evidence from factor analytic studies showing a single substantive general global factor and two seemingly
stable response style tendencies, one capturing variance associated with the negatively keyed items and a second cap-
turing variance associated with positively keyed items. However, research also suggests that a single global self-
esteem factor explains a considerable amount of variance in the RSE items (e.g., Donnellan et al., 2012 ;Schmitt &
Allik, 2005 ). Indeed, Tafarodi and Milne (2002) noted that a ‘common factor accounted for the lion’s share of reliable
variance across the [RSE] items’ (p. 456) even when they could fit a complicated 5-factor model. This may suggest that
the RSE items assess an essentially unidimensional construct (see Slocum-Gori, Zumbo, Michalos, & Diener, 2009 ).
[To facilitate additional research, we have prepared an Mplus script (that specifies various factor models for the RSE)
that can be obtained upon request. This script assumes that the ordering of the RSE items follows the order presented
in the Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) chapter (see their p. 123) and the item order listed in this chapter.]
Criterion/Predictive
Several longitudinal studies have evaluated the predictive validity of scores on the RSE or scores on a subset
of items from the RSE. For example, Trzesniewski et al. (2006) found that z-scores on the RSE (averaged across
ages 11, 13, and 15 years) predicted adult outcomes including mental health problems, such as major depressive
disorder (Odds Ratio 51.21) and adult anxiety disorder (Odds Ratio 51.45), as well as adult criminal convic-
tions for violent offenses (Odds Ratio 51.25). Trzesniewski et al. also found that low adolescent self-esteem pre-
dicted informant-reported work problems ( β5.13). Many of the findings of Trzesniewski et al. have held up in
more recent analyses using cross-lagged modeling strategies that also control for prior levels of an outcome when
considering predictive statistical effects for the RSE. For example, Kuster, Orth, & Meier (2013) found that self-
esteem predicted future job satisfaction, controlling for previous levels (e.g. β5.13). Self-esteem also predicted
future employment in a sample of 600 individuals (e.g. β5.17). Moreover, the results of Kuster et al. suggest
that self-esteem was not consistently predicted by job conditions while controlling for previous levels of self-
esteem (see also Orth, Robins, & Widaman, 2012 ). This finding places constraints on inferences about the strength
of reciprocal relations between self-esteem and job conditions. In addition, scores on RSE positively predicted
future levels of self-reported mental health such as depression ( β52 .20) and negative affect ( β52 .13) as
well as self-reported physical health ( β52 .11) while controlling for prior levels using a data from over 1,800
participants enrolled in a long-term longitudinal study of multiple generations ( Orth et al., 2012 ). These authors
also found that self-esteem predicted future job satisfaction ( β5.14). Thus, Orth et al. provided compelling evi-
dence for the predictive validity of scores on the RSE for important life outcomes.
The prospective effect of self-esteem on future depression has been replicated several times in reports from
Orth, Robins, and Roberts (2008) ;Orth, Robins, and Meier, (2009a); Orth, Robins, Trzesniewski, Maes, and
Schmitt (2009b) , and Orth et al. (2009a,b) . Indeed, a meta-analysis of 77 studies linking self-esteem and depres-
sion suggested the same prospective effect of self-esteem on future depression ( Sowislo & Orth, 2013 ; meta-
analytic estimate was β52 .16). Self-esteem is also prospectively linked with anxiety and there are some
indications that this association is reciprocal ( Sowislo & Orth, 2013 ). The prospective meta-analytic effect captur-
ing how strongly self-esteem predicted anxiety controlling for prior levels (i.e., a standardized regression coeffi-
cient) was 2.10 whereas the prospective effect for anxiety predicting self-esteem was 2.08. The major caveat is
that effect sizes tend to be modest (especially when controlling for prior levels of criterion-variables), a result that
is perfectly consistent with the idea that single individual differences cannot have large effects on multiply deter-
mined outcomes (see Ahadi & Diener, 1989 ).
Finally, the RSE correlates positively with the Marlowe /C0Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( Crowne & Marlowe,
1960)(r5.22 based on data from over 7,000 college students; Trzesniewski et al., 2008 ). However, there is little
evidence that controlling for social desirability or impression management substantially alters the criterion-
related validity of measures of personality constructs (see Barrick & Mount, 1996 ;Li & Bagger, 2006 ) or the RSE
in particular ( Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992 ).
Location
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Revised edition). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press.
Results and Comments
The RSE is still the most widely used measure of self-esteem. It appears to generate reliable scores that have
predictive validity. Nonetheless there are concerns about the RSE. For example, Byrne (1996) raised concerns
about the dimensionality of the RSE and we noted this is an ongoing area of research. Moreover, relatively little
research has been conducted to establish the nomological network of the positive and negative method factors136 6. MEASURES OF SELF-ESTEEM
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS