the course material (Crocker et al., 2003).
social behavior may unfold. According to their risk regulation As a consequence, they may have less intrinsic interest in
theory, situations of risk or threat elicit a motivational conflict learning.
between the desire to protect the self from possible rejection
and the desire to achieve greater closeness with another person.
In such situations, lower self-esteem individuals will behave in Fragile Self-Esteem
a self-protective manner whereas higher self-esteem individ-
uals, who have greater resources to cope with disappointment, Actively pursuing self-esteem might thus have negative
will behave in a more relationship-promoting manner. consequences. In addition, not all high self-esteem is equally
Research has supported these claims in both ongoing romantic beneficial. There is increasing recognition that high self-esteem
relationships and initial interactions with a potential romantic is heterogeneous, that individuals who report having high self-
interest. For example, self-esteem differences in likable esteem are not all equivalent psychologically (Kernis, 2003).
526 Self-Esteem

An influential distinction has been that between secure and such that it increases throughout adolescence, young adult-
fragile forms of high self-esteem (Jordan and Zeigler-Hill, hood, and middle adulthood before reaching its peak around
2013). Secure high self-esteem is viewed as being 50–60 years of age and then declining in old age (e.g., Orth
well-anchored and stable. Individuals with secure high self- et al., 2012).
esteem acknowledge their shortcomings yet accept them-
selves nonetheless. Fragile high self-esteem, in contrast, is
Origins of Self-Esteem
viewed as inflated, vulnerable to threat, and in constant need
of validation. Individuals with fragile high self-esteem are One might ask why people have self-esteem at all. What are its
preoccupied with affirming their tenuous positive self-views potential evolutionary origins? The sociometer model posits
and are prone to be defensive and aggressive. To distinguish that self-esteem evolved as a gauge or index of social inclusion
between secure and fragile self-esteem, researchers have relied such that low self-esteem serves as a signal that one is at risk of
on three primary indicators: whether high self-esteem is exclusion and must take action to maintain social acceptance
unstable, contingent, or paired with low implicit self-esteem (Leary and Downs, 1995). Consistent with the sociometer
(Kernis and Paradise, 2002). High self-esteem that is model, feelings of self-esteem are closely related to feelings of
unstable fluctuates markedly across time and contexts. There is social inclusion such that state self-esteem decreases when
a great deal of evidence that people with unstable high self- people are socially excluded (Leary et al., 1995). Kirkpatrick
esteem are more defensive and aggressive than those with and Ellis (2001) extended the sociometer model by arguing
stable high self-esteem. Contingent self-esteem depends on that self-esteem actually represents the operation of a suite of
meeting specific standards or expectations in self-relevant psychological mechanisms (or sociometers) that evolved to
domains and available evidence (though limited) links it to meet the distinct adaptive challenges associated with mate
defensiveness. Lastly, among individuals who report having selection, establishing and maintaining status and rank, and
high self-esteem (i.e., have high explicit self-esteem), those the formation of alliances. Within this model, humans evolved
with low implicit self-esteem are more defensive and self- different, functionally specific self-evaluations to monitor their
enhancing (see Jordan and Zeigler-Hill, 2013). mate value, social dominance, prestige, inclusion, and collec-
tive worth.
Status-tracking models of self-esteem – such as the socio-
Where Does Self-Esteem Come From? meter model – have focused on the influence that perceived
standing has on the self-esteem of the individual without
Etiology
addressing the possibility that self-esteem also influences how
Given the importance of early childhood experiences for others perceive the individual. That is, self-esteem may serve as
shaping how individuals view themselves, it seems quite likely an interpersonal signal (see Cameron et al., 2013, for an
that these early experiences will be associated with self-esteem. extended review of this issue). The status-signaling model of
Consistent with this possibility, DeHart et al. (2006) found self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill, 2012) addresses the signaling prop-
that the self-esteem levels of individuals in early adulthood erty of self-esteem by suggesting that the feelings of self-worth
were associated with their memories of how their parents exhibited by individuals are likely to influence how they are
interacted with them as children, an association corroborated perceived by others in their social environments. This basic
by the parents’ recollections. Beyond parenting styles, it is also effect has been observed in a variety of studies showing that
possible that the family environment may influence self-esteem manipulating the ostensible self-esteem level of a target influ-
through the genetic contributions of both parents (Neiss et al., ences how he or she is evaluated on dimensions such as
2002). Self-esteem appears to be connected to temperament romantic desirability (Zeigler-Hill and Myers, 2011).
such that those who are predisposed to experience negative
affect or to be more reactive to stressful life events may be more
likely to develop lower self-esteem if they are exposed to Improving Self-Esteem
aversive social environments during early childhood. The
foundation of self-esteem appears to be established during Self-esteem is considered to be an integral component of
childhood but feelings of self-worth can certainly change various forms of psychotherapy including humanistic therapy,
throughout the life span as individuals experience positive and motivational enhancement therapy, and cognitive-behavioral
negative life events (e.g., acceptance and rejection). therapy (Mruk and O’Brien, 2013). For example, cognitive-
behavioral therapy influences feelings of self-worth by
focusing on the recognition and correction of cognitive errors
Developmental Changes
such as all-or-none thinking, overgeneralization, and selective
Individuals with relatively high levels of self-esteem early in attention to negative life experiences. A large number of labo-
their lives tend to report higher levels of self-esteem than their ratory manipulations have been developed to temporarily alter
peers throughout their lives (Trzesniewski et al., 2013). self-esteem levels, with some of these techniques using classical
Despite this consistency across individuals, average levels of conditioning (Baccus et al., 2004) or asking individuals to
self-esteem have been observed to change systematically across attend to positive stimuli (i.e., smiling faces) while ignoring
the life span such that feelings of self-worth are relatively high negative stimuli (i.e., frowning faces; Dandeneau and Baldwin,
during childhood before dropping precipitously at the 2004). Although an array of self-esteem enhancement
beginning of adolescence (Robins et al., 2002). Self-esteem programs have been implemented in schools, the utility of
follows a quadratic (inverted-U) trajectory from this point these programs remains uncertain.
 Self-Esteem 527

Dodgson, P.G., Wood, J.V., 1998. Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of
See also: Aggression, Social Psychology of; Cultural
strengths and weaknesses after failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Intelligence and Competencies; Culture and the Self: Psychology 75, 178–197.
Implications for Psychological Theory; Dark Triad: The “Dark Donnellan, M.B., Trzesniewski, K.H., Robins, R.W., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., 2005. Low
Side” of Human Personality; Depression; Hope and self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency.
Hopelessness; Identity and Identification, Social Psychology of; Psychological Science 16, 328–335.
Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R., 1995. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem,
Implicit Association Test; Implicit Social Cognition; Mastery and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102, 4–27.
Learning; Neuroticism; Optimism and Pessimism; Personality Greenwald, A.G., Farnham, S.D., 2000. Using the implicit association test to measure
Disorders; Personality and Adaptive Behaviors; Personality and self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79,
Self; Personality and Values at Work; Personality: Historical and 1022–1038.
Hansford, B.C., Hattie, J.A., 1982. The relationship between self and achievement/
Conceptual Perspectives; Self and Identity Development During
performance measures. Review of Educational Research 52, 123–142.
Adolescence across Cultures; Self-Concept: From Heatherton, T., Polivy, J., 1991. Development and validation of a scale for measuring
Unidimensional to Multidimensional and Beyond; state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 895–910.
Self-Determination Theory; Self-Efficacy; Selfconscious James, W., 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt, New York.
Emotions, Psychology of; Social Comparison, Psychology of. Jordan, C.H., Zeigler-Hill, V., 2013. Fragile self-esteem: the perils and pitfalls of (some)
high self-esteem. In: Zeigler-Hill, V. (Ed.), Self-esteem: Current Issues in Social
Psychology. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 80–98.
Kernis, M.H., 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry 14, 1–26.
Kernis, M.H., Paradise, A.W., 2002. Distinguishing between secure and fragile forms of
Bibliography high self-esteem. In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination
Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, pp. 339–360.
American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Kirkpatrick, L.A., Ellis, B.J., 2001. An evolutionary-psychological approach to self-
Disorders, fifth ed. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. esteem: multiple domains and multiple functions. In: Clark, M., Fletcher, G.
Baccus, J.R., Baldwin, M.W., Packer, D.J., 2004. Increasing implicit self-esteem (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, Interpersonal Processes,
through classical conditioning. Psychological Science 15, 498–502. vol. 2. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 411–436.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., Vohs, K.D., 2003. Does high self- Koole, S.L., Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., 2001. What’s in a name: implicit
esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier self-esteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4, 1–44. 80, 669–685.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., Boden, J.M., 1996. Relation of threatened egotism to Leary, M.R., Downs, D.L., 1995. Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: the
violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review self-esteem system as a sociometer. In: Kernis, M.H. (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and
103, 5–33. Self-esteem. Plenum, New York, pp. 123–144.
Buhrmester, M.D., Blanton, H., Swann, W.B., 2010. Implicit self-esteem: nature, Lemay, E.P., Clark, M.S., 2008. “Walking on eggshells”: how expressing relationship
measurement, and a new way forward. Journal of Personality and Social insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95,
Psychology 100, 365–385. 420–441.
Brown, J.D., 2010. High self-esteem buffers negative feedback: once more with Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S.K., Downs, D.L., 1995. Self-esteem as an
feeling. Cognitive and Emotion 24, 1389–1404. interpersonal monitor: the sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Brown, J.D., Dutton, K.A., Cook, K.E., 2001. From the top down: self-esteem and self- Psychology 68, 518–530.
evaluation. Cognition and Emotion 15, 615–631. MacDonald, G., Leary, M.R., 2012. Individual differences in self-esteem. In:
California Task Force to Promote Self-esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility, Leary, M.R., Tangney, J.P. (Eds.), Self and Identity, second ed. Guilford Press,
1990. Toward a State of Self-esteem. California State Department of Education, New York, pp. 354–377.
Sacramento, CA. MacFarland, C., Ross, M., 1982. Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions
Cameron, J.J., MacGregor, J., Kwang, T., 2013. Badge of honor or mark of shame: to success and failures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43,
self-esteem as an interpersonal signal. In: Zeigler-Hill, V. (Ed.), Self-esteem. 937–946.
Psychology Press, London, pp. 145–162. Marsh, H.W., 1986. Global self-esteem: its relation to specific facets of self-concept
Cameron, J.J., Stinson, D.A., Gaetz, R., Balchen, S., 2010. Acceptance is in the and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51,
eye of the beholder: self-esteem and motivated perceptions of acceptance 1224–1236.
from the opposite sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99, Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., 2006. Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance
513–529. from a multidimensional perspective: beyond seductive pleasure and unidimen-
Campbell, J.D., Fehr, B.A., 1990. Self-esteem and perceptions of conveyed impres- sional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science 35, 63–78.
sions: is negative affectivity associated with greater realism? Journal of Personality Maruyama, G., Rubin, R.A., Kingsbury, G.G., 1981. Self-esteem and educational
and Social Psychology 58, 122–133. achievement: independent constructs with a common cause? Journal of Personality
Campbell, W.K., Sedikides, C., 1999. Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: and Social Psychology 40, 962–975.
a meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology 3, 23–43. Mecca, A.M., Smelser, N.J., Vasconcellos, J., 1989. The Social Importance of Self-
Coopersmith, S., 1967. The Antecedents of Self-esteem. Freeman, San Francisco. esteem. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R.K., Cooper, M.L., Bouvrette, S.A., 2003. Contingencies of Mruk, C.J., O’Brien, E.J., 2013. Changing self-esteem through competence and
self-worth in college students: theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and worthiness training: a positive therapy. In: Zeigler-Hill, V. (Ed.), Self-esteem.
Social Psychology 85, 894–908. Psychology Press, London, pp. 163–179.
Crocker, J., Park, L.E., 2004. The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., Collins, N.L., 2006. Optimizing assurance: the risk
130, 392–414. regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin 132, 640–666.
Dandeneau, S.D., Baldwin, M.W., 2004. The inhibition of socially rejecting information Neiss, M.B., Sedikides, C., Stevenson, J., 2002. Self-esteem: a behavioral genetic
among people with high versus low self-esteem: the role of attentional bias and the perspective. European Journal of Personality 16, 351–367.
effects of bias reduction training. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23, Orth, U., Robins, R.W., Widaman, K.F., 2012. Life-span development of self-esteem
584–602. and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1995. Human autonomy: the basis for true self-esteem. In: Psychology 102, 1271–1288.
Kernis, M.H. (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and Self-esteem. Plenum Press, New York, Pierce, I.L., Gardner, D.G., 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational
pp. 31–49. context: a review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of
DeHart, T., Pelham, B.W., Tennen, H., 2006. What lies beneath: parenting style and Management 30, 591–622.
implicit self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42, 1–17. Pruessner, J.C., Hellhammer, D.H., Kirschbaum, C., 1999. Low self-esteem, induced
Diener, E., Diener, M., 1995. Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self- failure and the adrenocortical stress response. Personality and Individual Differ-
esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, 653–663. ences 27, 477–489.
528 Self-Esteem

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Schimel, J., 2004. Why do Spencer, S.J., Josephs, R.A., Steele, C.M., 1993. Low self-esteem: the uphill struggle
people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin for self-integrity. In: Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.), Self-esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-
130, 435–468. regard. Plennum, New York, pp. 21–36.
Robins, R.W., Hendin, H.M., Trzesniewski, K.H., 2001. Measuring global self-esteem: Stinson, D.B., Logel, C., Zanna, M.P., Holmes, J.G., Cameron, J.J., Wood, J.V.,
construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem Spencer, S.J., 2008. The cost of lower self-esteem: testing a self-and-social-
scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 151–161. bonds model of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, 412–428.
Robins, R.W., Trzesniewski, K.H., Tracy, J.L., Gosling, S.D., Potter, J., 2002. Global Swann Jr., W.B., Chang-Schneider, C., McClarty, K.L., 2007. Do people’s self-views matter?
self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging 17, 423–434. Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist 62, 84–94.
Robinson, K.J., Cameron, J.J., 2012. Self-esteem is a shared relationship resource: Tafarodi, R.W., Swann Jr., W.B., 2001. Two-dimensional self-esteem: theory and
additive effects of dating partners’ self-esteem levels predict relationship quality. measurement. Personality and Individual Differences 31, 653–673.
Journal of Research in Personality 46, 227–230. Taylor, S.E., Brown, J.D., 1988. Illusion and well-being: a social psychological
Rosenberg, M., 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton University perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin 103, 193–210.
Press, Princeton, NJ. Trzesniewski, K.H., Donnellan, M.B., Moffitt, T.E., Robins, R.W., Poulton, R., Caspi, A., 2006.
Segal, Z.V., 1988. Appraisal of the self-schema construct in cognitive models of Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited
depression. Psychological Bulletin 103, 147–162. economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology 42, 381–390.
Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., Stanton, G.C., 1976. Validation of construct interpre- Trzesniewski, K.H., Donnellan, M.B., Robins, R.W., 2013. Development of self-esteem.
tations. Review of Educational Research 46, 407–441. In: Zeigler-Hill, V. (Ed.), Self-esteem. Psychology Press, London, pp. 60–79.
Sherman, D.K., Cohen, G.L., 2006. The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation Zeigler-Hill, V., 2011. The connections between self-esteem and psychopathology.
theory. In: Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 38. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 41, 157–164.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 183–242. Zeigler-Hill, V., 2012. The extended informational model of self-esteem. In:
Showers, C.J., Zeigler-Hill, V., 2006. Pathways among self-knowledge and self- De Wals, S., Meszaros, K. (Eds.), Handbook on Psychology of Self-esteem. Nova,
esteem: how are self-esteem and self-knowledge linked? Are these links direct Hauppauge, NY, pp. 211–226.
or indirect? In: Kernis, M.H. (Ed.), Self-esteem Issues and Answers: A Source Book Zeigler-Hill, V., Jordan, C.H., 2010. Two faces of self-esteem: implicit and explicit
of Current Perspectives. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 216–223. forms of self-esteem. In: Gawronski, B., Payne, B.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit
Showers, C.J., Zeigler-Hill, V., 2012. Organization of self-knowledge: features, func- Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. Guilford Press, New
tions, and flexibility. In: Leary, M.L., Tangney, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Self and York, pp. 392–407.
Identity, second ed. Guilford, New York, pp. 105–123. Zeigler-Hill, V., Myers, E.M., 2011. An implicit theory of self-esteem: the conse-
Smits, M.W., Kee, C.C., 1992. Correlates of self-care among the independent elderly: quences of perceived self-esteem for romantic desirability. Evolutionary Psychology
self-concept affects well-being. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 18, 13–18. 9, 147–180.