Diagnostica, 42 , — Field, A. Discovering statistics using SPSS 3ed. London: Sage Publications. Furnham, A. Lay theories of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1 2 , — Fydrich, T.
Goldsmith, R. Dimensionality of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1 2 , — Gray-Little, B. An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 5 , — Hedges, L.
Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6 , — Hofmann, W. Waht people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everday life.
Psychological Science, 23 6 , — Keyes, C. Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73 3 , — Kling, K. Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 4 , — Konrath, S. Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale SINS. PLoS One, 9 8 , e Lovibond, P. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales DASS with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33 3 , — Lyubomirsky, S. A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 2 , — What are the differences between happiness and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 78 3 , — MacDonald, G. Individual differences in self-esteem. Handbook of Self and Identity , — Margraf, J.
Manuscript in preparation. Markus, H. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 2 , — Marsh, H. Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 4 , — Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg self-esteem scale: Traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles.
Psychological Assessment, 22 2 , — Mayr, S. A short tutorial of GPower. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3 2 , 51— Michaelides, M.
Personality correlates and gender invariance of wording effects in the German version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 97 , 13— Mimura, C. A Japanese version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale: Translation and equivalence assessment. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 62 5 , — Murrell, S. Protective functions of health and self-esteem against depression in older adults facing illness or bereavement. Psychology and Aging, 6 3 , — Nichols, A. The single-item need to belong scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 55 2 , — Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Owens, T. Two dimensions of self-esteem: Reciprocal effects of positive self-worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems.
American Sociological Review, 59 3 , — Pelham, B. From self-conceptions to selfworth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 , — Pullmann, H. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale: Its dimensionality, stability and personality correlates in Estonian. Personality and Individual Differences, 28 4 , — Rammstedt, B. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A item short version of the big five inventory in English and German.
They were to return these sheets the day after those 2 days, at which point they again received four new copies for the remaining 2 days. There is a risk that subjects filled out several questionnaires at one time instead of at the specific time as instructed.
To reduce this risk, subjects received the copies at three instances one upon arrival, four thereafter, and four after having returned the previous four.
Furthermore, after participants were paid and assured that they can keep the payment, a brief interview was conducted to check the extent to which they had complied with the instructions. Participants who showed any signs of lack of compliance e. Participants were recruited on campus with notices and leaflets, as well as via social media postings, e. The total sample consisted of participants Of this sample, The latter subsample was significantly younger compared with those who did not return all RSES questionnaires [ t Participants provided informed consent concerning the purpose of the study, the scientific use of the data, and anonymity as required by University of Duisburg-Essen Psychological Institute's Ethics Committee, which approved of the study.
Self-esteem stability was measured in two ways: indirectly via a longitudinal design and directly via a cross-sectional design. In the indirect assessment, participants completed a modified version of the RSES Rosenberg, over a period of 5 days see section Procedure.
For this purpose, the RSES instructions were modified so that participants were asked to indicate how they felt about themselves in the present moment, rather than in general see Kernis et al.
The SWLS is a five-item instrument designed to measure one's global cognitive judgment of one's life. Table 2 also includes the partial correlations between the criterion variable and each of the predictors, controlling for the two remaining predictors. These indices again demonstrated that only the SESS was substantially associated with the longitudinal assessment above and beyond the other two direct measures. All associations were as assumed: higher scores in stability were associated with lower instability.
Table 2. Multiple regression analyses predicting the indirect measure of self-esteem stability assessed by multiple RSES administrations and satisfaction with life.
It is worth mentioning here that all three indirect measures were significantly correlated with one another, yet only moderately correlated with the variability assessed longitudinally via multiple RSES measurements see Table 2 ; note: complete correlation table see Supplementary Material.
There are at least two possible interpretations of this: as calling the validity of the direct measurement approach as such into question, or more likely, suggesting that the direct measures assess a specific self-reflective aspect of self-esteem stability, which can be described as an individual's self-concept related to their experience of self-evaluative stability. This issue will be considered in the Discussion section.
We applied the same analysis strategy as described above to predict life satisfaction using the three direct stability measures. Table 2 again shows that of the three measures, the SESS proved to be the best predictor of higher life satisfaction.
In this instance, the RSS explained additional significant variance. The SESS also exhibited the strongest positive relationship with life satisfaction in the partial correlations that controlled for the other predictors. However, the predictive power of all measures was small to medium, in line with previous research Kernis et al. For this purpose, we chose neuroticism and vulnerable narcissism as two personality traits that are defined by a high level of instability.
Whereas instability in emotional states in general is characteristic of high neuroticism Costa and McCrae, , instability of self-image is characteristic of high levels of vulnerable narcissism Rhodewalt et al. Therefore, we viewed both traits as appropriate criteria for validity. Previous studies have reported substantial correlations between stability measures and the general level of self-esteem Kernis and Grannemann, ; Marsh, ; Roberts et al. A valid stability measure would have to substantially predict the outcome variables over and above the predictive power of the level of self-esteem.
Therefore, the study's second aim was to evaluate the incremental validity of the three stability measures in predicting the aforementioned criteria over and above general level of self-esteem.
Participants were recruited on campus with notices and leaflets as well as via social media postings, e. The total sample consisted of students The item RSES is conceptualized as a single-factor scale and is considered to be unidimensional Roth et al.
This subscale consists of 12 items in a 5-point Likert scale format. This subscale consists of 16 items. We chose the same analysis strategy as described in Study 2. All predictors were included in the model in a single step to identify the best predictor of the criterion variables neuroticism and vulnerable narcissism.
All associations were as assumed: higher scores on stability were associated with lower neuroticism and narcissism. The SESS exhibited the highest substantial relations to both criteria, as indicated by the partial correlations between each of the predictors and the criteria, controlling for the remaining two predictors. Table 3. Multiple regression analyses in predicting neuroticism and vulnerable narcissism.
For this purpose, hierarchical two-step regression models were calculated in which the general level of self-esteem was entered as a predictor in the first step, and the three stability measures were entered in the second step.
Differences between the direct measures were small; however, the SESS appeared to be the strongest predictor of the three. Table 4. Results of multiple regression analyses predicting neuroticism and vulnerable narcissism.
The aim of Study 4 was to evaluate the validity of our three-item SESS with respect to predicting couples' relationship satisfaction. As mentioned above, the perception that one's partner has unstable self-esteem seems to be a crucial issue for low relationship satisfaction. As shown by Altmann et al.
Therefore, we expected that the rating of one's partner's self-esteem stability would be the most relevant predictor of relationship satisfaction. Because of the high correlations between self-esteem and stability of self-esteem, the incremental validity of the stability measure over general self-esteem was once again considered in the analyses.
Participants were recruited in local institutions such as schools teachers , sports clubs, on campus academic and nonacademic personnel as well as students , and via social media postings, e. Interested persons received paper-and-pencil questionnaires with two stamped return envelopes for themselves and their partner if both were of legal age and both would describe themselves as being in an ongoing, stable, long-term relationship.
Anonymity concerns by several potential participants forced us to omit questions concerning their current work situation. Of the sample, The length of relationship ranged from 0. The RAS consists of seven items and was designed to be a general measure of relationship satisfaction. Partner ratings were also gathered with regard to the global level of self-esteem and self-esteem stability using specially created partner versions of the RSES and SESS.
In these modified versions, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements describing their relationship partner. Agreement about one another's self-esteem as well as the stability of self-esteem i. These results are comparable to previous findings on self-other agreement regarding personality in samples of couples Watson et al.
A meta-analysis of 28 studies of romantic partners by Fletcher and Kerr revealed a mean effect size for tracking accuracy in personality traits of 0. To compare the predictive power of self-esteem stability as measured by the SESS to the predictive power of the general level of self-esteem as measured by the RSES, relationship satisfaction was predicted with two regression models. Both models were calculated for self-ratings, other ratings of the same person, and that person's other ratings of their partner see Table 5 ; note: complete correlation table see Supplementary Material.
Table 5. As expected, head-to-head comparisons revealed that ratings of one's partner were the best predictors of relationship satisfaction, followed by self-ratings. By contrast, other ratings by partners did not predict relationship satisfaction. It is interesting that there was clear evidence for the incremental validity of the SESS as a stability measure over and above the general level of self-esteem, whereas general-self-esteem did not contribute incrementally to predicting relationship satisfaction over and above the SESS.
This provides clear evidence for the relevance of the SESS, which demonstrated predictive power beyond the general level of self-esteem. All associations were as assumed: higher self-esteem level and stability were associated with higher relationship satisfaction. Self-esteem stability is considered an important variable for psychological functioning and is receiving growing attention. The few inventories involving direct cross-sectional assessment exhibit similar deficits in validity, making new developments necessary.
Psychometric properties were found to be satisfactory, and the factor structure was unidimensional, as expected. The SESS was found to have superior predictive power compared to existing measures and demonstrated incremental validity beyond self-esteem level. The fact that previous studies and the results presented here have consistently shown that self-esteem stability is incrementally predictive over self-esteem level further supports the notion that both of these aspects should be taken into account when operationalizing self-esteem.
The joint administration of very brief SESS, which encompasses only three items, with the RSES is economical, relatively efficient, and exhibits significant incremental predictive power above and beyond the RSES with regard to both individual and dyadic outcomes. However, even the SESS, the best predictor, yielded only moderate results. Thus, the indirect and direct measures might assess different aspects ofself-esteemstability, which makes sense given their quite different requirements.
One has to bear in mind, however, that the questionnaires are filled out by participants on their own accord, at specific moments in their lives, and only when the participant is willing to do so in a particular situation. It is highly unlikely that participants will pause, sit down, and fill out the RSES when they are in a moment of flow or ecstasy, or in an acute self-esteem threatening situation.
This measurement approach might therefore work best when the research question focuses on non-extreme or normal day-to-day variation, or when one's ability to self-reflect is reduced e.
The direct assessment, on the other hand, requires participants to reflect on their general experiences of fluctuation in their self-evaluations. Therefore, this approach might primarily assess a retrospective construct, namely one's individual self-concept of one's stability of self-evaluations, i. The results of our study further indicate that this might be influenced by a person's general self-image of their general emotional stability, as we found substantial and significant correlations with neuroticism and vulnerable narcissism.
This measurement approach might function best for research on the general population and with subjects with an intact self-reflective ability. Self-esteem stability scales are still in the process of optimization and still have challenges to overcome.
We will discuss two such challenges in detail here. First, further research is needed on the definition of the time period to which self-esteem stability refers. Medical problems stabilized and treatment was ended. If we assume that low self-esteem has an impact on patient prognosis, then it is beneficial from a therapeutic standpoint to identify and address the causes of low self-esteem. Our study revealed that family dysfunction problems such as a family member with a psychiatric disorder, economic hardship, or experience of child abuse have an impact on self-esteem.
Moreover, patients and their families often do not report such problems to their therapists. As such, this evidence gives reason to suspect that certain problems may exist within the home of seemingly normal families. Thus, when therapists discover that a child has low self-esteem in many different areas, an assessment of family functionality is necessary. Therapists should consider children with such family dysfunction problems as being at risk of having low self-esteem and should take appropriate action at an early stage.
Further, increased support from outside the family can be effective when encouraging the child, particularly when the support from his or her family is insufficient. Self-esteem can be improved if schools, juvenile consultation centers, and others work together to create a haven outside of the home where children feel accepted. In such cases, treatment should first be approached from areas that facilitate cooperation, for example, public health nurses and school nurses can supplement the role of parents by providing encouragement and information to children in regard to their future.
We conclude that a non-diagnostic evaluation axis is necessary to understand the pathological condition of children with psychosomatic disorders and project the treatment prognosis and that assessment of self-esteem can be an effective method.
James W: The Principles of Psychology. Book Google Scholar. Google Scholar. Personality and Persuasibility. Coopersmith S: The Antecedents of Self-esteem. Zeitschrift fur Gesundheits psychologie. Qual Life Res. Shiomura K: Measuring of implicit self-concept and validity. Self Psychology 6. Edited by: Shimotomai A. J Pers Soc Psychol. Harter S: Developmental perspective on the self system.
Edited by: Hetherington EM. Rev Educ Res. Article Google Scholar. Kokenes B: Grade level differences in factor of self-esteem. Develop-mental Psychology. J Japan Pedia Soc. Masuda A, Yasuko T: The effect of experience in school absenteeism during adolescence on self-esteem. Kasuya T, Kawamura S: The relationship between maladaptation and social skills, as well as self-esteem in Junior high school students: comparison between school nonattendance and attendance.
Jpn J Counsel Sci. Eur Psychiatry. Int J Eat Disord. Article PubMed Google Scholar. J Res Adolesc. Health Rep. Psychosom Med. Pediatr Nephrol. Acta Med Okayama. PubMed Google Scholar. Findings from the National longitudinal study on adolescent health. Download references. We are deeply grateful to Professor H.
Tanaka and Professor T. Morishima for their support in carrying out this study. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. Correspondence to Mizuho Hosogi. The authors wrote the manuscript and holds final responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd.
Reprints and Permissions. Hosogi, M. Importance and usefulness of evaluating self-esteem in children. BioPsychoSocial Med 6, 9 Download citation. Received : 30 December Accepted : 20 March Published : 20 March Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative.
Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Abstract Self-esteem is the "feeling of self-appreciation" and is an indispensable emotion for people to adapt to society and live their lives. Introduction UNICEF's adoption of the document "A World Fit for Children" states that children, including adolescents, must be empowered to exercise their right to expression in accordance with their evolving capacity; build self-esteem; and acquire knowledge and skills needed for conflict resolution, decision-making, communication, and endurance of life's challenges.
Definition of self-esteem Kant and others have argued conventionally from a philosophical and ethical standpoint that self-esteem is "the awareness of the absolute value of one's own personality or dignity. Method for evaluating self-esteem A variety of methods are used for evaluating self-esteem. Rosenberg self-esteem scale Rosenberg [ 2 ] was the first to incorporate questionnaires into research on self-esteem.
0コメント