suggested that the RSE converges so highly with other global measures of self-esteem like the Self-Liking and Self-
Competence scales from Tafarodi and Swann (2001) that they can be combined into a single composite variable cap-
turing explicit self-esteem ( Buhrmester et al., 2011 , p. 369). Thus, there is good evidence that several of the well-
used global measures of self-esteem in the literature are highly interrelated. The RSE also correlates positively with
informant reports of life-satisfaction and pleasant affect ( r5.42 and r5.39,N5141; Schimmack & Diener,
2003). Likewise, Buhrmester et al. (2011) reported that rater evaluations of global self-esteem are associated with
explicit self-esteem ( r5.45). Self-esteem is positively correlated with psychological well-being and life satisfaction.
These coefficients range from .30 to .60 or higher (e.g., Buhrmester et al., 2011 ;Robins et al., 2001a ;Rosenthal et al.,
2011). For example, Sinclair et al. (2010) reported that the RSE correlates .51 with the mental health component of
the SF-8 Health Survey ( Ware, Kosinski, Dewey, & Gandek, 2001 ). Scores on the RSE correlate positively with a
measure of extraversion (e.g., r5.38;Robins et al., 2001a ;Schmitt & Allik, 2005 ;Watson, Suls, & Haig, 2002 )a n d
this association remains relatively unchanged when controlling for social desirability ( Robins et al., 2001b ).
Divergent/Discriminant
RSE scores correlate negatively with measures of depression. For example, Sinclair et al. (2010) reported that the
RSE correlated 2.62 with the 7-item depression scale from the Depression Anxiety Stress scales ( Lovibond &
Lovibond, 1995 ). Likewise, scores on the Rosenberg are negatively correlated with measures of neuroticism
(e.g., r52 .50; Robins et al., 2001a ; see also Judge, Erez, Thoresen, & Bono, 2002 ;Rosenthal et al., 2011 ;
Watson et al., 2002 ). Although the causal relationship between self-esteem and aggression is contentious
(e.g., Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003 ;Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005 ), scores
on the RSE are negatively correlated with self-reports of aggression and anger (meta-analytic r52 .29 based on 8
studies; N520,332; Rosenthal et al., 2011 ). While RSE scores correlate positively with some global measures of nar-
cissism ( #.30) ( Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008 ); importantly, the RSE exhibits a small negative correlation
with elements of narcissism related to entitlement and exploitativeness (meta-analytic r52 11,Rosenthal et al.,
2011;s e ea l s o Ackerman & Donnellan, 2013 ). One interpretation is that self-esteem is more strongly related to adap-
tive rather than maladaptive components of narcissism. This is consistent with Rosenberg’s contention that global
self-esteem is distinct from the sense that one feels better than others (see Donnellan et al., 2005 ;2011). Also, scores
on the RSE are largely distinct from academic outcomes and socioeconomic status ( Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991 ).
Construct Factor Analytic
There is ongoing discussion about the underlying factor structure of the RSE with proposed solutions ranging
from one to five factors (see e.g., Corwyn, 2000 ;DiStefano & Motl, 2006 ;Gana et al., 2013 ;Greenberger, Chen,
Dmitrieva, & Farruggia, 2003 ;Marsh, 1996 ;Marsh, Scalas, & Nagengast, 2010 ;Quilty, Oakman, & Risko, 2006 ;
Supple, Su, Plunkett, Peterson, & Bush, 2012 ;Tafarodi & Milne, 2002 ). For example, Tafarodi and Milne (2002)
reported a 5-factor model using data from 836 Canadian university students, whereas Quilty et al. (2006) found
support for a 3-factor model using data from 503 Canadian university students and another sample of 501 adults
from Oregon. DiStefano and Motl (2006) also found support for a 3-factor model using data from 757 university
students from the United States. The basic concern is whether the RSE assesses a unidimensional construct or a
number of conceptually distinct latent factors. This issue is important given that the vast majority of research
with the RSE is based on composite scores which are basically the sums (or averages) of the responses to the
10 items. This strategy may be inappropriate if the items assess multiple substantive factors. The Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale table below provides a key to the major solutions for the RSE.
While this is currently a contentious area of psychometric research, at least two consistent results are emerging
from this literature. First, the 5-factor model proposed by Tafarodi and Milne (2002) is difficult to fit to real data
(Marsh et al., 2010 ;N52,213 10th graders from the United States). Tafarodi and Milne fit a model that included
five latent factors labeled: global self-esteem, a positive method factor, a negative method factor, an assessment
factor, and an acceptance factor. Assessment refers to items that involve content related to self-evaluation whereas
acceptance refers to items with content that appear to capture feelings of self-acceptance ( Tafarodi & Milne, 2002 ,
p. 448). These two latent factors correspond to the conceptual attributes of self-competence and self-liking, respec-
tively (see the discussion of the Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale). Despite any conceptual appeal of these two
dimensions, the psychometric issue is that the 5-factor model for the RSE proposed by Tafarodi and Milne does
not appear to replicate well according to the published literature.
Second, models that specify one general factor and two method factors capturing the positively keyed and nega-
tively keyed items tend to fit the observed data better than alternatives such as a single-factor model or a 2-factor
model ( DiStefano & Motl, 2006; Gana et al., 2013; Marsh et al., 2010; Quilty et al., 2006 ). Specifically, there is emerging135 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS