Self esteem

Is High Self-Esteem Beneficial? Revisiting a Classic Question

Ulrich Orth1 and Richard W. Robins2 1 Department of Psychology, University of Bern

2 Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis

Debates about the benefits of self-esteem have persisted for decades, both in the scientific literature and in the popular press. Although many researchers and lay people have argued that high self-esteem helps individuals adapt to and succeed in a variety of life domains, there is widespread skepticism about this claim. The present article takes a new look at the voluminous body of research (including several meta-analyses) examining the consequences of self-esteem for several important life domains: relationships, school, work, mental health, physical health, and antisocial behavior. Overall, the findings suggest that self-esteem is ben- eficial in all these domains, and that these benefits hold across age, gender, and race/ethnic- ity, and controlling for prior levels of the predicted outcomes and potential third variable confounds. The meta-analytic estimates of self-esteem effects (which average .10 across domains) are comparable in size to estimates for other hypothesized causal factors such as self-efficacy, positive emotionality, attachment security, and growth mindset, and larger than some generally accepted pharmaceutical interventions. Discussion focuses on several issues that are critical for evaluating the findings, including the strength of the evidence for making causal inferences, the magnitude of the effects, the importance of distinguishing between self-esteem and narcissism, and the generalizability of the results. In summary, the present findings support theoretical conceptions of self-esteem as an adaptive trait that has wide- ranging influences on healthy adjustment and adaptation, and suggest that interventions aimed at boosting self-esteem might, if properly designed and implemented, benefit individ- uals and society as a whole.

Public Significance Statement The findings of this review indicate that having high (vs. low) self-esteem has wide-rang- ing positive consequences, including better social relationships, more success at school and work, better mental and physical health, and less antisocial behavior. Consequently, well- designed and properly implemented self-esteem interventions might benefit individuals and society as a whole.

Keywords: self-esteem, life outcomes, longitudinal research

Self-esteem is arguably the most widely studied variable in the behavioral and social sciences, with thousands of studies conducted each year by researchers in psychology and related disciplines. Although countless popular books tout its wide-ranging benefits, debate persists in the scien- tific literature about whether these benefits actually exist.

On the one hand, researchers have long argued that high self-esteem helps individuals to make friends, to have more satisfying romantic relationships, to be more successful at school and work, and to experience higher psychological well-being (e.g., Swann et al., 2007). In the 1990s, a task force of the California Department of Education (1990) even suggested that self-esteem is a panacea for a wide range of societal problems, including “crime, violence, sub- stance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse, chronic welfare dependency, and educational failure” (p. 4). On the other hand, there has been widespread skepticism about the sup- posed benefits of self-esteem. In 2003, an influential review concluded that self-esteem has few benefits: “With the exception of the link to happiness, most of the effects are weak to modest. Self-esteem is not a major predictor or

Ulrich Orth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4795-515X Richard W. Robins https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5088-3484 This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on

Aging to Richard W. Robins (R01AG060164). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ulrich

Orth, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]

5

American Psychologist

© 2022 American Psychological Association ISSN: 0003-066X https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000922

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

2022, Vol. 77, No. 1, 5–17

cause of almost anything (again, with the possible exception of happiness)” (Baumeister et al., 2003, p. 37; see also Bau- meister & Vohs, 2018). The publication of this article led to an avalanche of articles in the media with titles such as, “Self-Esteem: Why We Need Less of It” (Time Magazine), “Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth” (Scientific American), “The Trouble With Self-Esteem” (New York Times), and “Deflating Self-Esteem’s Role in Societal Ills” (New York Times). Given the high level of media and scientific attention, it is

vital that we gain a deeper understanding of the real-world consequences of self-esteem. If high self-esteem is benefi- cial, then interventions that raise self-esteem in children, adolescents, and adults might increase their chances of suc- cess in important life domains such as relationships, school, and work. However, if high self-esteem is only an epiphe- nomenon of life success (i.e., life success leads to higher self-esteem rather than vice versa), then efforts aimed at increasing self-esteem (whether through targeted interven- tions, therapy, or self-help books) are useless (Baumeister & Vohs, 2018). There has even been concern that the self- esteem movement, in its efforts to raise children’s self- esteem, has been counterproductive, engendering a rise in narcissism instead of fostering a genuine sense of self-worth (Twenge & Foster, 2010). The unresolved debates and real-world relevance of these

issues highlight the need for a new, comprehensive review of the empirical evidence. It has been almost two decades since Baumeister et al.’s (2003) highly influential article (5,660 citations as of September 2021) questioned the

benefits of self-esteem. Despite the pessimistic conclusions of Baumeister et al.’s review, research on self-esteem has exploded since its publication. A recent PsycINFO search for the term “self-esteem” identified over 26,000 articles published since 2003 (Baumeister et al.’s review covered up to 2002). Not only is the new evidentiary base enormous, it is also methodologically stronger than studies available when the 2003 review was conducted. Given these improve- ments in the literature, a new review might lead to substan- tially different conclusions than the earlier review. Even now, Baumeister et al.’s (2003) review continues to be frequently cited (1,660 times from 2018 to September 2021), suggesting that it continues to shape the field’s (and arguably society’s) perspective on whether or not high self-esteem is beneficial. For all these reasons, we believe the time has come for an updated review of the literature. Before reviewing the evidence, we briefly turn to how

self-esteem has been defined and assessed. Self-esteem refers to an individual’s subjective evaluation of their worth as a person (e.g., Donnellan et al., 2011). Thus, self-esteem is by definition a subjective construct and does not necessar- ily reflect a person’s objective characteristics and compe- tences. It is important to distinguish self-esteem from narcissism, as both constructs involve positive self-evalua- tions (Orth et al., 2016; Paulhus et al., 2004). Whereas self- esteem refers to feelings of self-acceptance and self-respect, narcissism is characterized by feelings of superiority, gran- diosity, entitlement, and self-centeredness (Ackerman et al., 2011). After reviewing the evidence on self-esteem, we will return to the distinction between self-esteem and narcissism, and to the importance of assessing their unique behavioral outcomes. Moreover, researchers often distinguish between global and domain-specific self-esteem (Donnellan et al., 2011; Marsh, 1990). Whereas global self-esteem refers to an individual’s overall evaluation of their worth, domain- specific self-esteem refers to an individual’s evaluation of their characteristics and abilities in specific domains, such as social relationships, school, and physical appearance. In this article, we discuss findings for both global and domain- specific self-esteem, although no data on domain-specific self-esteem were available for many outcomes reviewed below. The conceptualization of self-esteem as a subjective eval-

uation is consistent with how self-esteem is typically assessed, that is, using self-report measures (Donnellan et al., 2015). For example, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the most frequently used measure, includes items such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I am able to do things as well as most other people.” In this article, we focus on people’s explicit evaluation of them- selves, rather than on implicit self-esteem. Implicit meas- ures of self-esteem have limited validity and explicit measures such as the Rosenberg scale are generally considered

Ulrich Orth

ORTH AND ROBINS

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

6

the most valid measures of self-esteem (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Donnellan et al., 2015).

Review of Evidence

Our review of research on the potential benefits of self- esteem will focus predominantly on longitudinal studies. Since 2003, numerous longitudinal studies have been pub- lished that use large representative samples and control for prior levels of the predicted outcomes, which increases the validity of conclusions by helping to rule out the possibility that life outcomes lead to higher self-esteem, rather than vice versa. Moreover, several meta-analyses of longitudinal studies have summarized the evidence with regard to spe- cific outcomes, including social relationships, academic achievement, and depression. Thus, wherever possible, we focus on meta-analytic findings, which provide important information about average effect sizes and moderating fac- tors. The review is organized around six broad categories of outcomes: social relationships, school, work, mental health, physical health, and antisocial behavior. For each category, we briefly summarize the main theoretical propositions (when available) and then present the findings (see Table 1 for an overview of meta-analytic findings).

Social Relationships

Several theories assume that self-esteem has consequen- ces for social relationships (for a review, see Harris & Orth, 2020). According to the self-broadcasting perspective, indi- viduals show observable cues that broadcast their level of

self-acceptance to others, which influences how they are perceived in terms of competence and attractiveness and, ultimately, whether they are successful in initiating and maintaining social relationships (Srivastava & Beer, 2005; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2013). Self-verification theory proposes that individuals are motivated to be perceived by others in the same way as they perceive themselves (Swann, 2012), and that individuals with low self-esteem withdraw from social relationships when their partner views them more positively than they view themselves. Finally, the risk regu- lation model assumes that self-esteem shapes people’s behavior in social interactions and relationships, which has long-term consequences for the quality of their peer and romantic relationships (Murray et al., 2006). A recent meta-analysis synthesized the longitudinal evi-

dence on self-esteem and social relationships (Harris & Orth, 2020). Indicators of relationship quality included vari- ables such as warmth, closeness, support, relationship satis- faction, and social network size. The results showed that self-esteem prospectively predicted relationship quality with a standardized regression coefficient of .08, controlling for prior level of relationship quality (see Table 1). The effect sizes were similar in magnitude for studies that con- trolled versus did not control for potential confounders, sug- gesting that the observed effects were not accounted for by third variables. Moreover, the self-esteem effect held across age, gender, race/ethnicity, time lag between assessments, year of data collection, and type of self-esteem measure, but the effect was stronger when participants reported on rela- tionships in general compared with relationships with spe- cific partners (e.g., parents, peers, and romantic partner), and stronger for self-reported than for informant-reported relationship quality.1

Further evidence comes from a meta-analysis by Cameron and Granger (2019), who examined the relation between self-esteem and interpersonal experiences (including social acceptance, relationship quality, relationship stability, inter- personal traits, and interpersonal behaviors). Although Cameron and Granger summarized data predominantly from cross-sectional studies, a major strength is that all interpersonal experiences were based on nonself-report out- comes, such as behavior observation and informant reports. Thus, the analyses rule out the possibility that the observed

Richard W. Robins

1 The effects may be larger for self-reports because of shared method variance (e.g., the tendency for high self-esteem individuals to show a positivity bias when rating life outcomes), which can inflate associations between self-report measures. However, it is important to note that by controlling for prior levels of the outcomes (as done in all meta-analytic findings shown in Table 1 and most other studies reviewed in this article), shared method variance in self-reported outcomes is already controlled for to a great extent. Thus, shared method variance cannot fully explain the difference between effect sizes based on self-report and nonself-report. Moreover, for many outcomes there is no gold standard measure, and nonself-report measures of life outcomes, such as informant reports and objective measures (e.g., criminal records), have their own limitations that may attenuate associations between self-esteem and outcomes.

IS HIGH SELF-ESTEEM BENEFICIAL?

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

7

relations are inflated by shared method variance or by biases inherent in self-reports of interpersonal experiences. For relationship quality and social acceptance, the average correlations with self-esteem were .15 and .11, respectively, whereas for relationship stability the effect size was close to zero (.02). Moreover, the average correlations were .19 for interpersonal traits and .08 for interpersonal behaviors. Although these cross-sectional correlations were generally small, the use of objective measures of interpersonal varia- bles supports theoretical claims that self-esteem contributes to positive relationship outcomes. Cameron and Granger’s (2019) meta-analysis included 10 longitudinal studies with an average correlation of .12 between self-esteem and rela- tionship outcomes (note, however, that the longitudinal associations were not controlled for prior levels of the out- comes). The meta-analysis also found that the positive effect of self-esteem was particularly strong in relationship contexts with a high risk of being rejected, providing sup- port for a key assumption of the risk regulation model (Murray et al., 2006). Little is known about several important aspects of the

association between self-esteem and social relationships. For example, few studies have tested whether self-esteem predicts major transitions in the relationship domain, such as beginning a romantic relationship or breaking up with a relationship partner, and the extant evidence is mixed. Self- esteem did not predict beginning a first romantic relation- ship in young adulthood in two longitudinal studies (Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Wagner et al., 2015), but another longi- tudinal study found that individuals with high self-esteem were more likely to begin a long-term, stable relationship and less likely to break up with their existing relationship partner (Luciano & Orth, 2017). Another research question that deserves more attention is whether children’s self- esteem influences the parenting behavior of their caregivers.

The few available studies indicate that children’s self- esteem predicts increasing parental warmth when parenting is assessed by child report, but not when it is assessed by par- ent report or when method factors are controlled for (Brum- melman et al., 2015; Krauss et al., 2020). Thus, although children’s personality characteristics shape their parenting environment (Atherton & Schofield, 2021), it is currently unclear whether this is true for children’s self-esteem. Finally, there is little research on how domain-specific evaluations are associated with relationship outcomes. Based on the specific- ity-matching principle (Swann et al., 2007), we would expect to find stronger effects for relation-specific self-evaluations (i.e., Does the person have a positive self-image as a relation- ship partner?) compared with global self-esteem. In summary, the findings suggest that people with high

self-esteem tend to have better social relationships, but more research is needed on relationship transitions and relation- ship-specific self-evaluations. Although the average effect size is small, the effect is likely robust, given that it holds when potential third-variable confounders are controlled.

School

Numerous theoretical perspectives suggest that self- esteem might influence academic achievement, although contrasting views have been expressed (for a review, see Valentine et al., 2004). Theorists have proposed that moti- vational processes such as self-affirmation and self-verifica- tion cause individuals with high self-esteem to behave in ways (e.g., studying for tests, completing homework) that contribute to academic success to confirm their positive self-views (Rosenberg, 1979; Steele, 1988; Swann, 2012). The success orientation of high self-esteem students makes them more engaged and persistent in achievement contexts, and more likely to exhibit adaptive cognitive and emotional

Table 1 Prospective Effects of Self-Esteem on Important Life Outcomes: Meta-Analytic Findings

Category and outcome Effect size estimate 95% CI N of studies N of participants

Social relationshipsa

Quality of social relationships .08* [.06, .10] 35 21,995 Schoolb

Academic achievement .08* [.07, .09] 60 49,266 Workc

Job satisfaction .09* [.07, .11] 15 14,374 Job success .08* [.01, .16] 6 3,360 Income .05 [�.00, .10] 7 7,534 Job resources .10* [.05, .15] 6 2,782 Job stressors �.09 [�.19, .01] 4 1,770

Mental healthd

Depression �.16* [�.18, �.14] 77 35,501 Anxiety �.10* [�.14, �.06] 18 3,597

Note. CI = confidence interval. Effect size estimates are standardized regression coefficients. The table includes meta-analyses that examined prospective effects of self-esteem on the outcome controlling for prior level of the outcome. For physical health and antisocial behavior, no meta-analyses of prospec- tive effects are available. a Data from Harris and Orth (2020). b Data from Valentine et al. (2004). c Data from Krauss and Orth (2021). d Data from Sowislo and Orth (2013). * p , .05.

ORTH AND ROBINS

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

8

reactions to challenge, which then increases the likelihood that they will do well in school (Covington, 1989). More- over, self-esteem is associated with higher levels of self-ef- ficacy, which increases the use of adaptive self-regulatory strategies (Pintrich & de Groot, 1990) and promotes moti- vation and task engagement (Green et al., 2012). Finally, high self-esteem is a coping resource that contributes to per- sistence after academic failure (Baumeister et al., 2003). In contrast, individuals with low self-esteem engage in self- handicapping behaviors such as procrastination, or disen- gage entirely from the learning process to avoid feedback that would threaten their self-esteem, compromising their achievement (Covington, 1989). Many of these theorized mechanisms apply to both global and academic self-esteem (i.e., self-evaluations of academic ability), and researchers generally expect stronger effects for academic than for global self-esteem (Valentine et al., 2004). Shortly after Baumeister et al.’s (2003) review, a meta-

analysis summarized the longitudinal evidence on the effect of self-beliefs (including self-esteem, self-concept, and self- efficacy) on academic achievement (Valentine et al., 2004; see Table 1). An important strength of this meta-analysis is that, in all studies included, achievement was assessed with objective measures such as grades and standardized test scores. The results showed that self-esteem prospectively predicted academic achievement with a standardized regres- sion coefficient of .08, controlling for prior level of the out- come. Effect sizes for self-esteem, self-concept, and self- efficacy did not differ significantly. Moreover, controlling for potential confounders did not significantly alter the aver- age effect size, suggesting that the observed effects were not due to third variables. The moderator analyses showed that academic self-beliefs showed stronger effects than global self-esteem, and that domain-specific beliefs (e.g., self-evaluation of math ability) predicted outcomes in the same domain (e.g., math grades) more strongly than in other domains (e.g., English grades). Moderator analyses indi- cated that the effects held across age, gender, race/ethnicity, and the time lag between assessments. Since Valentine et al.’s (2004) meta-analysis, a number

of rigorous longitudinal studies have been published, many of which used data from large, representative samples and, in some cases, controlled for potential confounders. The findings from these studies confirm the results of the meta- analysis. For example, Trzesniewski et al. (2006) found that low self-esteem in adolescence (assessed three times between ages 11–15 years) predicted school dropout and a lower likelihood of obtaining a college degree, even when controlling for gender, socioeconomic status (SES), intelli- gence, and adolescent depression. Another large-scale study found that both global and academic self-esteem in adoles- cence predicted educational attainment at age 31 (based on objective data from national records), even when control- ling for gender, parental SES, and school grades (von Soest

et al., 2016). Generally, the effect sizes are larger for aca- demic self-esteem compared to global self-esteem (Marsh & O'Mara, 2008; Trautwein et al., 2006; von Soest et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2020). In summary, empirical findings support the hypothesis

that individuals with high self-esteem tend to perform better in school. Although the average effect size is small, it is likely robust, given that it holds when controlling for rele- vant third variables. Moreover, many individual studies, and all studies included in the meta-analysis by Valentine et al. (2004), used objective measures of achievement, which strengthens confidence in the findings.

Work

Several theoretical perspectives suggest that self-esteem influences success in the work domain (for a review, see Krauss & Orth, 2021). Similar to academic achievement, processes such as self-affirmation and self-verification might account for self-esteem effects on work experiences (Steele, 1988; Swann, 2012). Self-esteem might influence the selection of one’s work environment, such that individu- als with high self-esteem tend to seek, and get, jobs with more responsibility, autonomy, and influence, compared with individuals with low self-esteem. Also, if self-esteem positively influences social relationships, this may enhance social well-being at the work place, elicit more emotional and instrumental support from coworkers and supervisors, and, consequently, facilitate work success. Moreover, as noted above, self-esteem may strengthen persistence after failure at work (Baumeister et al., 2003), whereas those with low self-esteem may engage in self-handicapping behaviors such as procrastination, or disengage from the workplace to avoid eliciting negative evaluations from others. A recent meta-analytic project synthesized the evidence

from longitudinal studies of self-esteem and work outcomes (Krauss & Orth, 2021; see Table 1). In the meta-analysis, all effects controlled for prior levels of the outcomes. A strength of this meta-analysis is that about half of the effect sizes were unpublished and there was no evidence of publi- cation bias, which increases confidence in the findings. The results showed that self-esteem significantly predicted job satisfaction (.09), job success (.08), and job resources (.10). The effects on income (.05) and job stressors (�.09) were not significant (likely due to the low number of studies for these outcomes), but they were in the expected direction. Moderator analyses indicated that the effect of self-esteem on job satisfaction held across age, gender, sample type (nationally representative vs. nonnationally representative), and time lag (there were too few studies to examine moder- ator effects for the other outcomes). Several individual studies controlled for third variables.

For example, Trzesniewski et al. (2006) found that low self-

IS HIGH SELF-ESTEEM BENEFICIAL?

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

9

esteem in adolescence predicted informant-reported work problems at age 26 (but not long-term unemployment), when controlling for gender, family SES, intelligence, and adolescent depression. Von Soest et al. (2016) found that self-esteem in adolescence predicted income and being employed at age 31 (based on data from national records), when controlling for gender, family SES, and school grades; these findings were similar in magnitude for global and academic self-esteem. In summary, the evidence suggests that individuals with

high self-esteem tend to be more satisfied and successful at work, although the effect is likely small. However, more longitudinal research is needed that controls for potential third-variable confounds. Moreover, few studies have tested the effects of self-esteem on important transitions in the work domain, such as getting a job, being promoted, and becoming unemployed.

Mental Health

Beck’s (1967) cognitive theory proposes that negative self-beliefs play a critical causal role in the etiology of depression. Low self-esteem has also been discussed as an etiological factor for anxiety disorders (Zeigler-Hill, 2011). The effects of self-esteem on mental health have often been described by a vulnerability model, in which low self- esteem is conceptualized as a stable personality factor that predisposes individuals to mental health problems (Orth & Robins, 2013). Since most prior theory and research on self-esteem has focused on its links with depression and anxiety, we focus on these two outcomes. A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies showed that self-

esteem prospectively predicted depression and anxiety with standardized regression coefficients of �.16 and �.08, respectively (i.e., high self-esteem predicted fewer mental health problems), controlling for prior levels of the out- comes (Sowislo & Orth, 2013; see Table 1). Moderator analyses indicated that the effects held across age, gender, sample type (nationally representative vs. nonnationally representative), and time lag between assessments. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the effect sizes

were not controlled for potential confounders. Therefore, it is important to consider evidence from primary studies that included such controls. With regard to depression, the effect of low self-esteem holds when controlling for gender, level of education, and SES (Orth et al., 2009; Trzesniewski et al., 2006; von Soest et al., 2016), as well as when control- ling for several other prospective predictors of depression, including neuroticism (Sowislo et al., 2014), low social sup- port (Orth et al., 2014), stressful events (Orth, Robins, & Meier, 2009; Orth et al., 2014), and unstable self-esteem (Sowislo et al., 2014). The effect of self-esteem also holds for both affective-cognitive (e.g., depressed mood, hope- lessness) and somatic (e.g., poor appetite, disturbed sleep)

symptoms of depression (Kuster et al., 2012; Orth et al., 2009), across a 20-year time interval (Steiger et al., 2014), and after controlling for content overlap between self- esteem and depression scales (Orth et al., 2008; Orth et al., 2009). With regard to anxiety, we are not aware of studies that controlled for potential third-variable confounders. Follow-up studies have shown that the effect of low self-

esteem on depression is driven mostly by global rather than domain-specific self-esteem (Orth et al., 2014; Steiger et al., 2014) and that rumination partially mediates the effect (Kuster et al., 2012). Also, findings from six longitudinal studies that examined the simultaneous effects of self-esteem and narcis- sism indicate that the effect of low self-esteem on depression is due to a lack of genuine self-esteem (i.e., self-esteem con- trolling for narcissism), not the absence of narcissistic self- enhancement (Orth et al., 2016). In summary, there is robust evidence that individuals with low self-esteem are more likely to experience mental health problems.

Physical Health

The self- and social-bonds model of health proposes that self-esteem influences physical health through its effects on social relationships (Stinson et al., 2008). As reviewed above, high self-esteem may lead to more social acceptance and better relationships. Moreover, individuals with high self-esteem may ask for, and receive, more emotional, instrumental, and informational support (Stinson et al., 2008). The quality of social support, in turn, affects the car- diovascular, endocrine, and immune systems, which in the long run influence health (Uchino et al., 1996). No meta-analysis of the prospective effects of self-esteem

on physical health is available, but the effects have been tested in several longitudinal studies. Stinson et al. (2008) found that high self-esteem predicted decreases in health problems, measured by self-report (with a standardized regression coefficient of �.27) and objective data (�.15; e.g., number of visits to the doctor), and that the quality of social bonds mediated these effects. In a study with a large sample and five waves of data across 12 years, high self-esteem predicted increases in self-reported health (.11) and decreases in a cumulative index of 10 health problems (�.05; including high blood pressure, stroke, and diabetes), controlling for prior levels of outcomes (Orth et al., 2012). Another study used data from about 700 older adults and found that self-esteem prospectively predicted an index of functional health (.22), including seven activities such as “walking about three blocks,” “using stairs or inclines,” and “reaching above your head,” even when controlling for age, education, ethnicity, income, and marital status (Reitzes & Mutran, 2006). Trzesniewski et al. (2006) found that self- esteem in adolescence predicted cardiorespiratory health (.09), waist-to-hip ratio (�.13), and perceived physical fit- ness (.08) at age 26 (but not body mass index), even when

ORTH AND ROBINS

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

10

controlling for gender, family SES, adolescent depression, and childhood body mass index. Mäkikangas et al. (2004) found concurrent but not prospective effects of self-esteem on physical symptoms. In summary, individuals with high self-esteem tend to be

healthier than those with low self-esteem, based on both objective and subjective measures of health. The effect sizes for health outcomes were similar in size to the meta-analytic estimates for the social relationships, school, work, and men- tal health domains. Some studies found effects controlling for potential third-variable confounders. Moreover, there is evidence that strong social connections are a mediator of the effects of self-esteem on health. However, the number of longitudinal studies is relatively small and the findings are not entirely consistent within or across studies. Thus, addi- tional research is needed to gain more robust insights.

Antisocial Behavior

Over the past few decades, researchers have debated whether, and in what way, self-esteem is related to aggres- sion, violence, delinquency, and criminal behavior, with some arguing that high self-esteem promotes antisocial behavior (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1996), and others arguing that low self-esteem does (e.g., Donnellan et al., 2005). However, when self-esteem is appropriately distinguished from narcissism, the theoretical argument for high self- esteem causing antisocial behavior becomes untenable, whereas the theoretical arguments strengthen for low self- esteem. For example, individuals with low self-esteem might protect themselves against feelings of inferiority by externalizing blame for their failures (more often than indi- viduals with high self-esteem), engendering hostile and aggressive reactions toward others (Tracy & Robins, 2003). Also, low self-esteem may lead individuals to use aggres- sion and other forms of bullying as a means to gain social power and attention (Ostrowsky, 2010). Finally, chronic low self-esteem may weaken ties to society and social norms, and thereby increase antisocial behavior (Donnellan et al., 2005). There have been no meta-analyses of the prospective

effect of self-esteem on antisocial behavior controlling for prior levels of antisocial behavior. However, meta-analyses of concurrent and longitudinal associations (not controlling for prior levels) provide robust evidence that low, rather than high, self-esteem is linked to criminal behavior and de- linquency (with an effect size of �.10; Mier & Ladny, 2018) and cyberbullying (�.16; Lei et al., 2020). Although limited in number, the few existing longitudinal

studies of self-esteem and antisocial behavior are methodo- logically strong. For example, Donnellan et al. (2005, Study 2) used data from a representative birth cohort of more than 800 New Zealand youth, and found that self-esteem had a prospective effect of�.15 on externalizing problems (measured

by parent and teacher reports), controlling for prior levels of externalizing problems. In a follow-up study using the same sample, Trzesniewski et al. (2006) found that low self-esteem in adolescence predicted whether participants had been convicted of a violent crime at age 26 (as well as nonviolent crimes), controlling for gender, SES, and ado- lescent depression. In a multiwave longitudinal study of 660 adults (Kuster et al., 2013), self-esteem showed small, but consistent, prospective effects on antisocial behavior in the workplace, including incivility (�.07), interpersonal deviance (�.06), and organizational deviance (�.06). In summary, there is robust meta-analytic evidence that

low self-esteem is concurrently associated with antisocial behavior, and longitudinal studies suggest that low self- esteem is prospectively associated with antisocial behavior. However, the number of longitudinal studies is still small and more research is needed.

Important Issues in Research on the Benefits of Self- Esteem

In this section, we discuss several issues that are critically important when interpreting and evaluating evidence con- cerning the benefits of self-esteem.

Causality

Several large meta-analyses and hundreds of studies have demonstrated that self-esteem prospectively predicts out- comes in important life domains, even after controlling for prior levels of the outcomes. These findings provide neces- sary but not sufficient evidence for establishing causation, which raises the question: How confident should we be in inferring a causal effect of self-esteem? Although experi- mental studies are considered the gold standard for testing causal hypotheses, experimental manipulations of self-esteem are transitory and consequently may not generalize to real-life differences in self-esteem or provide information about the hypothesized long-term effects of self-esteem considered in this review. Intervention studies provide another avenue for supporting causal inferences. Evidence suggests that it is possi- ble to increase self-esteem through interventions and that these interventions lead to improvements in academic performance and reductions in depression and anxiety (Haney & Durlak, 1998; O'Mara et al., 2006), which support a causal effect of self-esteem on school and mental health outcomes. However, self-esteem interventions may change other psychological characteristics (e.g., optimism, social competence, etc.), mak- ing it difficult to unequivocally attribute the observed effects to changes in self-esteem. There is a growing recognition that longitudinal research

can provide a third avenue for supporting causal inferences, if done in a careful and systematic manner (Grosz et al., 2020). Our review suggests that the available longitudinal evidence for the real-world consequences of self-esteem is

IS HIGH SELF-ESTEEM BENEFICIAL?

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

11

methodologically strong, with many studies that used data from large and diverse samples (or even nationally repre- sentative samples), followed participants across long peri- ods (years or even decades), examined the constructs as latent variables (thereby controlling for measurement error and some systematic biases), used objective as well as sub- jective measures of life outcomes, and controlled for the effects of theoretically-relevant third variables, which other- wise could have confounded the observed effects.2 Thus, although longitudinal data cannot provide definitive proof of causality, the available evidence is consistent with a causal interpretation of self-esteem’s effect on life outcomes. Indeed, it is difficult to come up with a noncausal explana- tion that could plausibly account for the diverse array of find- ings documenting the predictive validity of self-esteem. Thus, although the research to date cannot prove causality, the present review suggests that stronger causal inferences about the benefits of self-esteem are justified than at the time when Baumeister et al. (2003) conducted their review. Finally, it is important to consider the possibility of

reverse causation. Although longitudinal evidence suggests that some life outcomes lead to changes in self-esteem (e.g., experiences in the relationship and work domains, Harris & Orth, 2020; Krauss & Orth, 2021), such findings do not contradict the hypothesis that self-esteem influences the same outcomes. In other words, self-esteem and life out- comes may have reciprocal causal effects. For example, self-esteem and social relationships reciprocally predict each other over time, suggesting a positive feedback loop (Harris & Orth, 2020). This pattern is consistent with the corresponsive principle of personality development, which states that personality characteristics (such as self-esteem) and life experiences reciprocally influence each other (Rob- erts & Wood, 2006).

Effect Sizes

Effects in the psychological sciences are almost never exactly zero (Meehl, 1990; Orben & Lakens, 2020). Thus, the relevant question concerns the size of an effect, not its presence or absence. As illustrated by the meta-analytic findings summarized in Table 1, the average size of pro- spective effects of self-esteem on life outcomes (as captured by standardized regression coefficients, controlling for prior level of the outcome) is approximately .10. Although an effect of this magnitude could be considered small, based on Cohen’s (1988) conventions for interpreting correlation coefficients, these conventions do not apply to prospective effects when prior levels (i.e., the stability) of the predicted variable is controlled (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015). The stability of a construct usually explains a large portion of its variance (that was also true in the meta-analyses reviewed in this article, as indicated by large stability coefficients for most outcomes), which severely limits the theoretical range

of prospective effects of other variables on the construct. In other words, when the stability of a construct is controlled, a prospective regression coefficient reflects an effect on rel- ative change in a construct, which is typically much smaller than concurrent correlations between constructs. For these reasons, a prospective regression coefficient of .10 indicates a more substantial effect compared to a concurrent correla- tion of the same size. The magnitude of the self-esteem effects can also be eval-

uated by comparing them to findings for other constructs that influence the same outcomes (Funder & Ozer, 2019). The prospective effects of other hypothesized causal factors also tend to be about .10. Based on meta-analytic estimates of standardized regression coefficients, controlled for prior level of outcome, the effect of self-efficacy on academic performance is .07 (Talsma et al., 2018), the effect of low positive emotionality on depression is .08 and on anxiety .06 (Khazanov & Ruscio, 2016), and the effect of low attachment security on substance use is .05 (Fairbairn et al., 2018). Moreover, a meta-analysis focusing on growth mind- set and academic outcomes suggested an average associa- tion of r = .10 and an average effect of growth mindset interventions of d = .08 (Sisk et al., 2018). Thus, a prospec- tive effect of .10 is comparable with what has been found for other potential causal factors. The practical significance of the present findings should

not be over- or underestimated. Although the predictive power of self-esteem is comparable to typical findings in the psychological literature, self-esteem nonetheless explains a small proportion of the variance in most real-world out- comes. Baumeister et al. (2003) argued that such small effect sizes do not justify investing in interventions to improve self-esteem. Yet, many medical treatments that have similar or weaker effects are routinely given to the general popula- tion; for example, the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflamma- tory drugs such as ibuprofen on pain is only r = .14 and the effect of aspirin on risk for death from heart attack is r = .02

2 Regarding third variables, it is crucial to distinguish between confounding variables, which should be controlled, and colliders and mediators, which should not be controlled. Control of colliders and mediators actually increases, rather than decreases, bias in the estimated causal effect (Rohrer, 2018). In our opinion, the third variables controlled for in the studies reviewed above are all potential confounders except for depression, which is better conceptualized as a potential mediator for outcomes such as relationship quality, school achievement, and work success, given its documented associations with these outcomes and with low self-esteem. Another issue is that controlling for a large number of potential third-variable confounders significantly reduces the precision and, consequently, the validity of estimates. Due to multicollinearity, virtually every predictor will become nonsignificant if a sufficiently large number of covariates are added to the model. For example, Boden et al. (2008) reported that the prospective effects of adolescent self-esteem on young adult outcomes became weak or nonsignificant after controlling for 23 covariates. We do not believe that these results allow for valid conclusions given the large number of covariates and the inclusion of variables (e.g., depression, anxiety, shyness, and conduct problems) that should be conceptualized as mediators or colliders rather than confounders.

ORTH AND ROBINS

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

12

(Meyer et al., 2001). Moreover, small effects are to be expected because the outcomes investigated in the present study are quintessential examples of multiply determined phenomena (Ahadi & Diener, 1989), and even small effects can have a major impact when aggregated over long periods of time (Abelson, 1985; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1994). Finally, the evidence suggests that individuals with low self-esteem accumulate a wide range of dysfunctional negative life out- comes, which collectively may have powerful negative con- sequences for adjustment across the life course. For all these reasons, we view self-esteem as one of many potentially modifiable risk factors for a range of adjustment problems, and consequently a potential target of interventions.

Distinguishing High Self-Esteem and Narcissism

It is crucial to distinguish between self-esteem and narcis- sism when evaluating the consequences of self-esteem. As noted earlier, the two constructs overlap conceptually because both involve positive self-evaluations. In fact, the concurrent correlation between self-esteem and narcissism is about .30 to .40 (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2011; Orth et al., 2016), which is not nearly as strong as would be expected if self-esteem and narcissism were the same construct. Indeed, there are important conceptual differences between self- esteem and narcissism; for example, high self-esteem is not characterized by grandiosity, self-centeredness, arrogance, and entitlement, and their unique correlates often differ sub- stantially, at times even pointing in the opposite direction (Hyatt et al., 2018). This pattern is apparent for many outcomes examined in

the present review. For example, high self-esteem has a pos- itive prospective effect on social relationships, whereas nar- cissism has a negative effect once others get to know narcissistic individuals better (Leckelt et al., 2015). Also, the prospective effect of high self-esteem on mental health holds when controlling for narcissism, whereas the prospec- tive effect of narcissism drops essentially to zero when con- trolling for self-esteem (Orth et al., 2016). For antisocial behavior, no longitudinal studies are available that simulta- neously examined self-esteem and narcissism. However, cross-sectional data clearly show that high self-esteem is related to less antisocial behavior, whereas narcissism is related to more antisocial behavior, and these associations become even stronger when self-esteem and narcissism are mutually controlled (Donnellan et al., 2005; Paulhus et al., 2004). Finally, longitudinal research has shown that high self-esteem prospectively predicts less frequent stressful events (serious diseases, accidents, criminal victimization, and losing one’s job), whereas narcissism predicts more fre- quent stressful events (Orth & Luciano, 2015). Thus, when evaluating whether self-esteem has benefits,

it is important not to confuse narcissism with high self- esteem because the two constructs are conceptually distinct

and often have highly divergent (and sometimes opposite) effects on social relationships, mental health, and antisocial behavior. Research is needed to examine the unique effects of high self-esteem and narcissism on academic achieve- ment, work success, and physical health, but there is reason to expect adaptive (self-esteem) versus maladaptive (narcis- sism) effects similar to the findings described above (Back & Morf, 2018).

Constraints on Generalizability

Another important question concerns the extent to which the findings generalize across demographic groups, such as gender, age, ethnicity, race, nationality, social class, and birth cohort. All of the meta-analyses included in Table 1 tested whether demographic variables moderate the pro- spective effects of self-esteem on life outcomes, with virtu- ally all tests showing that the findings do not vary significantly across demographic subgroups. However, meta-analyses of the effects of self-esteem on physical health and antisocial behav- ior, including tests of demographic moderators, are needed before drawing conclusions about generalizability in these domains. Moreover, the meta-analyses in Table 1 did not examine generalizability across social class (e.g., because few studies reported SES), although some support for generalizabil- ity comes from studies based on large representative samples (with a broad range of SES) and studies that have documented self-esteem effects in low SES samples (e.g., Orth et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2020). Finally, the available evidence is based largely on samples from Western countries, highlighting the need for more research with samples from Asia, Africa, and South America before reaching conclusions about the benefits of self-esteem in these contexts. The absence of significant demographic moderators raises

the question of what accounts for variability in effects across individual studies, given that all meta-analyses reviewed here found significant heterogeneity in effect sizes (indicating that sampling error is not the only source of var- iability). Therefore, future research should continue to test hypotheses about moderating factors that might explain why self-esteem effects are sometimes stronger and some- times weaker. For example, self-esteem effects may be moderated by social contextual factors such as the child’s family environment or an adult’s social support network.

Conclusions

The present findings, based on several large meta-analy- ses and hundreds of individual studies, provide a robust challenge to widespread claims in the scientific literature and in the popular press that self-esteem has few benefits and might even have a “dark side.” Instead, a voluminous body of research suggests that high self-esteem helps indi- viduals adapt to and succeed in a variety of life domains, including having more satisfying relationships, performing

IS HIGH SELF-ESTEEM BENEFICIAL?

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

13

better at school and work, enjoying improved mental and physical health, and refraining from antisocial behavior. Moreover, these benefits hold across different stages of life, different racial and ethnic groups, and for both men and women. They also hold when controlling for prior levels of the predicted outcomes and potential third variable con- founds, as well as when controlling for narcissism, suggest- ing that the effects are a result of genuine self-esteem and not narcissistic self-enhancement. Together, these various sources of evidence are consistent with a causal interpreta- tion of the findings, although additional types of evidence (e.g., intervention studies) are needed to conclusively docu- ment that self-esteem has a causal effect on each life out- come. The meta-analytic estimates of self-esteem effects (that average .10 across domains) are comparable in size to estimates for other hypothesized causal factors such as self- efficacy, positive emotionality, attachment security, and growth mindset, and larger than some generally accepted pharmaceutical interventions. Both interpersonal and intrapersonal mechanisms might

account for the adaptive effects of high self-esteem. For example, high self-esteem might facilitate initiating and maintaining social relationships, resulting in a stronger social network and greater availability of emotional, instru- mental, and informational support, which may lead to posi- tive outcomes in many life domains beyond relationships (e.g., school, work, mental health, and physical health). High self-esteem also strengthens persistence after rejection and failure, which again may lead to better outcomes in school, work, relationships, and health. Future research should focus on identifying the mediating mechanisms that explain the salutary effects of high self-esteem. The present findings support theoretical conceptions of

self-esteem as an adaptive trait that has wide-ranging influ- ences on healthy adjustment and adaptation, and suggest that interventions aimed at boosting self-esteem might ben- efit individuals and society as a whole. However, research- ers, practitioners, and the public should be careful not to make the same mistakes that occurred during the self- esteem movement of the 1970s. Most notably, self-esteem interventions should not be introduced in schools or other contexts until we have more robust knowledge about how self-esteem can be improved on a sustained basis and which interventions are effective for which individuals and in which contexts. Several other caveats must be considered when developing and implementing self-esteem interven- tions. First, self-esteem boosted by interventions may not provide the same benefits as naturally occurring high self- esteem. Second, self-esteem interventions might backfire, if they end up increasing narcissism rather than authentic self- esteem (Baumeister et al., 2003; Brummelman & Sedikides, 2020). Third, interventions should target individuals at risk for low self-esteem (or who already have low self-esteem), because these individuals have the greatest need for

improved self-esteem. Fourth, it might be particularly diffi- cult to enhance the self-esteem of individuals with low self- esteem because they show adverse reactions to affirmations designed to improve their self-esteem (Kwang & Swann, 2010; Wood et al., 2009). Fifth, a deeper understanding of the interpersonal and intrapersonal mechanisms that account for the benefits of high self-esteem is needed to improve the design of effective interventions. Finally, self-esteem inter- ventions that are effective in research contexts may not scale up to population-level interventions. The fact that the self-esteem effects hold across demo-

graphic groups suggests that high self-esteem is beneficial to most people, at least in Western cultural contexts. Early adolescence may be a particularly effective time to imple- ment self-esteem interventions because there is an emerging consensus that adolescence is a critical period in neurode- velopment and a critical period for influencing adult out- comes (Andersen, 2021). Meta-analyses of self-esteem development also suggest that interventions should target early adolescence because at this developmental stage the generally increasing trajectory of self-esteem shows stagna- tion (Orth et al., 2018) and individual differences in self- esteem are more malleable (Trzesniewski et al., 2003). App-based interventions may be successful at increasing self-esteem, given that they can change even more stable constructs such as the Big Five personality traits (Stieger et al., 2021); these interventions require much less institu- tional investment than school-based interventions and youth may be more open to and engaged with app-based interven- tions compared with traditional interventions. In summary, the findings of this review indicate that hav-

ing high self-esteem has numerous positive consequences, including better social relationships, more success at school and work, improved mental and physical health, and less antisocial behavior. The findings imply that endeavors to develop effective interventions to enhance self-esteem are worthwhile because such interventions have the potential to provide widespread societal benefits.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.97.1.129

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic per- sonality inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87. https://doi .org/10.1177/1073191110382845

Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when control- ling for stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science. European Journal of Developmental Psychol- ogy, 12(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.963549

Ahadi, S., & Diener, E. (1989). Multiple determinants and effect size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 398–406. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.398

ORTH AND ROBINS

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

14

Andersen, S. H. (2021). Association of youth age at exposure to household dysfunction with outcomes in early adulthood. JAMA Network Open, 4(1), e2032769. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32769

Atherton, O. E., & Schofield, T. J. (2021). Personality and parenting. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 352–366). Guilford Press.

Back, M. D., & Morf, C. C. (2018). Narcissism. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–9). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_704-1

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threat- ened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self- esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-295X.103.1.5

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2018). Revisiting our reappraisal of the (surprisingly few) benefits of high self-esteem. Perspectives on Psycho- logical Science, 13(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569161 7701185

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. Harper & Row.

Boden, J. M., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Does adolescent self-esteem predict later life outcomes? A test of the causal role of self- esteem. Development and Psychopathology, 20(1), 319–339. https://doi .org/10.1017/S0954579408000151

Brummelman, E., & Sedikides, C. (2020). Raising children with high self- esteem (but not narcissism). Child Development Perspectives, 14(2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12362

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S. A., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Origins of narcissism in chil- dren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(12), 3659–3662. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas .1420870112

Buhrmester, M. D., Blanton, H., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2011). Implicit self- esteem: Nature, measurement, and a new way forward. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 365–385. https://doi.org/10 .1037/a0021341

California Department of Education. (1990). Toward a state of esteem: The final report of the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. California State Department of Education, Sacramento, CA.

Cameron, J. J., & Granger, S. (2019). Does self-esteem have an interperso- nal imprint beyond self-reports? A meta-analysis of self-esteem and objective interpersonal indicators. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318756532

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.

Covington, M. V. (1989). Self-esteem and failure in school: Analysis and policy implications. In A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser, & J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), The social importance of self-esteem (pp. 72–124). University of California Press.

Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2011). Self- esteem: Enduring issues and controversies. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 718–746). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781444343120.ch28

Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2015). Measures of self-esteem. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 131–157). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00006-1

Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial

behavior, and delinquency. Psychological Science, 16(4), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01535.x

Fairbairn, C. E., Briley, D. A., Kang, D., Fraley, R. C., Hankin, B. L., & Ariss, T. (2018). A meta-analysis of longitudinal associations between substance use and interpersonal attachment security. Psychological Bul- letin, 144(5), 532–555. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000141

Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459 19847202

Green, J., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. (2012). Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes from a longitudinal per- spective. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1111–1122. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.016

Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M., & Thoemmes, F. (2020). The taboo against explicit causal inference in nonexperimental psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(5), 1243–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691620921521

Haney, P., & Durlak, J. A. (1998). Changing self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychol- ogy, 27(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2704_6

Harris, M. A., & Orth, U. (2020). The link between self-esteem and social relationships: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10 .1037/pspp0000265

Hyatt, C. S., Sleep, C. E., Lamkin, J., Maples-Keller, J. L., Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Narcissism and self-esteem: A nomological network analysis. PLoS ONE, 13, e0201088. https://doi .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201088

Khazanov, G. K., & Ruscio, A. M. (2016). Is low positive emotionality a specific risk factor for depression? A meta-analysis of longitudinal stud- ies. Psychological Bulletin, 142(9), 991–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/ bul0000059

Krauss, S., & Orth, U. (2021). Work experiences and self-esteem develop- ment: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. European Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890 2070211027142

Krauss, S., Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2020). Family environment and self-esteem development: A longitudinal study from age 10 to 16. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 457–478. https://doi .org/10.1037/pspp0000263

Kuster, F., Orth, U., & Meier, L. L. (2012). Rumination mediates the pro- spective effect of low self-esteem on depression: A five-wave longitudi- nal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212437250

Kuster, F., Orth, U., & Meier, L. L. (2013). High self-esteem prospectively predicts better work conditions and outcomes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506 13479806

Kwang, T., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2010). Do people embrace praise even when they feel unworthy? A review of critical tests of self-enhancement versus self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310365876

Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behav- ioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 856–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000057

Lei, H., Mao, W., Cheong, C. M., Wen, Y., Cui, Y., & Cai, Z. (2020). The relationship between self-esteem and cyberbullying: A meta-analysis of children and youth students. Current Psychology, 39(3), 830–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00407-6

IS HIGH SELF-ESTEEM BENEFICIAL?

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

15

Luciano, E. C., & Orth, U. (2017). Transitions in romantic relationships and development of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 112(2), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000109

Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2004). Self-esteem, disposi- tional optimism, and health: Evidence from cross-lagged data on employees. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(6), 556–575. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.02.001

Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-con- cept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 77–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01322177

Marsh, H. W., & O'Mara, A. (2008). Reciprocal effects between academic self-concept, self-esteem, achievement, and attainment over seven ado- lescent years: Unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives of self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(4), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312313

Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological In- quiry, 1(2), 108–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1

Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psycho- logical testing and psychological assessment. A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.56.2.128

Mier, C., & Ladny, R. T. (2018). Does self-esteem negatively impact crime and delinquency? A meta-analytic review of 25 years of evidence. Devi- ant Behavior, 39(8), 1006–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017 .1395667

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assur- ance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulle- tin, 132(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641

Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Personality-relationship transac- tion in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1190–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1190

O'Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. L. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_4

Orben, A., & Lakens, D. (2020). Crud (re)defined. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2515245920917961

Orth, U., Erol, R. Y., & Luciano, E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 144(10), 1045–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000161

Orth, U., & Luciano, E. C. (2015). Self-esteem, narcissism, and stressful life events: Testing for selection and socialization. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 109(4), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/ pspp0000049

Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Understanding the link between low self-esteem and depression. Current Directions in Psychological Sci- ence, 22(6), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413492763

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Meier, L. L. (2009). Disentangling the effects of low self-esteem and stressful events on depression: Findings from three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 97(2), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015645

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., Meier, L. L., & Conger, R. D. (2016). Refining the vulnerability model of low self-esteem and depression: Disentan- gling the effects of genuine self-esteem and narcissism. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10 .1037/pspp0000038

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2008). Low self-esteem pro- spectively predicts depression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 695–708. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.695

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (2009). Low self-esteem is a risk factor for depressive symptoms from young adulthood to old age. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(3), 472–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015922

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10 .1037/a0025558

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, R. D. (2014). Is low self-esteem a risk factor for depression? Findings from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. Developmental Psychology, 50(2), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033817

Ostrowsky, M. K. (2010). Are violent people more likely to have low self- esteem or high self-esteem? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(1), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.004

Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivari- ate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327906mbr3902_7

Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 -0663.82.1.33

Reitzes, D. C., & Mutran, E. J. (2006). Self and health: Factors that encour- age self-esteem and functional health. The Journals of Gerontology: Se- ries B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(1), S44–S51. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.1.S44

Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the con- text of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11–39). Erlbaum.

Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10 .1177/2515245917745629

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1994). The counternull value of an effect

size: A new statistic. Psychological Science, 5(6), 329–334. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00281.x

Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psy- chological Science, 29(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976 17739704

Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bul- letin, 139(1), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028931

Sowislo, J. F., Orth, U., & Meier, L. L. (2014). What constitutes vulnerable self-esteem? Comparing the prospective effects of low, unstable, and contingent self-esteem on depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(4), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037770

Srivastava, S., & Beer, J. S. (2005). How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others: Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 966–977. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.966

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press. https://doi .org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4

Steiger, A. E., Allemand, M., Robins, R. W., & Fend, H. A. (2014). Low and decreasing self-esteem during adolescence predict adult depression

ORTH AND ROBINS

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

16

two decades later. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035133

Stieger, M., Flückiger, C., Rüegger, D., Kowatsch, T., Roberts, B. W., & Allemand, M. (2021). Changing personality traits with the help of a digi- tal personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Acad- emy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118, e2017548118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017548118

Stinson, D. A., Logel, C., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., Cameron, J. J., Wood, J. V., & Spencer, S. J. (2008). The cost of lower self-esteem: Testing a self- and social-bonds model of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 -3514.94.3.412

Swann, W. B. (2012). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psy- chology (pp. 23–42). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n27

Swann, W. B., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & Larsen McClarty, K. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in every- day life. American Psychologist, 62, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.62.2.84

Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & Norris, K. (2018). I believe, there- fore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analy- sis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2003). Death of a (narcissistic) salesman:” An integrative model of fragile self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_02

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Self-esteem, aca- demic self-concept, and achievement: How the learning environment mod- erates the dynamics of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.334

Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 84(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205

Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., Poulton, R., & Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 381–390. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.381

Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982-2009. Social

Psychological & Personality Science, 1(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10 .1177/1948550609355719

Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The rela- tionship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 488–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033 -2909.119.3.488

Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educa- tional Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985 ep3902_3

von Soest, T., Wichstrøm, L., & Kvalem, I. L. (2016). The development of global and domain-specific self-esteem from age 13 to 31. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4), 592–608. https://doi.org/10 .1037/pspp0000060

Wagner, J., Becker, M., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2015). The first part- nership experience and personality development: A propensity score matching study in young adulthood. Social Psychological and Personal- ity Science, 6(4), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614566092

Wood, J. V., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Lee, J. W. (2009). Positive self-state- ments: Power for some, peril for others. Psychological Science, 20, 860–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02370.x

Zeigler-Hill, V. (2011). The connections between self-esteem and psycho- pathology. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 41(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-010-9167-8

Zeigler-Hill, V., Besser, A., Myers, E. M., Southard, A. C., & Malkin, M. L. (2013). The status-signaling property of self-esteem: The role of self-reported self-esteem and perceived self-esteem in personality judg- ments. Journal of Personality, 81(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1467-6494.2012.00790.x

Zheng, L. R., Atherton, O. E., Trzesniewski, K., & Robins, R. W. (2020). Are self-esteem and academic achievement reciprocally related? Find- ings from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth. Journal of Per- sonality, 88(6), 1058–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12550

Received March 26, 2021 Revision received June 12, 2021

Accepted July 28, 2021 n

IS HIGH SELF-ESTEEM BENEFICIAL?

T hi s do cu m en ti s co py ri gh te d by

th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n or

on e of

its al lie d pu bl is he rs .

C on te nt

m ay

be sh ar ed

at no

co st ,b ut

an y re qu es ts to

re us e th is co nt en ti n pa rt or

w ho le m us tg

o th ro ug h th e A m er ic an

Ps yc ho lo gi ca lA

ss oc ia tio

n.

17