research paper about self esteem

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Health Education Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, identity development and the sources of negative self-esteem, outcomes of poor self-esteem, mechanisms linking self-esteem and health behavior, examples of school health promotion programs that foster self-esteem, self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Michal (Michelle) Mann, Clemens M. H. Hosman, Herman P. Schaalma, Nanne K. de Vries, Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion, Health Education Research , Volume 19, Issue 4, August 2004, Pages 357–372, https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg041

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Self-evaluation is crucial to mental and social well-being. It influences aspirations, personal goals and interaction with others. This paper stresses the importance of self-esteem as a protective factor and a non-specific risk factor in physical and mental health. Evidence is presented illustrating that self-esteem can lead to better health and social behavior, and that poor self-esteem is associated with a broad range of mental disorders and social problems, both internalizing problems (e.g. depression, suicidal tendencies, eating disorders and anxiety) and externalizing problems (e.g. violence and substance abuse). We discuss the dynamics of self-esteem in these relations. It is argued that an understanding of the development of self-esteem, its outcomes, and its active protection and promotion are critical to the improvement of both mental and physical health. The consequences for theory development, program development and health education research are addressed. Focusing on self-esteem is considered a core element of mental health promotion and a fruitful basis for a broad-spectrum approach.

The most basic task for one's mental, emotional and social health, which begins in infancy and continues until one dies, is the construction of his/her positive self-esteem. [( Macdonald, 1994 ), p. 19]

Self-concept is defined as the sum of an individual's beliefs and knowledge about his/her personal attributes and qualities. It is classed as a cognitive schema that organizes abstract and concrete views about the self, and controls the processing of self-relevant information ( Markus, 1977 ; Kihlstrom and Cantor, 1983 ). Other concepts, such as self-image and self-perception, are equivalents to self-concept. Self-esteem is the evaluative and affective dimension of the self-concept, and is considered as equivalent to self-regard, self-estimation and self-worth ( Harter, 1999 ). It refers to a person's global appraisal of his/her positive or negative value, based on the scores a person gives him/herself in different roles and domains of life ( Rogers, 1981 ; Markus and Nurius, 1986 ). Positive self-esteem is not only seen as a basic feature of mental health, but also as a protective factor that contributes to better health and positive social behavior through its role as a buffer against the impact of negative influences. It is seen to actively promote healthy functioning as reflected in life aspects such as achievements, success, satisfaction, and the ability to cope with diseases like cancer and heart disease. Conversely, an unstable self-concept and poor self-esteem can play a critical role in the development of an array of mental disorders and social problems, such as depression, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, anxiety, violence, substance abuse and high-risk behaviors. These conditions not only result in a high degree of personal suffering, but also impose a considerable burden on society. As will be shown, prospective studies have highlighted low self-esteem as a risk factor and positive self-esteem as a protective factor. To summarize, self-esteem is considered as an influential factor both in physical and mental health, and therefore should be an important focus in health promotion; in particular, mental health promotion.

Health promotion refers to the process of enabling people to increase control over and improve their own health ( WHO, 1986 ). Subjective control as well as subjective health, each aspects of the self, are considered as significant elements of the health concept. Recognizing the existence of different views on the concept of mental health promotion, Sartorius (Sartorius, 1998), the former WHO Director of Mental Health, preferred to define it as a means by which individuals, groups or large populations can enhance their competence, self-esteem and sense of well-being. This view is supported by Tudor (Tudor, 1996) in his monograph on mental health promotion, where he presents self-concept and self-esteem as two of the core elements of mental health, and therefore as an important focus of mental health promotion.

This article aims to clarify how self-esteem is related to physical and mental health, both empirically and theoretically, and to offer arguments for enhancing self-esteem and self-concept as a major aspect of health promotion, mental health promotion and a ‘Broad-Spectrum Approach’ (BSA) in prevention.

The first section presents a review of the empirical evidence on the consequences of high and low self-esteem in the domains of mental health, health and social outcomes. The section also addresses the bi-directional nature of the relationship between self-esteem and mental health. The second section discusses the role of self-esteem in health promotion from a theoretical perspective. How are differentiations within the self-concept related to self-esteem and mental health? How does self-esteem relate to the currently prevailing theories in the field of health promotion and prevention? What are the mechanisms that link self-esteem to health and social outcomes? Several theories used in health promotion or prevention offer insight into such mechanisms. We discuss the role of positive self-esteem as a protective factor in the context of stressors, the developmental role of negative self-esteem in mental and social problems, and the role of self-esteem in models of health behavior. Finally, implications for designing a health-promotion strategy that could generate broad-spectrum outcomes through addressing common risk factors such as self-esteem are discussed. In this context, schools are considered an ideal setting for such broad-spectrum interventions. Some examples are offered of school programs that have successfully contributed to the enhancement of self-esteem, and the prevention of mental and social problems.

Self-esteem and mental well-being

Empirical studies over the last 15 years indicate that self-esteem is an important psychological factor contributing to health and quality of life ( Evans, 1997 ). Recently, several studies have shown that subjective well-being significantly correlates with high self-esteem, and that self-esteem shares significant variance in both mental well-being and happiness ( Zimmerman, 2000 ). Self-esteem has been found to be the most dominant and powerful predictor of happiness ( Furnham and Cheng, 2000 ). Indeed, while low self-esteem leads to maladjustment, positive self-esteem, internal standards and aspirations actively seem to contribute to ‘well-being’ ( Garmezy, 1984 ; Glick and Zigler, 1992 ). According to Tudor (Tudor, 1996), self-concept, identity and self-esteem are among the key elements of mental health.

Self-esteem, academic achievements and job satisfaction

The relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement is reported in a large number of studies ( Marsh and Yeung, 1997 ; Filozof et al. , 1998 ; Hay et al. , 1998 ). In the critical childhood years, positive feelings of self-esteem have been shown to increase children's confidence and success at school ( Coopersmith, 1967 ), with positive self-esteem being a predicting factor for academic success, e.g. reading ability ( Markus and Nurius, 1986 ). Results of a longitudinal study among elementary school children indicate that children with high self-esteem have higher cognitive aptitudes ( Adams, 1996 ). Furthermore, research has revealed that core self-evaluations measured in childhood and in early adulthood are linked to job satisfaction in middle age ( Judge et al. , 2000 ).

Self-esteem and coping with stress in combination with coping with physical disease

The protective nature of self-esteem is particularly evident in studies examining stress and/or physical disease in which self-esteem is shown to safeguard the individual from fear and uncertainty. This is reflected in observations of chronically ill individuals. It has been found that a greater feeling of mastery, efficacy and high self-esteem, in combination with having a partner and many close relationships, all have direct protective effects on the development of depressive symptoms in the chronically ill ( Penninx et al. , 1998 ). Self-esteem has also been shown to enhance an individual's ability to cope with disease and post-operative survival. Research on pre-transplant psychological variables and survival after bone marrow transplantation ( Broers et al. , 1998 ) indicates that high self-esteem prior to surgery is related to longer survival. Chang and Mackenzie ( Chang and Mackenzie, 1998 ) found that the level of self-esteem was a consistent factor in the prediction of the functional outcome of a patient after a stroke.

To conclude, positive self-esteem is associated with mental well-being, adjustment, happiness, success and satisfaction. It is also associated with recovery after severe diseases.

The evolving nature of self-esteem was conceptualized by Erikson ( Erikson, 1968 ) in his theory on the stages of psychosocial development in children, adolescents and adults. According to Erikson, individuals are occupied with their self-esteem and self-concept as long as the process of crystallization of identity continues. If this process is not negotiated successfully, the individual remains confused, not knowing who (s)he really is. Identity problems, such as unclear identity, diffused identity and foreclosure (an identity status based on whether or not adolescents made firm commitments in life. Persons classified as ‘foreclosed’ have made future commitments without ever experiencing the ‘crises’ of deciding what really suits them best), together with low self-esteem, can be the cause and the core of many mental and social problems ( Marcia et al. , 1993 ).

The development of self-esteem during childhood and adolescence depends on a wide variety of intra-individual and social factors. Approval and support, especially from parents and peers, and self-perceived competence in domains of importance are the main determinants of self-esteem [for a review, see ( Harter, 1999 )]. Attachment and unconditional parental support are critical during the phases of self-development. This is a reciprocal process, as individuals with positive self-esteem can better internalize the positive view of significant others. For instance, in their prospective study among young adolescents, Garber and Flynn ( Garber and Flynn, 2001 ) found that negative self-worth develops as an outcome of low maternal acceptance, a maternal history of depression and exposure to negative interpersonal contexts, such as negative parenting practices, early history of child maltreatment, negative feedback from significant others on one's competence, and family discord and disruption.

Other sources of negative self-esteem are discrepancies between competing aspects of the self, such as between the ideal and the real self, especially in domains of importance. The larger the discrepancy between the value a child assigns to a certain competence area and the perceived self-competence in that area, the lower the feeling of self-esteem ( Harter, 1999 ). Furthermore, discrepancies can exist between the self as seen by oneself and the self as seen by significant others. As implied by Harter ( Harter, 1999 ), this could refer to contrasts that might exist between self-perceived competencies and the lack of approval or support by parents or peers.

Finally, negative and positive feelings of self-worth could be the result of a cognitive, inferential process, in which children observe and evaluate their own behaviors and competencies in specific domains (self-efficacy). The poorer they evaluate their competencies, especially in comparison to those of their peers or to the standards of significant others, the more negative their self-esteem. Such self-monitoring processes can be negatively or positively biased by a learned tendency to negative or positive thinking ( Seligman et al. , 1995 ).

The outcomes of negative self-esteem can be manifold. Poor self-esteem can result in a cascade of diminishing self-appreciation, creating self-defeating attitudes, psychiatric vulnerability, social problems or risk behaviors. The empirical literature highlights the negative outcomes of low self-esteem. However, in several studies there is a lack of clarity regarding causal relations between self-esteem and problems or disorders ( Flay and Ordway, 2001 ). This is an important observation, as there is reason to believe that self-esteem should be examined not only as a cause, but also as a consequence of problem behavior. For example, on the one hand, children could have a negative view about themselves and that might lead to depressive feelings. On the other hand, depression or lack of efficient functioning could lead to feeling bad, which might decrease self-esteem. Although the directionality can work both ways, this article concentrates on the evidence for self-esteem as a potential risk factor for mental and social outcomes. Three clusters of outcomes can be differentiated. The first are mental disorders with internalizing characteristics, such as depression, eating disorders and anxiety. The second are poor social outcomes with externalizing characteristics including aggressive behavior, violence and educational exclusion. The third is risky health behavior such as drug abuse and not using condoms.

Self-esteem and internalizing mental disorders

Self-esteem plays a significant role in the development of a variety of mental disorders. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), negative or unstable self-perceptions are a key component in the diagnostic criteria of major depressive disorders, manic and hypomanic episodes, dysthymic disorders, dissociative disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and in personality disorders, such as borderline, narcissistic and avoidant behavior. Negative self-esteem is also found to be a risk factor, leading to maladjustment and even escapism. Lacking trust in themselves, individuals become unable to handle daily problems which, in turn, reduces the ability to achieve maximum potential. This could lead to an alarming deterioration in physical and mental well-being. A decline in mental health could result in internalizing problem behavior such as depression, anxiety and eating disorders. The outcomes of low self-esteem for these disorders are elaborated below.

Depressed moods, depression and suicidal tendencies

The clinical literature suggests that low self-esteem is related to depressed moods ( Patterson and Capaldi, 1992 ), depressive disorders ( Rice et al. , 1998 ; Dori and Overholser, 1999 ), hopelessness, suicidal tendencies and attempted suicide ( Overholser et al. , 1995 ). Correlational studies have consistently shown a significant negative relationship between self-esteem and depression ( Beck et al. , 1990 ; Patton, 1991 ). Campbell et al. ( Campbell et al. , 1991 ) found individual appraisal of events to be clearly related to their self-esteem. Low self-esteem subjects rated their daily events as less positive and negative life events as being more personally important than high self-esteem subjects. Individuals with high self-esteem made more stable and global internal attributions for positive events than for negative events, leading to the reinforcement of their positive self-image. Subjects low in self-esteem, however, were more likely to associate negative events to stable and global internal attributions, and positive events to external factors and luck ( Campbell et al. , 1991 ). There is a growing body of evidence that individuals with low self-esteem more often report a depressed state, and that there is a link between dimensions of attributional style, self-esteem and depression ( Abramson et al. , 1989 ; Hammen and Goodman-Brown, 1990 ).

Some indications of the causal role of self-esteem result from prospective studies. In longitudinal studies, low self-esteem during childhood ( Reinherz et al. , 1993 ), adolescence ( Teri, 1982 ) and early adulthood ( Wilhelm et al. , 1999 ) was identified as a crucial predictor of depression later in life. Shin ( Shin, 1993 ) found that when cumulative stress, social support and self-esteem were introduced subsequently in regression analysis, of the latter two, only self-esteem accounted for significant additional variance in depression. In addition, Brown et al. ( Brown et al. , 1990 ) showed that positive self-esteem, although closely associated with inadequate social support, plays a role as a buffer factor. There appears to be a pathway from not living up to personal standards, to low self-esteem and to being depressed ( Harter, 1986 , 1990 ; Higgins, 1987 , 1989 ; Baumeister, 1990 ). Alternatively, another study indicated that when examining the role of life events and difficulties, it was found that total level of stress interacted with low self-esteem in predicting depression, whereas self-esteem alone made no direct contribution ( Miller et al. , 1989 ). To conclude, results of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have shown that low self-esteem is predictive of depression.

The potentially detrimental impact of low self-esteem in depressive disorders stresses the significance of Seligman's recent work on ‘positive psychology’. His research indicates that teaching children to challenge their pessimistic thoughts whilst increasing positive subjective thinking (and bolstering self-esteem) can reduce the risk of pathologies such as depression ( Seligman, 1995 ; Seligman et al. , 1995 ; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ).

Other internalizing disorders

Although low self-esteem is most frequently associated with depression, a relationship has also been found with other internalizing disorders, such as anxiety and eating disorders. Research results indicate that self-esteem is inversely correlated with anxiety and other signs of psychological and physical distress ( Beck et al. , 2001 ). For example, Ginsburg et al. ( Ginsburg et al. , 1998 ) observed a low level of self-esteem in highly socially anxious children. Self-esteem was shown to serve the fundamental psychological function of buffering anxiety, with the pursuit of self-esteem as a defensive avoidance tool against basic human fears. This mechanism of defense has become evident in research with primary ( Ginsburg et al. , 1998 ) and secondary school children ( Fickova, 1999 ). In addition, empirical studies have shown that bolstering self-esteem in adults reduces anxiety ( Solomon et al. , 2000 ).

The critical role of self-esteem during school years is clearly reflected in studies on eating disorders. At this stage in life, weight, body shape and dieting behavior become intertwined with identity. Researchers have reported low self-esteem as a risk factor in the development of eating disorders in female school children and adolescents ( Fisher et al. , 1994 ; Smolak et al. , 1996 ; Shisslak et al. , 1998 ), as did prospective studies ( Vohs et al. , 2001 ). Low self-esteem also seems predictive of the poor outcome of treatment in such disorders, as has been found in a recent 4-year prospective follow-up study among adolescent in-patients with bulimic characteristics ( van der Ham et al. , 1998 ). The significant influence of self-esteem on body image has led to programs in which the promotion of self-esteem is used as a main preventive tool in eating disorders ( St Jeor, 1993 ; Vickers, 1993 ; Scarano et al. , 1994 ).

To sum up, there is a systematic relation between self-esteem and internalizing problem behavior. Moreover, there is enough prospective evidence to suggest that poor self-esteem might contribute to deterioration of internalizing problem behavior while improvement of self-esteem could prevent such deterioration.

Self-esteem, externalizing problems and other poor social outcomes

For more than two decades, scientists have studied the relationship between self-esteem and externalizing problem behaviors, such as aggression, violence, youth delinquency and dropping out of school. The outcomes of self-esteem for these disorders are described below.

Violence and aggressive behavior

While the causes of such behaviors are multiple and complex, many researchers have identified self-esteem as a critical factor in crime prevention, rehabilitation and behavioral change ( Kressly, 1994 ; Gilbert, 1995 ). In a recent longitudinal questionnaire study among high-school adolescents, low self-esteem was one of the key risk factors for problem behavior ( Jessor et al. , 1998 ).

Recent studies confirm that high self-esteem is significantly associated with less violence ( Fleming et al. , 1999 ; Horowitz, 1999 ), while a lack of self-esteem significantly increases the risk of violence and gang membership ( Schoen, 1999 ). Results of a nationwide study of bullying behavior in Ireland show that children who were involved in bullying as either bullies, victims or both had significantly lower self-esteem than other children ( Schoen, 1999 ). Adolescents with low self-esteem were found to be more vulnerable to delinquent behavior. Interestingly, delinquency was positively associated with inflated self-esteem among these adolescents after performing delinquent behavior ( Schoen, 1999 ). According to Kaplan's self-derogation theory of delinquency (Kaplan, 1975), involvement in delinquent behavior with delinquent peers can increase children's self-esteem and sense of belonging. It was also found that individuals with extremely high levels of self-esteem and narcissism show high tendencies to express anger and aggression ( Baumeister et al. , 2000 ). To conclude, positive self-esteem is associated with less aggressive behavior. Although most studies in the field of aggressive behavior, violence and delinquency are correlational, there is some prospective evidence that low self-esteem is a risk factor in the development of problem behavior. Interestingly, low self-esteem as well as high and inflated self-esteem are both associated with the development of aggressive symptoms.

School dropout

Dropping out from the educational system could also reflect rebellion or antisocial behavior resulting from identity diffusion (an identity status based on whether or not adolescents made firm commitments in life. Adolescents classified as ‘diffuse’ have not yet thought about identity issues or, having thought about them, have failed to make any firm future oriented commitments). For instance, Muha ( Muha, 1991 ) has shown that while self-image and self-esteem contribute to competent functioning in childhood and adolescence, low self-esteem can lead to problems in social functioning and school dropout. The social consequences of such problem behaviors may be considerable for both the individual and the wider community. Several prevention programs have reduced the dropout rate of students at risk ( Alice, 1993 ; Andrews, 1999 ). All these programs emphasize self-esteem as a crucial element in dropout prevention.

Self-esteem and risk behavior

The impact of self-esteem is also evident in risk behavior and physical health. In a longitudinal study, Rouse ( Rouse, 1998 ) observed that resilient adolescents had higher self-esteem than their non-resilient peers and that they were less likely to initiate a variety of risk behaviors. Positive self-esteem is considered as a protective factor against substance abuse. Adolescents with more positive self-concepts are less likely to use alcohol or drugs ( Carvajal et al. , 1998 ), while those suffering with low self-esteem are at a higher risk for drug and alcohol abuse, and tobacco use ( Crump et al. , 1997 ; Jones and Heaven, 1998 ). Carvajal et al. ( Carvajal et al. , 1998 ) showed that optimism, hope and positive self-esteem are determinants of avoiding substance abuse by adolescents, mediated by attitudes, perceived norms and perceived behavioral control. Although many studies support the finding that improving self-esteem is an important component of substance abuse prevention ( Devlin, 1995 ; Rodney et al. , 1996 ), some studies found no support for the association between self-esteem and heavy alcohol use ( Poikolainen et al. , 2001 ).

Empirical evidence suggests that positive self-esteem can also lead to behavior which is protective against contracting AIDS, while low self-esteem contributes to vulnerability to HIV/AIDS ( Rolf and Johnson, 1992 ; Somali et al. , 2001 ). The risk level increases in cases where subjects have low self-esteem and where their behavior reflects efforts to be accepted by others or to gain attention, either positively or negatively ( Reston, 1991 ). Lower self-esteem was also related to sexual risk-taking and needle sharing among homeless ethnic-minority women recovering from drug addiction ( Nyamathi, 1991 ). Abel ( Abel, 1998 ) observed that single females whose partners did not use condoms had lower self-esteem than single females whose partners did use condoms. In a study of gay and/or bisexual men, low self-esteem proved to be one of the factors that made it difficult to reduce sexual risk behavior ( Paul et al. , 1993 ).

To summarize, the literature reveals a number of studies showing beneficial outcomes of positive self-esteem, and conversely, negative outcomes of poor self-esteem, especially in adolescents. Prospective studies and intervention studies have shown that self-esteem can be a causal factor in depression, anxiety, eating disorders, delinquency, school dropout, risk behavior, social functioning, academic success and satisfaction. However, the cross-sectional character of many other studies does not exclude that low self-esteem can also be considered as an important consequence of such disorders and behavioral problems.

To assess the implications of these findings for mental health promotion and preventive interventions, more insight is needed into the antecedents of poor self-esteem, and the mechanisms that link self-esteem to mental, physical and social outcomes.

What are the mechanisms that link self-esteem to health and social outcomes? Several theories used in health promotion or prevention offer insight into such mechanisms. In this section we discuss the role of positive self-esteem as a protective factor in the context of stressors, the developmental role of negative self-esteem in mental and social problems, and the role of self-esteem in models of health behavior.

Positive thinking about oneself as a protective factor in the context of stressors

People have a need to think positively about themselves, to defend and to improve their positive self-esteem, and even to overestimate themselves. Self-esteem represents a motivational force that influences perceptions and coping behavior. In the context of negative messages and stressors, positive self-esteem can have various protective functions.

Research on optimism confirms that a somewhat exaggerated sense of self-worth facilitates mastery, leading to better mental health ( Seligman, 1995 ). Evidence suggests that positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perception of control or mastery and unrealistic optimism are all characteristic of normal human thought, and that certain delusions may contribute to mental health and well-being ( Taylor and Brown, 1988 ). The mentally healthy person appears to have the capacity to distort reality in a direction that protects and enhances self-esteem. Conversely, individuals who are moderately depressed or low in self-esteem consistently display an absence of such enhancing delusions. Self-esteem could thus be said to serve as a defense mechanism that promotes well-being by protecting internal balance. Jahoda ( Jahoda, 1958 ) also included the ‘adequate perception of reality’ as a basic element of mental health. The degree of such a defense, however, has its limitations. The beneficial effect witnessed in reasonably well-balanced individuals becomes invalid in cases of extreme self-esteem and significant distortions of the self-concept. Seligman ( Seligman, 1995 ) claimed that optimism should not be based on unrealistic or heavily biased perceptions.

Viewing yourself positively can also be regarded as a very important psychological resource for coping. We include in this category those general and specific beliefs that serve as a basis for hope and that sustain coping efforts in the face of the most adverse condition… Hope can exist only when such beliefs make a positive outcome seem possible, if not probable. [( Lazarus and Folkman, 1984 ), p. 159]

Incidence = organic causes and stressors/competence, coping skills, self-esteem and social support

Identity, self-esteem, and the development of externalizing and internalizing problems

Erikson's ( Erikson, 1965 , 1968 ) theory on the stages of psychosocial development in children, adolescents, and adults and Herbert's flow chart ( Herbert, 1987 ) focus on the vicissitudes of identity and the development of unhealthy mental and social problems. According to these theories, when a person is enduringly confused about his/her own identity, he/she may possess an inherent lack of self-reassurance which results in either a low level of self-esteem or in unstable self-esteem and feelings of insecurity. However, low self-esteem—likewise inflated self-esteem—can also lead to identity problems. Under circumstances of insecurity and low self-esteem, the individual evolves in one of two ways: he/she takes the active escape route or the passive avoidance route ( Herbert, 1987 ). The escape route is associated with externalizing behaviors: aggressive behavior, violence and school dropout, the seeking of reassurance in others through high-risk behavior, premature relationships, cults or gangs. Reassurance and security may also be sought through drugs, alcohol or food. The passive avoidance route is associated with internalizing factors: feelings of despair and depression. Extreme avoidance may even result in suicidal behavior.

Whether identity and self-esteem problems express themselves following the externalizing active escape route or the internalizing passive avoidance route is dependent on personality characteristics and circumstances, life events and social antecedents (e.g. gender and parental support) ( Hebert, 1987 ). Recent studies consistently show gender differences regarding externalizing and internalizing behaviors among others in a context of low self-esteem ( Block and Gjerde, 1986 ; Rolf et al. , 1990 ; Harter, 1999 ; Benjet and Hernandez-Guzman, 2001 ). Girls are more likely to have internalizing symptoms than boys; boys are more likely to have externalizing symptoms. Moreover, according to Harter ( Harter, 1999 ), in recent studies girls appear to be better than boys in positive self-evaluation in the domain of behavioral conduct. Self-perceived behavioral conduct is assessed as the individual view on how well behaved he/she is and how he/she views his/her behavior in accordance with social expectations ( Harter, 1999 ). Negative self-perceived behavioral conduct is also found to be an important factor in mediating externalizing problems ( Reda-Norton, 1995 ; Hoffman, 1999 ).

The internalization of parental approval or disapproval is critical during childhood and adolescence. Studies have identified parents' and peers' supportive reactions (e.g. involvement, positive reinforcement, and acceptance) as crucial determinants of children's self-esteem and adjustment ( Shadmon, 1998 ). In contrast to secure, harmonious parent–child relationships, poor family relationships are associated with internalizing problems and depression ( Kashubeck and Christensen, 1993 ; Oliver and Paull, 1995 ).

Self-esteem in health behavior models

Self-esteem also plays a role in current cognitive models of health behavior. Health education research based on the Theory of Planned Behavior ( Ajzen, 1991 ) has confirmed the role of self-efficacy as a behavioral determinant ( Godin and Kok, 1996 ). Self-efficacy refers to the subjective evaluation of control over a specific behavior. While self-concepts and their evaluations could be related to specific behavioral domains, self-esteem is usually defined as a more generic attitude towards the self. One can have high self-efficacy for a specific task or behavior, while one has a negative evaluation of self-worth and vice versa. Nevertheless, both concepts are frequently intertwined since people often try to develop self-efficacy in activities that give them self-worth ( Strecher et al. , 1986 ). Self-efficacy and self-esteem are therefore not identical, but nevertheless related. The development of self-efficacy in behavioral domains of importance can contribute to positive self-esteem. On the other hand, the levels of self-esteem and self-confidence can influence self-efficacy, as is assumed in stress and coping theories.

The Attitude–Social influence–self-Efficacy (ASE) model ( De Vries and Mudde, 1998 ; De Vries et al. , 1988a ) and the Theory of Triadic Influence (TTI) ( Flay and Petraitis, 1994 ) are recent theories that provide a broad perspective on health behavior. These theories include distal factors that influence proximal behavioral determinants ( De Vries et al. , 1998b ) and specify more distal streams of influence for each of the three core determinants in the Planned Behavior Model ( Azjen, 1991 ) (attitudes, self-efficacy and social normative beliefs). Each of these behavioral determinants is assumed to be moderated by several distal factors, including self-esteem and mental disorders.

The TTI regards self-esteem in the same sense as the ASE, as a distal factor. According to this theory, self-efficacy is influenced by personality characteristics, especially the ‘sense of self’, which includes self-integration, self-image and self-esteem ( Flay and Petraitis, 1994 ).

The Precede–Proceed model of Green and Kreuter (Green and Kreuter, 1991) for the planning of health education and health promotion also recognizes the role of self-esteem. The model directs health educators to specify characteristics of health problems, and to take multiple determinants of health and health-related behavior into account. It integrates an epidemiological, behavioral and environmental approach. The staged Precede–Proceed framework supports health educators in identifying and influencing the multiple factors that shape health status, and evaluating the changes produced by interventions. Self-esteem plays a role in the first and fourth phase of the Precede–Proceed model, as an outcome variable and as a determinant. The initial phase of social diagnosis, analyses the quality of life of the target population. Green and Kreuter [(Green and Kreuter, 1991), p. 27] present self-esteem as one of the outcomes of health behavior and health status, and as a quality of life indicator. The fourth phase of the model, which concerns the educational and organizational diagnosis, describes three clusters of behavioral determinants: predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors. Predisposing factors provide the rationale or motivation for behavior, such as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceived needs and abilities [(Green and Kreuter, 1991), p. 154]. Self-knowledge, general self-appraisal and self-efficacy are considered as predisposing factors.

To summarize, self-esteem can function both as a determinant and as an outcome of healthy behavior within health behavior models. Poor self-esteem can trigger poor coping behavior or risk behavior that subsequently increases the likelihood of certain diseases among which are mental disorders. On the other hand, the presence of poor coping behavior and ill-health can generate or reinforce a negative self-image.

Self-esteem in a BSA to mental health promotion and prevention in schools

Given the evidence supporting the role of self-esteem as a core element in physical and mental health, it is recommended that its potential in future health promotion and prevention programs be reconsidered.

The design of future policies for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders is currently an area of active debate ( Hosman, 2000 ). A key question in the discussion is which is more effective: a preventive approach focusing on specific disorders or a more generic preventive approach?

Based on the evidence supporting the role of self-esteem as a non-specific risk factor and protective factor in the development of mental disorders and social problems, we advocate a generic preventive approach built around the ‘self’. In general, changing common risk and protective factors (e.g. self-esteem, coping skills, social support) and adopting a generic preventive approach can reduce the risk of the development of a range of mental disorders and promote individual well-being even before the onset of a specific problem has presented itself. Given its multi-outcome perspective, we have termed this strategy the ‘BSA’ in prevention and promotion.

Self-esteem is considered one of the important elements of the BSA. By fostering self-esteem, and hence treating a common risk factor, it is possible to contribute to the prevention of an array of physical diseases, mental disorders and social problems challenging society today. This may also, at a later date, imply the prevention of a shift to other problem behaviors or symptoms which might occur when only problem-specific risk factors are addressed. For example, an eating disorder could be replaced by another type of symptom, such as alcohol abuse, smoking, social anxiety or depression, when only the eating behavior itself is addressed and not more basic causes, such as poor self-esteem, high stress levels and lack of social support. Although there is, as yet, no published research on such a shift phenomenon, the high level of co-morbidity between such problems might reflect the likelihood of its existence. Numerous studies support the idea of co-morbidity and showed that many mental disorders have overlapping associated risk factors such as self-esteem. There is a significant degree of co-morbidity between and within internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors such as depression, anxiety, substance disorders and delinquency ( Harrington et al. , 1996 ; Angold et al. , 1999 ; Swendsen and Merikangas, 2000 ). By considering the individual as a whole, within the BSA, the risk of such an eventuality could be reduced.

The BSA could have practical implications. Schools are an ideal setting for implementing BSA programs, thereby aiming at preventing an array of problems, since they cover the entire population. They have the means and responsibility for the promotion of healthy behavior for such a common risk and protective factor, since school children are in their formative stage. A mental health promotion curriculum oriented towards emotional and social learning could include a focus on enhancing self-esteem. Weare ( Weare, 2000 ) stressed that schools need to aim at helping children develop a healthy sense of self-esteem as part of the development of their ‘intra-personal intelligence’. According to Gardner (Gardner, 1993) ‘intra-personal intelligence’ is the ability to form an accurate model of oneself and the ability to use it to operate effectively in life. Self-esteem, then, is an important component of this ability. Serious thought should be given to the practical implementation of these ideas.

It is important to clearly define the nature of a BSA program designed to foster self-esteem within the school setting. In our opinion, such a program should include important determinants of self-esteem, i.e. competence and social support.

Harter ( Harter, 1999 ) stated that competence and social support, together provide a powerful explanation of the level of self-esteem. According to Harter's research on self-perceived competence, every child experiences some discrepancy between what he/she would like to be, the ‘ideal self’, and his/her actual perception of him/herself, ‘the real self’. When this discrepancy is large and it deals with a personally relevant domain, this will result in lower self-esteem. Moreover, the overall sense of support of significant others (especially parents, peers and teachers) is also influential for the development of self-esteem. Children who feel that others accept them, and are unconditionally loved and respected, will report a higher sense of self-esteem ( Bee, 2000 ). Thus, children with a high discrepancy and a low sense of social support reported the lowest sense of self-esteem. These results suggest that efforts to improve self-esteem in children require both supportive social surroundings and the formation and acceptance of realistic personal goals in the personally relevant domains ( Harter, 1999 ).

In addition to determinants such as competence and social support, we need to translate the theoretical knowledge on coping with inner self-processes (e.g. inconsistencies between the real and ideal self) into practice, in order to perform a systematic intervention regarding the self. Harter's work offers an important foundation for this. Based on her own and others' research on the development of the self, she suggests the following principles to prevent the development of negative self-esteem and to enhance self-worth ( Harter, 1999 ):

Reduction of the discrepancy between the real self and the ideal self.

Encouragement of relatively realistic self-perceptions.

Encouraging the belief that positive self-evaluations can be achieved.

Appreciation for the individual's views about their self-esteem and individual perceptions on causes and consequences of self-worth.

Increasing awareness of the origins of negative self-perceptions.

Providing a more integrated personal construct while improving understanding of self-contradictions.

Encouraging the individual and his/her significant others to promote the social support they give and receive.

Fostering internalization of positive opinions of others.

Haney and Durlak ( Haney and Durlak, 1998 ) wrote a meta-analytical review of 116 intervention studies for children and adolescents. Most studies indicated significant improvement in children's and adolescents' self-esteem and self-concept, and as a result of this change, significant changes in behavioral, personality, and academic functioning. Haney and Durlak reported on the possible impact improved self-esteem had on the onset of social problems. However, their study did not offer an insight into the potential effect of enhanced self-esteem on mental disorders.

Several mental health-promoting school programs that have addressed self-esteem and the determinants of self-esteem in practice, were effective in the prevention of eating disorders ( O'Dea and Abraham, 2000 ), problem behavior ( Flay and Ordway, 2001 ), and the reduction of substance abuse, antisocial behavior and anxiety ( Short, 1998 ). We shall focus on the first two programs because these are universal programs, which focused on ‘mainstream’ school children. The prevention of eating disorders program ‘Everybody's Different’ ( O'Dea and Abraham, 2000 ) is aimed at female adolescents aged 11–14 years old. It was developed in response to the poor efficacy of conventional body-image education in improving body image and eating behavior. ‘Everybody's Different’ has adopted an alternative methodology built on an interactive, school-based, self-esteem approach and is designed to prevent the development of eating disorders by improving self-esteem. The program has significantly changed aspects of self-esteem, body satisfaction, social acceptance and physical appearance. Female students targeted by the intervention rated their physical appearance, as perceived by others, significantly higher than control-group students, and allowed their body weight to increase appropriately by refraining from weight-loss behavior seen in the control group. These findings were still evident after 12 months. This is one of the first controlled educational interventions that had successfully improved body image and produced long-term changes in the attitudes and self-image of young adolescents.

The ‘Positive Action Program’ ( Flay and Ordway, 2001 ) serves as a unique example of some BSA principles in practice. The program addresses the challenge of increasing self-esteem, reducing problem behavior and improving school performance. The types of problem behavior in question were delinquent behavior, ‘misdemeanors’ and objection to school rules ( Flay and Ordway, 2001 ). This program concentrates on self-concept and self-esteem, but also includes other risk and protective factors, such as positive actions, self-control, social skills and social support that could be considered as determinants of self-esteem. Other important determinants of self-esteem, such as coping with internal self-processes, are not addressed. At present, the literature does not provide many examples of BSA studies that produce general preventive effects among adolescents who do not (yet) display behavioral problems ( Greenberg et al. , 2000 ).

To conclude, research results show beneficial outcomes of positive self-esteem, which is seen to be associated with mental well-being, happiness, adjustment, success, academic achievements and satisfaction. It is also associated with better recovery after severe diseases. However, the evolving nature of self-esteem could also result in negative outcomes. For example, low self-esteem can be a causal factor in depression, anxiety, eating disorders, poor social functioning, school dropout and risk behavior. Interestingly, the cross-sectional characteristic of many studies does not exclude the possibility that low self-esteem can also be considered as an important consequence of such disorders and behavioral problems.

Self-esteem is an important risk and protective factor linked to a diversity of health and social outcomes. Therefore, self-esteem enhancement can serve as a key component in a BSA approach in prevention and health promotion. The design and implementation of mental health programs with self-esteem as one of the core variables is an important and promising development in health promotion.

The authors are grateful to Dr Alastair McElroy for his constructive comments on this paper. The authors wish to thank Rianne Kasander (MA) and Chantal Van Ree (MA) for their assistance in the literature search. Financing for this study was generously provided by the Dutch Health Research and Development Council (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland, ZON/MW).

Abel, E. ( 1998 ) Sexual risk behaviors among ship and shore based Navy women. Military Medicine , 163 , 250 –256.

Abramson, L.Y., Metalsky, G.I. and Alloy, L.B. ( 1989 ) Hopelessness depression: a theory based subtype of depression. Psychological Review , 96 , 358 –372.

Adams, M.J. ( 1996 ) Youth in crisis: an examination of adverse risk factors effecting children's cognitive and behavioral–emotional development, children ages 10–16. Dissertation Abstracts International A: Humanities and Social Sciences , 56 (8-A), 3313 .

Ajzen, I. ( 1991 ) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational and Human Decision Processes , 50 , 179 –211.

Albee, G.W. ( 1985 ) The argument for primary prevention. Journal of primary prevention , 5 , 213 –219.

Alice, E. ( 1993 ) Mediating at risk factors among seventh and eighth grade students with specific learning disabilities using a holistically based model. Dissertation , Nove University.

Andrews, E.J. ( 1999 ) The effects of a self-improvement program on the self-esteem of single college mothers. Dissertation Abstracts International A: Humanities and Social Sciences , 60 (2-A), 0345 .

Angold, A., Costello, E.J. and Erkanli, A. ( 1999 ) Comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 40 , 57 –87.

Bandura, A. ( 1977 ) Social Learning Theory . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. ( 1986 ) Social Foundations of Thought And Action: A Social Cognitive Theory . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Baumeister, R.F. ( 1990 ) Suicide as escape from self. Psychological Review , 97 , 90 –113.

Baumeister, R.F., Bushman, B.J. and Campbell, W.K. ( 2000 ) Self-esteem, narcissism and aggression: does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science , 9 , 26 –29.

Beck, A., Steer, R.A., Epstein, N. and Brown, G. ( 1990 ) Beck Self Concept Test. Psychological Assessment , 2 , 191 –197.

Beck, A.T., Brown, G.K., Steer, R.A., Kuyken, W. and Grisham, J. ( 2001 ) Psychometric properties of the Beck Self-Esteem Scales. Behavior Research and Therapy , 39 , 115 –124.

Bee, H.L. ( 2000 ) The Developing Child , 9th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Benjet, C. and Hernandez-Guzman, L. ( 2001 ) Gender differences in psychological well-being of Mexican early adolescents. Adolescence , 36 , 47 –65.

Block, J. and Gjerde, P.F. ( 1986 ) Distinguishing between antisocial behavior and under control. In Olweus, D., Block, J. and Radke-Yarrow, M. (eds), Development of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior: Research , Theories and Issues . Academic Press, New York, pp. 117–206.

Bowlby, J. ( 1980 ) Attachment and Loss III: Loss Sadness and Depression . Hogarth Press, London.

Broers, S., Hengeveld, M.W., Kaptein, A.A., Le-Cessie, S., van de Loo, F. and de Vries, T. ( 1998 ) Are pretransplant psychological variables related to survival after bone marrow transplantation? A prospective study of 123 consecutive patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research , 45 , 341 –351.

Brown, G.W., Bifluco, A. and Andrews, B. ( 1990 ) Self esteem and depression 3. Aetiological issues. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatry Epidemiology , 25 , 235 –243.

Burns, R. ( 1982 ) Self Concept—Developing and Education . Dorset Press, Dorchester.

Campbell, J.D., Chew, B. and Scrathley, L. ( 1991 ) Cognitive and emotional reactions to daily events: the effects of self esteem and self complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59 , 473 –505.

Caplan, N. ( 1974 ) Who's to blame? Psychology Today , 8 , 99 –104.

Carvajal, S.C., Clair, S.D., Nash, S.G. and Evans, R.I. ( 1998 ) Relating optimism, hope and self-esteem to social influences in deterring substance use in adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 17 , 443 –465.

Chang, A.M. and Mackenzie, A.E. ( 1998 ) State self-esteem following stroke. Stroke , 29 , 2325 –2328.

Coopersmith, S. ( 1967 ) The Antecedents of Self Esteem . Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

Crump, R., Lillie-Blanton, M. and Anthony, J. ( 1997 ) The influence of self esteem on smoking among African American school children. Journal of Drug Education , 27 , 277 –291.

De Vries, H. and Mudde, A.N. ( 1998 ) Predicting stage transitions for smoking cessation applying the Attitude–Social influence–Efficacy Model. Psychology and Health , 13 , 369 –385.

De Vries, H., Dijkstra, M. and Kuhlman, P. ( 1988 a) Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as predictor of behavioral intentions. Health Education Journal , 3 , 273 –282.

De Vries, H., Mudde, A.N., Dijkstra, A. and Willemsen, M.C. ( 1998 b) Differential beliefs, perceived social influences and self-efficacy expectations among smokers in various motivational phases. Preventive Medicine , 27 , 681 –689.

Devlin, S.D. ( 1995 ) Drug use in rural America: what you can do about it. Conference Proceedings of the American Council of Rural Special Education . ACRES, Las Vegas, NV.

Dori, G.A. and Overholser, J.C. ( 1999 ) Depression, hopelessness and self-esteem: accounting for suicidality in adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior , 29 , 309 –318.

Erikson, E.H. ( 1965 ) Childhood and Society . Norton, New York.

Erikson, E.H. ( 1968 ) Youth , Identity and Crisis . Norton, New York.

Evans, D.R. ( 1997 ) Health promotion, wellness programs, quality of life and the marketing of psychology. Canadian Psychology , 38 , 1 –12.

Fickova, E. ( 1999 ) Personality dimensions and self esteem indicators relationship. Studia Psychologica , 41 , 323 –328.

Filozof, E., Albertin, H., Jones, C., Sterne, S., Myers, L. and McDermott, R. ( 1998 ) Relationship of adolescent self esteem to selected academic variables. Journal of School Health , 68 , 68 –72.

Fisher, M., Pastore, P., Schneider, M., Pegler, C. and Napolitano, B. ( 1994 ) Eating attitudes in urban and suburban adolescents. International Journal of Eating Disorders , 16 , 67 –74.

Flay, B.R. and Ordway, N. ( 2001 ) Effects of the positive action program on achievement and discipline: two matched- control comparisons. Prevention Science , 2 , 71 –89.

Flay, B.R. and Petraitis, J. ( 1994 ) The theory of triadic influence: a new theory of health behavior with implications for preventive interventions. Advances in Medical Sociology , 4 , 19 –44.

Fleming, J., Mullen, P.E., Sibthorpe, B. and Bammer, G. ( 1999 ) The long-term impact of childhood sexual abuse in Australian women. Child Abuse and Neglect , 23 , 145 –159.

Furnham, A. and Cheng, H. ( 2000 ) Lay theories of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies , 1 , 227 –246.

Garber, J. and Flynn, C. ( 2001 ) Predictors of depressive cognitions in young adolescents. Cognitive Theory and Research , 25 , 353 –376.

Garmezy, N. ( 1984 ) The study of stress and competence in children: a building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development , 55 , 97 –111.

Gilbert, S.E. ( 1995 ) Violence in schools: why and what can we do about it? Journal of Health Care , 6 , 205 –208.

Ginsburg, G.S., La Greca, A.M. and Silverman, W.K. ( 1998 ) Social anxiety in children with anxiety disorders: relation with social and emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 26 , 175 –185.

Glick, M. and Zigler, E. ( 1992 ) Premorbid competence and the courses and outcomes of psychiatric disorders. In Rolf, J., Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H. and Weintraub, S. (eds), Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 497–513.

Godin, G. and Kok, G. ( 1996 ) The Theory of Planned Behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion , 11 , 87 –98.

Greenberg, M.T., Domitrovich, C. and Bumbarger, B. ( 2000 ) Preventing Mental Disorders in School-age Children: A Review of the Effectiveness of Prevention Programs . Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Hammen, C. and Goodman-Brown, T. ( 1990 ) Self schemes and vulnerability in specific life stress in children at risk for depression. Cognitive Theory and Research , 14 , 215 –227.

Haney, P. and Durlak, J.A. ( 1998 ) Changing self-esteem in children and adolescents. A meta analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 27 , 423 –433.

Harrington, R., Rutter, M. and Fombonne, E. ( 1996 ) Developmental pathways in depression: multiple meanings, antecedents and points. Development and Psychopathology , 8 , 601 –616.

Harter, S. ( 1986 ) Processes underlying the construction, maintenance and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In Suls, J. and Greenwald, A.G. (eds), Psychological Perspectives on the Self . Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, vol. 3, pp. 137–181.

Harter, S. ( 1990 ) Causes, correlates and functional role of global self worth: a life span perspective. In Kollgian, J. and Sternberg, R. (eds), Perceptions of Competence and Incompetence across Life Span . Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 67–98.

Harter, S. ( 1999 ) The Construction of the Self. A Developmental Perspective . Guilford Press, New York.

Hay, I., Ashman, A.F. and van Kraayenoord, C.E. ( 1998 ) Educational characteristics of students with high or low self concept. Psychology in the Schools , 35 , 391 –400.

Herbert, M. ( 1987 ) Living with Teenagers . Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Higgins, E.T. ( 1987 ) Self discrepancy; theory relation self and affect. Psychological Review , 94 , 319 –340.

Higgins, E.T. ( 1989 ) Self discrepancy theory: what patters of self beliefs cause people suffer? In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology . Academic Press, New York, vol. 22, pp. 23–63.

Hobfool, S.E. and Walfisch, S. ( 1984 ) Coping with a threat to life: a longitudinal study of self concept, social support and psychological distress. American Journal of Community Psychology , 12 , 87 –100.

Hoffman, M.L. ( 1999 ) Examining sex differences in adolescent adjustment: the effect of competence on gender role in differences in psychopathology. Dissertation Abstracts international: Section B: Science and Engineering , 59 (9-B), 5086 .

Horowitz, L.A. ( 1999 ) The relationship of childhood sexual abuse to revictimisation: mediating variables and developmental processes. Dissertation Abstracts International B: Sciences and Engineering , 60 (4-B), 1855 .

Hosman, C.M.H. (ed.) ( 2000 ) Naar een Geestelijke Gezonde Samenleving: Inleiding in de Preventieve Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg [Towards a Mentally Healthy Community: Introduction in Prevention in Mental Health]. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Jahoda, M. ( 1958 ) Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health . Basil Books, New York.

Jessor, R., Turbin, M.S. and Costa, F.M. ( 1998 ) Risk and protection in successful outcomes among disadvantaged adolescents. Applied Developmental Science , 2 , 194 –208.

Jones, S. and Heaven, P. ( 1998 ) Psychosocial correlates of adolescent drug-taking behavior. Journal of Adolescence , 21 , 127 –134.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. and Locke, E.A. ( 2000 ) Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 237 –249.

Kashubeck and Christensen. ( 1993 ) Parental alcohol use, family relationship quality, self-esteem end depression in college. Journal of College Student Development , 36 , 431 –343.

Kihlstrom, J.F. and Cantor, N. ( 1983 ) Mental representations of the self. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology . Academic Press, San Diego, CA, vol. 17, pp. 1–47.

Kressly, J.C. ( 1994 ) Middle level advisory: targeting potential violence before tragedy strikes. Schools in the Middle , 3 , 27 –30.

Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. ( 1984 ) Coping and adaptation. In Gentry, W.D. (ed.), The Handbook of Behavioral Medicine . Guilford, New York, pp. 282–325.

Macdonald, G. ( 1994 ) Self esteem and the promotion of mental health. In Trent, D. and Reed, C. (eds), Promotion of Mental Health . Avebury, Aldershot, vol. 3, pp. 19–20.

Marcia, J.E., Waterman, A.S., Matteson, D.R., Archer, S.L. and Orlofsky, J.L. ( 1993 ) Ego Identity : A Handbook for Psycho-social Research . Springer, New York.

Markus, H. ( 1977 ) Self schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 , 63 –78.

Markus, H. and Nurius, P. ( 1986 ) Possible selves. American Psychologist , 41 , 954 –969.

Marsh, H.W. and Yeung, A.S. ( 1997 ) Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement: structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology , 89 , 41 –54.

Miller, P.M., Kreitman, N.B., Ingham, J.G. and Sashidharan, S.P. ( 1989 ) Self esteem, life stress and psychiatric disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders , 17 , 65 –75.

Muha, D.G. ( 1991 ) Dropout prevention and group counseling. High School Journal , 74 , 76 –80.

Nyamathi, A. ( 1991 ) Relationships of resources to emotional distress, somatic complaints and high risk behaviors in drug recovery and homeless minority women. Research in Nursing and Health , 14 , 269 –277.

O'Dea, J.A. and Abraham, S. ( 2000 ) Improving the body image, eating attitudes and behaviors of young male and female adolescents: a new educational approach that focuses on self-esteem. International Journal of Eating Disorders , 28 , 43 –57.

Oliver, J.M. and Paull, J.C. ( 1995 ) Self-esteem and self-efficacy; perceived parenting and family climate; and depression in university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 51 , 467 –481.

Overholser, J.C., Adams, D.M., Lehnert, K.L. and Brinkman, D.C. ( 1995 ) Self esteem deficits and suicidal tendencies among adolescents. Journal of American Academy Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 34 , 919 –928.

Patterson, G.R. and Capaldi, D.M. ( 1992 ) Mediational model for boys depressed mood. In Rolf, J., Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H. and Weintraub, S. (eds), Risk and Protective Factors in Development of Psychopathology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141–163.

Patton, W. ( 1991 ) Relationship between self image and depression in adolescents. Psychological Reports , 68 , 687 –688.

Paul, J.P., Stall, R. and Davis, D.F. ( 1993 ) Sexual risk for HIV transmission among gay/bisexual men in substance-abuse treatment. AIDS Education and Prevention , 5 , 11 –24.

Penninx, B.W., van Tilburg, T., Boeke, A.J.P., Deeg, D.J., Kriegsman, D.M. and van Eijk, J.T. ( 1998 ) Effects of social support and personal coping resources on depressive symptoms: different for various chronic diseases? Health Psychology , 17 , 551 –558.

Poikolainen, K., Tuulio-Henrikkson, A., Aalto-Setaelae, T., Marttunen, M. and Loennqvist, J. ( 2001 ) Predictors of alcohol intake and heavy drinking in early adulthood: a 5-year follow-up of 15–19-year-old Finnish adolescents. Alcohol and Alcoholism , 36 , 85 –88.

Reda-Norton, L.J. ( 1995 ) Elementary school predictors of adolescent adjustment problems. Dissertation Abstracts International B: Science and Engineering , 56 (5-B), 2904 .

Reinherz, H.Z., Giaconia, R.M., Pakiz, B., Silverman, A.B., Farst, A.K. and Lefkowitz, E.S. ( 1993 ) Psychosocial risk for major depression in late adolescence. Journal of American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 32 , 1155 –1163.

Reston, V. ( 1991 ) HIV Prevention Education for Exceptional Youth: Why HIV Prevention Education is Important. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC.

Rice, K.G., Ashby, J.S. and Slaney, R.B. ( 1998 ) Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depression: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 45 , 304 –314.

Rodney, H.E., Mupier, R. and Crafter, B. ( 1996 ) Predictors of alcohol drinking among African American adolescents: Implications for violence prevention. Journal of Negro Education , 65 , 434 –444.

Rogers, T.B. ( 1981 ) A model of the self as an aspect of the human information processing system. In Canton, N. and Kihlstrom, J.F. (eds), Personality , Cognition and Social Interaction . Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 193–214.

Rolf, J. and Johnson, J. ( 1992 ) The challenges of Aids. In Rolf, J., Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H. and Weintraub, S. (eds), Risk and Protective Factors in Development of psychopathology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 384–404.

Rolf, J., Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H. and Weintraub, S. ( 1990 ) Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rouse, K.A. ( 1998 ) Longitudinal health endangering behavior among resilient and nonresilient early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health , 23 , 297 –302.

Rutter, M. ( 1992 ) Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In Rolf, J., Masten, A.S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K.H. and Weintraub, S. (eds), Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 181–214.

Sartorius, N. ( 1988 ) Health Promotion strategies: Keynote Address. Canadian Journal of Public Health , 79 (Suppl. 2), s3 –s5.

Scarano, G.M., Gina, M., Kaodner, M. and Cynthia, R. ( 1994 ) A Description of the continuum of eating disorders: implications for intervention and research. Journal of Counseling and Development , 72 , 356 –361.

Schoen. ( 1999 ) The etiology of violence and the voice of the perpetrator. Dissertation Abstracts International B: Science and Engineering , 60 (2-B), 0875 .

Seligman, M.E.P. ( 1975 ) Helplessness . Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

Seligman, M.E.P. ( 1995 ) What You Can Change and What You Can't . Knopf, New York.

Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. ( 2000 ) Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist , 55 , 5 –14.

Seligman, M.E.P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L. and Gillham, J. ( 1995 ) The Optimistic Child . Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Shadmon, O. ( 1998 ) Family and non-family supports as contributors to adjustment in school-aged children with employed mothers. Dissertation Abstracts International B: Science and Engineering , 59 (2-B), 0898 .

Shin, K.R. ( 1993 ) Factors predicting depression among Korean-American women in New York. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 30 , 415 –423.

Shisslak, C.M., Crago, M., Gray, N., Estes, L.S., McKnight, K., Parnaby, O.G., Sharpe, T., Bryson, S., Killen, J. and Barr-Taylor, C. ( 1998 ) The prevention of eating disorders. Studies in eating disorders. In Vandereycken, W. and Noordenbos, G. (eds), The McKnight Foundation Prospective Study of Risk Factors for the Development of Eating Disorders. An International Series . New York University Press, New York, vol. xii, pp. 56–74.

Short, J.L. ( 1998 ) Evaluation of a substance abuse prevention and mental health promotion program for children of divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage , 28 , 139 –155.

Smolak, L., Levine, M.P. and Schermer, F. ( 1998 ) A controlled evaluation of an elementary school primary prevention program for eating problems. Journal of Psychosomatic Research , 44 , 339 –353.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J. and Pysczynski, T. ( 2000 ) Pride and prejudice: fear of death and social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 9 , 200 –204.

Somali, A., Kelley, J., Heckman, T., Hackl, K., Runge, L. and Wright, C. ( 2001 ) Life optimism, substance use and AIDS-specific attitudes associated with HIV-risk behaviour among disadvantaged inner city women. Journal of Women's Health and Gender-based Medicine , 9 , 1101 –1110.

St Jeor, S.T. ( 1993 ) The role of weight management in the health of women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association , 93 , 1007 –1012.

Strecher, V.J., DeVillis, B.M., Becker, M.H. and Rosenstock, I.M. ( 1986 ) The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behaviour change. Health Education Quarterly , 31 , 73 –92.

Swendsen, J.D. and Merikangas, K.M. ( 2000 ) The comorbidity of depression and substance use disorders. Clinical Psychology Review , 20 , 173 –189.

Taylor, S. and Brown, J. ( 1988 ) Illusions and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin , 103 , 193 –210.

Teri, L. ( 1982 ) Depression in adolescence: its relationship to assertion and various aspects of self image. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology , 11 , 101 –106.

van der Ham, T., van der Strien, D.C. and van Engelan, H. ( 1998 ) Personality characteristics predict outcomes of eating disorders in adolescents: a 4-year prospective study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 7 , 79 –84.

Vickers, M.J. ( 1993 ) Understanding obesity in woman. Journal of Obesity and Gynecology , 22 , 17 –23.

Vohs, K.D., Voelz, Z.R., Pettit, J.W., Bardone, A.M., Katz, J. and Abramson, L.Y. ( 2001 ) Perfectionism, body dissatisfaction and self-esteem: an interactive model of bulimic symptom development. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 20 , 476 –497.

Weare, K. ( 2000 ) Promoting Mental and Social Health: A Whole School Approach . Routledge, London.

WHO ( 1986 ) Discussion document on the concept and principles of health promotion. Health Promotion , 1 , 73 –76.

Wilhelm, K., Parker, G., Dewhurst-Savellis, J. and Asghari, A. ( 1999 ) Psychological predictors of single and recurrent major depressive episodes. Journal of Affective Disorders , 54 , 139 –147.

Zimmerman, S.L. ( 2000 ) Self-esteem, personal control, optimism, extraversion and the subjective well-being of midwestern university faculty. Dissertation Abstracts International B: Sciences and Engineering , 60 (7-B), 3608 .

Author notes

1Department of Health Education and Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht and 2Prevention Research Center on Program Development and Effect Management, The Netherlands

• mental health
• self esteem

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1465-3648
• Print ISSN 0268-1153
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 11 July 2022

Low self-esteem and the formation of global self-performance estimates in emerging adulthood

• Marion Rouault   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6586-3788 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Geert-Jan Will 3   na1 ,
• Stephen M. Fleming   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0233-4891 4 , 5 , 6 &
• Raymond J. Dolan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9356-761X 4 , 5  

Translational Psychiatry volume  12 , Article number:  272 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

6 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

High self-esteem, an overall positive evaluation of self-worth, is a cornerstone of mental health. Previously we showed that people with low self-esteem differentially construct beliefs about momentary self-worth derived from social feedback. However, it remains unknown whether these anomalies extend to constructing beliefs about self-performance in a non-social context, in the absence of external feedback. Here, we examined this question using a novel behavioral paradigm probing subjects’ self-performance estimates with or without external feedback. We analyzed data from young adults ( N  = 57) who were selected from a larger community sample ( N  = 2402) on the basis of occupying the bottom or top 10% of a reported self-esteem distribution. Participants performed a series of short blocks involving two perceptual decision-making tasks with varying degrees of difficulty, with or without feedback. At the end of each block, they had to decide on which task they thought they performed best, and gave subjective task ratings, providing two measures of self-performance estimates. We found no robust evidence of differences in objective performance between high and low self-esteem participants. Nevertheless, low self-esteem participants consistently underestimated their performance as expressed in lower subjective task ratings relative to high self-esteem participants. These results provide an initial window onto how cognitive processes underpinning the construction of self-performance estimates across different contexts map on to global dispositions relevant to mental health such as self-esteem.

Similar content being viewed by others

Loneliness trajectories over three decades are associated with conspiracist worldviews in midlife

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

People are surprisingly hesitant to reach out to old friends

Introduction.

A positive view of the self is a crucial determinant of mental health [ 1 , 2 ]. Low self-esteem has been associated with a number of psychiatric conditions, particularly those of an anxious and depressive nature [ 1 , 2 ]. People form beliefs about themselves and their abilities (“self-beliefs”) across many levels of abstraction, ranging from local confidence in individual decisions to estimates of performance on an entire task, up to global estimates about their own worth as expressed in reports of self-esteem. Having positive beliefs about self-worth (i.e., high self-esteem) is associated with a stronger ability to successfully deal with prospective situations, including how one deals with day-to-day challenges [ 3 ]. For instance, people with low self-esteem are often faster to disengage from a task in response to failure than those with high self-esteem [ 4 ]. Despite the recognized importance of self-beliefs for mental health, surprisingly little is known about the precise cognitive building blocks of self-beliefs, and their relationship with self-esteem [ 5 ].

Recent work examining the construction of momentary self-worth from social feedback [ 6 , 7 ] has started to uncover the formation of self-beliefs in a social context. Here low self-esteem participants were slower to update beliefs about how much others liked them, and faster to update momentary feelings of self-worth in response to social feedback. These findings provide initial evidence of a differential construction of self-beliefs being tied to a more global, stable construct such as self-esteem [ 6 , 7 ]. However, it remains unclear whether this is a specific idiosyncrasy of how low self-esteem individuals construct self-worth from social feedback or, alternatively, whether low self-esteem individuals have a domain-general bias when forming appropriate self-beliefs that extend to other non-social contexts. One possibility is that individuals with low self-esteem may maintain a negative self-view by consistently underestimating their abilities despite performing as well as those with high self-esteem, indicating a disconnection between a “local” self-evaluation on a given task and a “global” self-evaluation such as self-esteem.

Here we examined the formation of subjective self-performance estimates in participants with high and low self-esteem, in contexts with and without explicit feedback about performance. We leveraged a recently developed behavioral paradigm probing the formation of subjective self-performance estimates [ 8 , 9 ]. The main finding from this previous work is that decision confidence is a key factor contributing to the formation of self-performance estimates in the absence of feedback, a situation that echoes many real-life settings. We observed that decision difficulty, fluctuations in decision accuracy, and whether participants received feedback about their decisions all impacted their self-performance estimates. The present study employed this protocol to ask whether such subjective self-performance estimates, formed over the scale of minutes, relate to self-esteem. We previously proposed a hierarchical framework of metacognitive evaluation in which self-esteem may act as a global prior for generating self-performance estimates on a given task [ 10 ]. Specifically, under such a hierarchical framework of metacognitive evaluation – spanning decision confidence formed at a local level to self-esteem at a global level—we would expect self-esteem to provide a global context or prior for how self-performance estimates are formed on a given task [ 5 ]. We assume that self-esteem is a global estimate formed across longer timescales of months or years, whereas self-performance estimates are formed more rapidly, over the course of a few minutes of engaging in a task. Characterizing how these two constructs intersect is important to identify neurocognitive building blocks underpinning constructs relevant to mental health, such as self-esteem, and in turn facilitate novel interventions for disorders that are linked to altered self-esteem, a canonical example being depression [ 11 , 12 ].

To address these questions, we capitalized on a large dataset from a well-characterized community sample of adolescents and emerging adults ( N  = 2402; aged 14 to 24 at first measurement) who reported on their self-esteem across 1–3 timepoints spanning 4.5 years. We selected low and high self-esteem participants (aged 18–25) from the larger sample as individuals who scored within the bottom, or top, 10% of a self-esteem distribution so as to maximize power for detecting individual differences due to self-esteem [ 7 ]. A comparison between high and low self-esteem individuals was motivated by well-established findings that individuals with high self-esteem rates are among the healthiest in terms of low levels of depression and high levels of well-being in the population [ 13 ], providing a strong contrast against those with low self-esteem who experience substantial problems. Participants performed short blocks of two interleaved perceptual tasks and at the end of each block, they then selected the task on which they considered they had performed best and provided a subjective ability rating about each task. These two measures enable a window onto subjective self-performance estimates [ 8 ].

Consistent with previous findings, we found that participants underestimated their own performance in the absence of feedback, despite performing equivalently in situations with and without feedback. Participants with low self-esteem rated their performance lower compared to those with high self-esteem, despite task performance being similar in the two groups. We discuss the findings within a framework in which local metacognitive variables, such as decision confidence, influence the construction and maintenance of global self-esteem across longer times-scales.

Materials and methods

Participants.

We tested 62 human participants from the Neuroscience in Psychiatry Network (NSPN) cohort ( N  = 2402) who reported on their mental health, including measures of self-esteem, across 4.5 years for 1–3 measurements [ 7 ]. The NSPN 2400 Cohort is a general population sample of adolescents and emerging adults ( N  = 2402; aged 14–24 years at baseline) originally established to investigate a developmental change in mental health, cognition, and the brain (see ref. [ 14 ] for an in-depth cohort profile). Participants from Cambridgeshire and Greater London reported on sociodemographic characteristics and a range of mental health indices across multiple timepoints. A subsample ( N  = 785) nested within the larger cohort participated in detailed behavioral assessments of cognition using computerized tasks, clinical assessments, and IQ tests (see e.g., ref. [ 15 ]). A subset of this latter sample ( N  = 318) additionally underwent measures of brain structure and function using MRI (see e.g., ref. [ 16 ]).

For recruitment based on self-esteem, we used scores on the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES) [ 17 ]. Mean RSES score of the large sample was 19.7 (on a scale of 0–30; SD = 5.62). We invited 184 participants with average RSES scores within the bottom decile (0–12) and top decile (27–30) of the large sample for further study and tested 53 participants (29 with low self-esteem; 24 with high self-esteem). To reach our target sample size of 30 participants in each group, we invited a further 51 participants whose recent RSES score was within the bottom or top decile of RSES scores and tested an additional ten participants. Five low self-esteem participants reported being in remission from a mental health problem for at least 3 years at the moment of testing. Participants were originally recruited for an fMRI study reported in (Will et al., 2020). The sample size was set to surpass the sample sizes of prior fMRI studies examining inter-individual differences in self-esteem (ten studies; median N  = 26; range = 17–48 [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]). We further increased our power to detect individual differences by employing a targeted recruitment approach focusing on the extremes of a reported self-esteem distribution. After taking a break following MRI scanning, participants completed the self-performance estimate task reported here.

We matched groups based on gender and age, but not for subclinical symptoms of depression and anxiety [ 7 , 14 ]. As expected from the known associations between self-esteem and depression [ 2 ], we found strong correlations between the Rosenberg self-esteem score and the MFQ depression score (ρ(55) = −0.86, p  = 1.77 × 10 −17 ), and between the Rosenberg self-esteem score and the Trait Anxiety score (ρ(55) = −0.86, p  = 2.03 × 10 −17 ). When comparing the two groups to the large cohort ( N  = 2402), we observed that the low self-esteem group is at the 78.5 (±33.3) percentile in terms of depressive symptoms, while the high self-esteem group is at the 16.4 (± 6.1) percentile. In terms of well-being the low self-esteem group is at the 16.4 ± (0.04) percentile, while the high self-esteem group is at the 85 ± (0.04) percentile. These observations suggest that to characterize self-esteem-related problems, it is informative to contrast those who manifest such problems (i.e., low self-esteem participants) with those who have few such problems (i.e., high self-esteem participants).

Other inclusion criteria were applied: no current neurological or psychiatric disease, an address in London, no color-blindness and no contraindications to MRI (as the participants also underwent MRI scanning [ 7 ]). Five participants were excluded for responding at chance level (two participants, both high self-esteem), always selecting the same rating (one participant, low self-esteem), or failing the comprehension test of the rating scale during the practice (two participants, both high self-esteem), leaving N  = 57 participants for data analysis. The final sample consisted of 29 low self-esteem participants (mean age = 21.2, SD = 2.2; 18 women) and 28 high self-esteem participants (mean age = 21.1, SD = 2.3; 14 women). Participants were paid 8 GBP per hour for their participation and compensated for travel expenses. They provided written informed consent according to procedures approved by the London – Westminster NHS Research Ethics Committee (15/LO/1361).

Experimental design

Learning blocks.

Participants performed short learning blocks that randomly interleaved two “tasks” identified by two arbitrary color cues (Fig. 1a ). Participants were incentivized to learn about their own performance on each of the two tasks over the course of a block. Each block contained 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 trials per task (which we refer to as “ learning duration ”), giving 30 blocks (=360 trials) per participant, presented in a pseudo-random order. We varied the learning duration to examine whether and how the number of decisions made by participants within each block impacted the construction of self-performance estimates.

a Participants performed short learning blocks of randomly alternating trials from two tasks (between 2 and 10 trials per task). At the end of each block, participants were asked to select the task on which they thought they had performed best (Task choice), as well as rate their overall ability at each task (Task rating). A new block ensued with two new color cues indicating two new tasks. b Each task required perceptual choices as to which of two boxes contained more dots. Trials were either easy or difficult according to the numerical dot difference between the left and right boxes. Following their response participants either received veridical feedback (correct, incorrect) about their perceptual judgment, or no-feedback. These four conditions resulted in six possible task pairings as displayed in a. c Each trial consisted in a perceptual judgment as to which of two boxes contained a higher number of dots, followed or not by provision of feedback.

Each task required a perceptual judgment as to which of the two boxes contained more dots (Fig. 1a ). The difficulty level of the judgment was controlled by the difference in dot number between boxes. Any given task (as indicated by the color cue) was either easy or difficult and provided either veridical feedback or no-feedback (Fig. 1b ). Importantly the color cues allowed participants to identify the two tasks but provided no information about task difficulty. These four task features provided six possible pairings of tasks in learning blocks. The order of blocks was randomized for each participant.

Two measures of self-performance estimates

Task choice. At the end of each block, participants were asked to choose the task for which they thought they performed best (Fig. 1a ). Specifically, they were asked to report which task they would like to perform in a short subsequent “test block” in order to gain a bonus. This procedure aimed to reveal self-performance estimates, because participants should choose the task they expect to be more successful at in the test block in order to gain maximum reward. To indicate their task choice, participants responded with two response keys that differed from those assigned to perceptual decisions to avoid any carry-over effects. The subsequent test block contained six trials from the chosen task (not shown in Fig. 1 ). No-feedback was provided during test blocks.

Task ratings. After the test block, participants were asked to rate their overall performance on each of the two tasks on a rating scale ranging from 50% (“chance level”) to 100% (“perfect”) to obtain explicit, parametric reports of self-performance estimates (Fig. 1a ). Ratings were made with the mouse cursor and could be given anywhere on the continuous scale. Intermediate ticks for percentages 60, 70, 80, and 90% correct were indicated on the scale but without verbal labels. There was no time limit on perceptual choices, task choices, and task ratings. After each block, participants were offered a break and could resume at any time, with the next learning block featuring two new tasks cued by two new colors. The present design is a modified version of the protocol from our original paper [ 8 ].

Trial structure . Each block featured two tasks, with each trial starting with a color cue presented for 1200 ms, indicating which of the two tasks will be performed in the current trial (Fig. 1 ). The stimuli were black boxes filled with white dots randomly positioned and presented for 300 ms, during which time participants were unable to respond. We used two difficulty levels characterized by a constant dot difference, but the spatial configuration of the dots inside a box varied randomly from trial-to-trial. One box was always half-filled (313 dots out of 625 positions), whereas the other contained 313 + 24 dots (difficult conditions) or 313 + 60 dots (easy conditions). The position of the box with the most dots was randomized across trials (half of the trials on the left, half of the trials on the right). Participants were asked to judge which box (left or right) contained more dots and the chosen box was then highlighted for 300 ms. Afterward, a colored rectangle (cueing the color of the current task) was presented for 1500 ms. The rectangle was either empty (on no-feedback trials) or contained the word “Correct” or “Incorrect” (on feedback trials), followed by an ITI of 600 ms.

Statistical analyses

To examine the influence of our experimental factors on self-performance estimates, we carried out three 2 × 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVAs on (1) objective performance (Table S1 ), (2) task choice (Table S2 ), and (3) task ratings (Table S3 ). Our factors were Feedback (present vs. absent), Difficulty (easy vs. difficult) as within-subject factors, and self-esteem level (high vs. low) as a between-subject factor. Because task choice frequencies are proportions, they were transformed using a classic arcsine square-root transformation before being entered into the ANOVA. Note that we reproduced these analyses based on past self-esteem status (as per recruitment) instead of current self-esteem status (on the testing session) and found virtually identical results (Tables S4 – S6 ).

Since objective performance naturally fluctuates even for a fixed difficulty level due to noise, we examined whether participants had some insight into these fluctuations. We additionally examined whether participants’ self-performance estimates reflected fluctuations in objective performance on a given learning block over and above variations in difficulty level. For each of the six pairings, we analyzed task choice and task ratings as a function of the absolute difference in performance between tasks for each participant (as in [ 8 ]) (Fig. 3 ). To quantify these effects, we performed a logistic (resp. linear) regression to further quantify the influence of fluctuations in objective performance on task choice (resp. task ratings), entering objective performance as block-wise regressors. We further introduced individual self-esteem (Rosenberg score) and its interaction with the difference in performance as additional regressors to examine if these could explain additional variance in task choice or task ratings. Regressors were z-scored to ensure comparability of regression coefficients. Each model was specified as Task Choice ~ β 0  +  β 1  × Difference in Performance +  β 2  × Self-esteem +  β 3  × Difference in Performance × Self-esteem, and participants were treated as a fixed effect in the regressions (due to few blocks per pairing per participant).

Finally, to visualize whether there were any effects of learning duration (the number of trials per task in each block) on self-performance estimates, task choice frequencies were averaged across participants for each of the six possible pairings and the five possible learning durations (Fig. 4 ). To investigate whether learning duration had a significant influence on task choice, separate logistic regressions were performed on each of the six task pairings. Each model was specified as Task Choice ~ β 0  +  β 1  × Learning Duration +  β 2  × Self-esteem +  β 3  × Learning Duration × Self-esteem (we continue to model the main effects of self-esteem on each individual task pairing but do not further test for the significance of these terms, as this effect is evaluated in the more powerful ANOVA approach above that collapses over task pairings). Similarly, we examined whether learning duration influenced task ratings with similar models as for task choices, but with linear regression models instead of logistic regressions, because the dependent variable was continuous rather than dichotomous. Our dependent variable was the difference in task ratings between the two tasks of a block. The use of a fixed-effects approach naturally limits the extent to which our findings can be generalized to the population level.

An experimental protocol probing the formation of self-performance estimates

To investigate the impact of self-esteem on self-performance estimates, participants ( N  = 57) engaged in 30 short learning blocks (4 to 20 trials) of two randomly interleaved visual discrimination tasks signaled by two arbitrary color cues (Fig. 1c ). We varied learning duration (the number of trials per task in each block) to examine whether participants differentially formed self-performance estimates depending on how much experience they had with each task. Each task required a perceptual discrimination judgment as to which of the two boxes contained a higher number of dots (Fig. 1c ). Two factors controlled task characteristics: task difficulty (either easy or difficult according to dot difference between boxes), and receipt of either veridical feedback (correct, incorrect) or no-feedback about performance on each perceptual choice (Fig. 1b ). This factorial design resulted in six possible task pairings for learning blocks (Fig. 1a ). For example, an Easy-Feedback task could be paired with a Difficult-Feedback task, or a Difficult-Feedback task could be paired with a Difficult-No-Feedback task, and so forth. At the end of each block, participants selected the task on which they believed they performed better (Task choice) and were rewarded on the basis of their performance on the chosen task (see Methods). They additionally provided a subjective rating of self-performance on each of the two tasks on a continuous scale (Task ratings) (Fig. 1a ). A short break ensued before the next learning block started when two new color cues indicated two new tasks. The two end-of-block measures, namely task choices and task ratings, provided proxies for self-performance estimates. In this way the design allowed us to compare self-performance estimates in participants with high or low self-esteem.

Self-esteem and self-performance estimates

We first examined whether high and low self-esteem participants differed in terms of objective performance on the perceptual tasks, conditional on the provision of feedback or not, and on task difficulty. We performed a 2 × 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA on objective performance with two within-subject factors (Feedback and Difficulty), and with the self-esteem group as a between-subject factor (see Methods). First, we replicated our previous findings showing that participants performed better when tasks were easier (the main effect of Difficulty, F (1, 56) = 472.7, p  = 1.1 × 10 −28 ), but without a difference in performance in the presence or absence of feedback (Fig. S1 ) (main effect of Feedback, F (1, 56) = 0.622, p  = 0.434). High ( N  = 28) and low ( N  = 29) self-esteem participants did not differ in performance (main effect of Self-Esteem, F (1, 56) = 1.675, p  = 0.201). We found no significant interactions, except for interaction between Difficulty and Self-Esteem ( F (1,56) = 5.174, p  = 0.027), driven by slightly worse performance on easy tasks in the low self-esteem group (Table S1 ). Pairwise comparisons between each of the four experimental conditions showed no significant difference in performance in the easy conditions ( t 55  = 1.82, p  = 0.07 for feedback trials and t 55  = 1.55, p  = 0.12 for no-feedback trials). There was also no statistically significant difference between groups in the difficult condition with feedback ( t 55  = 0.75, p  = 0.45) nor in the difficult condition without feedback ( t 55  = −0.04, p  = 0.96). Together with a lack of the main effect of self-esteem on performance, these results suggest that any difference in self-performance estimates between self-esteem groups is likely to arise at a metacognitive level, rather than being driven by systematic differences in objective performance between groups across all experimental conditions of the design.

Next, we examined the construction of self-performance estimates in our perceptual tasks. We again applied the same 2 × 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA, this time to task choices and task ratings. For our first measure of self-performance estimates, task choice, we replicated our prior work showing participants selected easy tasks as compared to difficult tasks more often at the end of blocks (main effect of Difficulty F (1, 56) = 108.8, p  = 1.2 × 10 −14 ). Participants were also more likely to select tasks that provided feedback, compared to those that did not (main effect of Feedback F (1, 56) = 93.8, p  = 1.7 × 10 −13 ). There was a trend-level interaction between Difficulty and Feedback ( F (1, 56) = 3.81, p  = 0.056), in accordance with previous findings showing an interaction in a subset of previous datasets (Fig. S1 ) [ 8 ]. This we assume reflects variability in how sensitive participants are to difficulty relative to feedback receipt. We found no main effect of Self-Esteem on task choice ( F (1, 56) = 0.295, p  = 0.59) and no significant interactions between Self-Esteem and other experimental factors (all p  > 0.33), meaning that task choices were most likely driven by experimentally manipulated factors as opposed to (task-unrelated) self-esteem. We also note that task choices can be insensitive to overall shifts in self-performance estimates across both tasks, which can cancel out when participants have to choose between pairs of tasks. This might be the case in low compared to high self-esteem individuals, for instance. To test for such effects, we next turned to our second measure of self-performance estimates, task ratings.

Finally, we analyzed our second measure of self-performance estimates: subjective task ability ratings. Consistent with previous findings [ 8 ], we found a main effect of Difficulty ( F (1, 56) = 211.7, p  = 1.7 × 10 −20 ) and of Feedback ( F (1, 56) = 139.9, p  = 9.7 × 10 −17 ) on task ratings, together with a significant interaction between these factors ( F (1, 56) = 35.6, p  = 1.8 × 10 −7 ). These results indicate that participants rated their self-performance lower in the absence of feedback, an effect exacerbated for easy as compared to difficult tasks (Fig. 2 and S1 ). Crucially we observed a main effect of Self-Esteem on task ratings ( F (1, 56) = 5.92, p  = 0.018), reflecting the fact that participants with low self-esteem reported lower self-performance estimates for both difficult and easy tasks as well as tasks with and without feedback, despite their objective task performance being equivalent to participants with high self-esteem (Table S3 ).

a A 2 × 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a main effect of self-esteem status on task ratings, indicating lower self-performance estimates in participants with low self-esteem. Difficulty (Easy, Diff) and Feedback (Feedback, No–Feedback) were within-subject factors and self-esteem was a between-subject factor (see Methods and Results). Circles and error bars represent mean and SEM across participants ( N  = 28 with high self-esteem and N  = 29 with low self-esteem), and dots indicate individual data points. b Average objective performance across all conditions for high and low self-esteem groups separately. Bars and error bars indicate mean and SEM across participants and dots indicate individual data points. n.s. not significant (two-sample t -tes t , t 55  = 1.29, p  = 0.20).

Study participants were recruited on the basis of their self-esteem score at the time of inclusion in the database (“past” self-esteem level). We also assessed their self-esteem level at the time they performed the perceptual learning tasks (“current” self-esteem level) in order to create the groupings for the analyses reported above. Past self-esteem scores at the time of recruitment correlated with current self-esteem scores at the time of testing (ρ(55) = 0.72, p  = 2.6 × 10 −12 ). Nevertheless, to examine the robustness of our findings, we reproduced all our analyses but now based on past self-esteem groupings instead of current self-esteem groupings. Critically we found virtually identical results (Tables S4 – S6 ), indicating that our behavioral task interacts with self-esteem status in a stable manner. In particular, participants with lower self-esteem at the time of recruitment continued to provide lower subjective task ratings at the time of testing, despite objective performance being unaffected (Table S6 ).

Characterization of the influence of task factors on self-performance estimates

Having shown that self-esteem is linked to overall self-performance estimates in our task, we next characterized how participants’ self-performance estimates are influenced by block-to-block fluctuations in learning duration and performance and asked how the influence of these factors may interact with self-esteem. Building on our previous study [ 8 ], our experimental design with variable block lengths allowed us to characterize how experimental factors explain variation in subjective task ratings and examine if other previous findings replicate. In a first analysis, we reasoned that, even for a fixed difficulty level, there would be fluctuations in objective performance from block to block due to variability inherent to perceptual decision-making. To investigate whether participants were sensitive to such fluctuations when they provided self-performance estimates, we performed regression analyses predicting task choices and task ratings from the difference in objective performance between tasks (Fig. 3 ; see Methods). In a second analysis, we examined the influence of learning duration on the expression of self-performance estimates (Fig. 4 ; see Methods). In both these sets of analyses, we included self-esteem as an additional between-participant predictor and asked how it interacted with (i) the difference in objective performance between tasks and (ii) learning duration.

Self-performance estimates were measured as a task choice and b task ability ratings, each visualized here as a function of the absolute difference in performance between tasks, for a small, average, and large absolute difference in performance between tasks. Green (resp. orange) indicates easy (resp. difficult) tasks. Dotted lines (resp. full lines) indicate tasks without feedback (resp. with feedback). Error bars indicate SEM across participants ( N  = 57). Dots indicate individual data points; note that for task choices, task choice frequency took discrete values due to a limited number of data points per participant (see Methods). Significant effects of the difference in performance between tasks were found for end-of-block task choices (*** p  < .000001), except for when an easy-no-feedback task was paired with a difficult-no-feedback task (n.s.). For task ratings, there was a significant effect of the difference in performance between tasks in all blocks (*** p  < 0.0023).

Self-performance estimates measured as end-of-block task choices ( a ) or task ratings ( b ) as a function of learning duration (number of trials per task in each block) for the six possible task pairings. Error bars indicate SEM across participants ( N  = 57). Significant effects of learning duration on end-of-block self-performance estimates are indicated (* p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01) (see Methods).

First, in the total sample ( N  = 57), we found a significant effect of a difference in performance between tasks on end-of-block task choices (all task pairings β  = 1.09, all p  = 1.56 × 10 −7 ), except for when an Easy-No-Feedback task was paired with a Difficult-No-Feedback task ( β  = 0.083, p  = 0.49) (Fig. 3a ). These differences in performance did not interact with self-esteem, demonstrating that performance fluctuations continue to influence self-performance estimates irrespective of self-esteem level (interaction between self-esteem and difference in performance; all task pairings β  < 0.25, all p  > 0.21).

Using a similar approach, we uncovered a significant effect of differences in performance between tasks on end-of-block task ratings (Fig. 3b ) (all task pairings β  > 0.016, p  < 0.0023), meaning that the larger the difference in objective performance between tasks, the larger the difference in task ratings (irrespective of self-esteem). When examining interactions with self-esteem, we found that effects of fluctuations in performance did not differ as a function of self-esteem level for the majority (five out of six) of task pairings (interaction between self-esteem and difference in performance; all β   <  −0.0067, p  > 0.38). An exception was when an Easy-No-Feedback task was paired with a Difficult-Feedback task, for which the interaction between self-esteem and performance difference was significant ( β  = 0.016, p  = 0.022), without an effect of self-esteem itself ( β  = −0.011, p  = 0.088). This interaction indicates that participants with high self-esteem showed a greater influence of performance difference for this task pairing. Taken together, these findings indicate that participants’ end-of-block self-performance estimates were sensitive to fluctuations in objective difficulty, the presence of feedback, and fluctuations in task performance, with limited effects of self-esteem on these relationships.

Second, we examined the impact of learning duration (the number of decisions per task in each block) on self-performance estimates. Consistent with previous findings [ 8 ], regression analyses confirmed no significant effect of learning duration (number of trials per block) on end-of-block task choices for four out of six of the task pairings (all β  < 0.21, all p  > 0.099) (Fig. 4a ). An exception was when a Difficult-Feedback task was paired with a Difficult-No-Feedback task, with learning duration leading task choices to become less sensitive over time ( β  = −1.49, p  = 0.013). Similarly, when an Easy-No-Feedback task was paired with a Difficult-No-Feedback task, we found a significant effect of learning duration ( β  = −1.6, p  = 0.009) which interacted with self-esteem ( β  = −1.04, p  = 0.026) on task choices. For all other five out of six task pairings, there were no significant interactions with self-esteem (all β  < 0.12, all p  > 0.34).

Finally, we found no effect of learning duration on end-of-block task ratings for five out of six of the task pairings (Fig. 4b ) (all β  < 0.012, all p  > 0.16), with the exception of when an Easy-Feedback task was paired with an Easy-No-Feedback task ( β  = −0.018, p  = 0.033). We also found no interactions between self-esteem and learning duration (abs( β ) < 0.012, all p  > 0.15) on task ratings. Together these findings indicate that participants’ self-performance estimates were mostly insensitive to task duration, suggesting participants rapidly form an estimate of their expectations of success at the beginning of each block of trials and that the manner in which they do so is relatively insensitive to self-esteem level.

Humans construct beliefs about themselves and their abilities across many levels of abstraction, encompassing not only global constructs such as self-esteem but also self-performance estimates on a given task [ 5 ]. Having a favorable appraisal of oneself is a key component of mental well-being [ 1 , 2 ]. We previously proposed a hierarchical framework in which self-esteem acts as a global prior to self-performance estimates for a given task [ 10 ]. Here, we sought behavioral evidence that bears on this framework by relating self-esteem, a global construct, to subjective self-performance estimates created during tasks performed over a shorter temporal duration. To do this we leveraged a perceptual task for which we previously characterized how participants provide self-performance estimates [ 8 ].

We replicated our previous findings showing participants’ self-performance estimates are sensitive to task difficulty, feedback, and fluctuations in objective task performance. We further showed that participants with low self-esteem provide lower subjective task ratings than those with high self-esteem, in the absence of a main effect of self-esteem on objective performance. We compared a low self-esteem group with substantial problems to a healthy group of high self-esteem participants. Low self-esteem subjects’ propensity to consistently rate their performance as worse relative to those with high self-esteem—despite not performing any worse on objective measures—represents a candidate correlates of poor mental health. This disconnect between objective performance and its subjective evaluation may therefore be relevant for a better understanding of psychiatric disorders characterized by distortions in self-evaluation, as we further discuss below.

An important feature of our results is the absence of systematically lower performance in participants with low self-esteem across all experimental conditions of the design. This indicates a selective and consistent link between self-esteem and biases in confidence, uncontaminated by differences in performance. However, we did find a small, but significant, interaction between Difficulty and Self-Esteem in first-order task performance. One possible explanation for this effect is that lower expectations of self-performance may lead participants to engage less effort in the task, and thus display worse perceptual performance. In turn, such a cycle could become reinforcing, with lower perceptual performance further decreasing subjective task ratings. However, given the absence of systematic differences in performance between each of the four conditions of the design, we consider this alternative hypothesis less likely in light of our entire set of findings. More generally, this decoupling indicates that differences in global self-performance estimate stemmed from a metacognitive bias as opposed to a rational updating of confidence as a function of objectively lowered performance. This is a key insight as while previous reports have indicated that low self-esteem individuals also underestimate their performance on familiar tasks, it has remained unclear whether this is a consequence of negative self-beliefs, or due to negative experiences with the task at hand (for a review, see ref. [ 28 ]).

In the present study, a lack of a clear influence of low self-esteem on performance may reflect participants’ having limited experience with the perceptual task. We leveraged the fact that presumably, nobody had encountered the current perceptual task before in order to minimize prior beliefs about expected performance, thereby allowing us to isolate a ‘pure’ effect of self-esteem. Instead, had it been a memory task, for instance, participants might have retrieved and relied on general prior beliefs about their memory abilities [ 29 ]. The type of perceptual task we exploit is also likely to preclude influences seen in other cognitive domains, such as mathematics anxiety [ 30 ] or pervasive social effects such as stereotype threat (a perceived risk of confirming negative stereotypes about abilities associated with one’s social group) that are thought to influence subsequent performance [ 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, it is possible that relationships between self-esteem and task self-performance estimates may become even tighter in real-life metacognitive evaluations.

A key advantage of the current metacognitive task is that this difference can be interpreted through the lens of differential contributions to self-performance estimate formation. Although we cannot draw strong conclusions from non-significant findings, the lack of systematic statistical interactions between self-esteem and experimental factors (feedback presence, difficulty level) on self-performance estimates indicates participants with low self-esteem were not impaired in building self-performance estimates from task-specific factors. Specifically, they were also able to update self-performance estimates in the absence of feedback, indicating that they preserve an ability to track fluctuations in local confidence. Instead, participants with low self-esteem displayed a general underestimation of their performance as seen in subjective task ratings, independently of feedback condition and difficulty level. This result is consistent with a recent study showing that overall confidence in a perceptual task was associated with self-esteem score, in the absence of a relationship between self-esteem and metacognitive sensitivity (i.e., how well confidence tracks performance in the absence of feedback) [ 33 ]. Other studies have reported that self-esteem affects sensitivity to feedback, suggesting that high self-esteem may act as a ‘buffer’ against negative feedback [ 34 ]. Low self-esteem participants were found to provide self-worth ratings that are more sensitive to social evaluative feedback [ 7 ] or achievement feedback [ 34 ], although the type of feedback and task scope were substantially different from those of the current study. More generally, our results show that low and high self-esteem individuals continue to form global confidence estimates in a similar manner despite continuing to differ in their overall evaluation. This result is non-trivial and helps to delineate the source of confidence biases in self-esteem (as a generalized bias that appears to go beyond the influence of local task factors).

Many clinical and subclinical psychiatric symptoms are associated with alterations to various aspects of metacognition [ 35 , 36 ]. Low self-esteem is a robust predictor of concurrent and future mental health disorders, particularly those associated with negative cognitions and affect as expressed in anxious and depressive symptoms [ 1 ]. Importantly, the participants in our sample did not have a formal mental health diagnosis, providing some evidence that the observed associations between self-esteem and lower subjective performance ratings are likely to be explained by low self-esteem alone, rather than factors associated with patient status, such as stigma, the impact of therapy or medication. Notably, a previous study reported that self-esteem predicted overall confidence on a perceptual task in an online general population sample, even after controlling for depressive symptoms [ 33 ]. As is typically the case, here and in our previous study [ 7 ], self-esteem groups differed on trait anxiety, state anxiety, depression, and social anxiety, reflecting existing associations between low self-esteem and these symptoms. Indeed, in the DSM-V, a lowered sense of self-worth is one of the core diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Likewise, self-esteem and self-efficacy are typically strongly decreased in depression and anxiety disorders. The ecological validity of our sample, therefore, does not allow us to distinguish a specific impact of self-esteem from unique shifts in co-morbid anxiety or depression levels, which are known to be tightly linked in longitudinal studies [ 2 ]. In another study using a dimensional approach, we identified lower levels of trial-by-trial decision confidence in subclinical participants who displayed higher scores on an “anxious-depression” transdiagnostic dimension [ 37 ]. It remains to be explored whether this alteration in decision confidence might generalize to more global aspects of metacognition, such as the self-performance estimates measured here [ 38 ]. However, to the extent that self-esteem is related to negative affective symptoms, the present results showing a link between low self-esteem and lower subjective task ratings provides initial evidence this may indeed be the case. Furthermore, in previous work, we have shown that global SPEs in a similar task are sensitive to trial-to-trial fluctuations in decision confidence [ 8 , 9 ]—suggesting factors that influence baseline decision confidence are also likely to influence global metacognition.

Similarly, previous work has provided evidence that other aspects of metacognition are shifted in the context of negative affective symptoms. A previous study of social anxiety documented a lack of a positivity bias—a tendency to overweight positive as compared to negative feedback—when processing feedback from a social task involving giving a speech in front of judges [ 39 ]. To the extent that social anxiety and low self-esteem are linked, these results suggest a similar lack of a positivity bias in learning may be linked to low self-esteem. Finally, in a face discrimination task participants with high anxiety manifest different feedback-related negativity correlates in EEG recordings following evaluative feedback, as compared to participants with low anxiety [ 40 ]. This indicates that anxiety might disrupt an evaluative component of performance monitoring, which we expect would extend to low self-esteem to the extent that anxiety and lowered self-esteem overlap. Another previous study provided empirical evidence that participants with depression differed in their cognitive reappraisal of positive information, suggested to be underpinned by a reduced integration of positive prediction errors [ 41 ]. In light of unexpected positive feedback about their own performance on a test, healthy participants positively updated their beliefs, whereas participants with depression did not change these task expectations [ 42 ]. To the extent that low self-esteem and depression overlap, a similar mechanism could partly explain our findings: participants with low self-esteem may not update their self-performance estimates following positive feedback as much as those with high self-esteem. However, we note that the impact of task factors on the formation of global estimates did not differ between self-esteem groups, so this hypothesis remains to be tested.

Replicating ours and others’ previous studies we found that task choices were sensitive to fluctuations in performance [ 8 , 9 , 43 ], an effect that remained when controlling for self-esteem level. We note that, unlike task ratings, the need to make binary task choices forces participants to separate between higher and lower self-performance estimates, even if self-performance on both tasks are close at the end of a block. This implies that any baseline shift in self-performance estimates that is common to both tasks may not manifest in task choices—possibly explaining why only ratings, but not choices, were sensitive to self-esteem level. We also replicate our previous result that learning duration did not systematically affect task choices [ 8 ] and extend this finding to the case of task ratings (Fig. 4 ). Although here we did not measure participants’ precision or confidence in their subjective task ratings, it is possible that uncertainty around expected performance decreases with learning duration, as participants have more samples to inform their self-performance estimates. Our analyses compared participants with high and low self-esteem levels. It would be interesting to examine whether there are any non-linear relationships between task factors, self-performance estimates, and self-esteem in a sample consisting of low, average, and high self-esteem participants.

While here we investigated the formation of global self-performance estimates over the course of short learning blocks, future work is needed, particularly using longitudinal measurements, to examine how global self-performance estimates develop over longer timescales [ 2 ] and impact subsequent metacognitive judgments [ 44 ]. This can provide a window onto the formation and maintenance of global dispositions that evolve across weeks or months, such as self-esteem itself [ 5 ]. In the present study, participants spanned a limited age range and it remains unknown how the formation of experimental self-performance estimates mirrors the maintenance and update of self-esteem across the lifespan. Some of these effects may be specific to adolescence, as previous work has shown that perceptual metacognitive sensitivity continues to mature in the 11-17 years old range [ 45 ]. In our sample, only a few people (<10%) shifted their reported self-esteem sufficiently to move between the self-esteem groups over the course of a couple of years. Nevertheless, it remains to be established how malleable such self-constructs are, though the lack of interactions between self-esteem and feedback in our experiment suggests a certain degree of stability or rigidity. Under a hierarchical framework, it is plausible that higher, more global, levels are more temporally stable whereas lower levels such as local decision confidence or self-performance estimates on individual tasks may be more malleable [ 5 , 46 ].

Metacognition operates across many levels of abstraction, from local confidence in individual decisions to self-performance estimates on a particular task, to global self-evaluations such as self-esteem. However, the relationships among these levels remain to be characterized. Our approach was to recruit participants from a community sample and use a task for which participants had no prior experience, academic stakes, or relevance, enabling us to isolate an effect of self-esteem on self-performance estimates that was distinct from other factors typically present in patient studies. Our study, therefore, connects two of these levels of metacognition in a simple lab-based task, disconnected from real-life evaluations, and finds that low self-esteem is associated with lower subjective performance estimates.

Data availability

Participants’ group-level data for statistical analyses are available at https://www.github.com/marionrouault/RouaultWillFlemingDolan/. Participants did not provide written consent regarding the posting of their anonymized data on public repositories; however, the raw datasets are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

MATLAB code for statistical analyses are available at https://www.github.com/marionrouault/RouaultWillFlemingDolan/ .

Orth U, Robins RW, Roberts BW. Low self-esteem prospectively predicts depression in adolescence and young adulthood. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2008;95:695–708.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sowislo JF, Orth U. Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bull. 2013;139:213.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Rev. 1977;84:191.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Di Paula A, Campbell JD. Self-esteem and persistence in the face of failure. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2002;83:711.

Seow TX, Rouault M, Gillan CM, Fleming SM. How local and global metacognition shape mental health. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;90:436–46.

Will G-J, Rutledge RB, Moutoussis M, Dolan RJ. Neural and computational processes underlying dynamic changes in self-esteem. eLife. 2017;6:e28098.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Will G-J, Moutoussis M, Womack PM, Bullmore ET, Goodyer IM, Fonagy P, et al. Neurocomputational mechanisms underpinning aberrant social learning in young adults with low self-esteem. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10:1–14.

Rouault M, Dayan P, Fleming SM. Forming global estimates of self-performance from local confidence. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1141.

Rouault M, Fleming SM. Formation of global self-beliefs in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:27268–76.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rouault M, McWilliams A, Allen MG, Fleming SM. Human metacognition across domains: insights from individual differences and neuroimaging. Personal Neurosci. 2018;1:e17–13.

Stephan KE, Manjaly ZM, Mathys CD, Weber LA, Paliwal S, Gard T, et al. Allostatic self-efficacy: a metacognitive theory of dyshomeostasis-induced fatigue and depression. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:550.

Vinckier F, Rigoux L, Oudiette D, Pessiglione M. Neuro-computational account of how mood fluctuations arise and affect decision making. Nat. Commun . 2018;9:1–12.

Cheng H, Furnham A. Perceived parental rearing style, self-esteem and self-criticism as predictors of happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2004;5:1–21.

Kiddle B, Inkster B, Prabhu G, Moutoussis M, Whitaker KJ, Bullmore ET, et al. Cohort profile: the NSPN 2400 cohort: a developmental sample supporting the Wellcome Trust NeuroScience in Psychiatry Network. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47:18–19g.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hula A, Moutoussis M, Will G-J, Kokorikou D, Reiter AM, Ziegler G, et al. Multi-round trust game quantifies inter-individual differences in social exchange from adolescence to adulthood. Computational Psychiatry. 2021;5:102–18.

Ziegler G, Hauser TU, Moutoussis M, Bullmore ET, Goodyer IM, Fonagy P, et al. Compulsivity and impulsivity traits linked to attenuated developmental frontostriatal myelination trajectories. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22:992–9.

Rosenberg M. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance Commit Ther Measures package. 1965;61:18.

Google Scholar  

Somerville LH, Kelley WM, Heatherton TF. Self-esteem modulates medial prefrontal cortical responses to evaluative social feedback. Cereb Cortex. 2010;20:3005–13.

Yang J, Xu X, Chen Y, Shi Z, Han S. Trait self-esteem and neural activities related to self-evaluation and social feedback. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–10.

Yang J, Dedovic K, Chen W, Zhang Q. Self-esteem modulates dorsal anterior cingulate cortical response in self-referential processing. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:1267–70.

Van Schie CC, Chiu C-D, Rombouts SA, Heiser WJ, Elzinga BM. When compliments do not hit but critiques do: an fMRI study into self-esteem and self-knowledge in processing social feedback. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2018;13:404–17.

Onoda K, Okamoto Y, Nakashima K, Nittono H, Yoshimura S, Yamawaki S, et al. Does low self-esteem enhance social pain? The relationship between trait self-esteem and anterior cingulate cortex activation induced by ostracism. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010;5:385–91.

Kashdan TB, DeWall CN, Masten CL, Pond RS Jr, Powell C, Combs D, et al. Who is most vulnerable to social rejection? The toxic combination of low self-esteem and lack of negative emotion differentiation on neural responses to rejection. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e90651.

Gyurak A, Hooker CI, Miyakawa A, Verosky S, Luerssen A, Ayduk ÖN. Individual differences in neural responses to social rejection: the joint effect of self-esteem and attentional control. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012;7:322–31.

Frewen PA, Lundberg E, Brimson-Théberge M, Théberge J. Neuroimaging self-esteem: a fMRI study of individual differences in women. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013;8:546–55.

Chavez RS, Heatherton TF. Structural integrity of frontostriatal connections predicts longitudinal changes in self-esteem. Soc Neurosci. 2017;12:280–6.

Chavez RS, Heatherton TF. Multimodal frontostriatal connectivity underlies individual differences in self-esteem. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10:364–70.

Baumeister RF, Campbell JD, Krueger JI, Vohs KD. Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Sci Public Interest. 2003;4:1–44.

Hu X, Zheng J, Su N, Fan T, Yang C, Yin Y, et al . A Bayesian inference model for metamemory. Psychol Rev. 2021;128:824–85.

Desender K, Sasanguie D. Math anxiety relates positively to metacognitive insight into mathematical decision making. Psychol Res. 2021;86:1001–13.

Huguet P, Régner I. Counter-stereotypic beliefs in math do not protect school girls from stereotype threat. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009;45:1024–7.

Gajdos T, Régner I, Huguet P, Hainguerlot M, Vergnaud J-C, Sackur J, et al. Does social context impact metacognition? Evidence from stereotype threat in a visual search task. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0215050.

Moses-Payne ME, Rollwage M, Fleming SM, Roiser JP. Postdecision evidence integration and depressive symptoms. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:639.

Brown JD. High self-esteem buffers negative feedback: once more with feeling. Cognition Emot. 2010;24:1389–404.

David AS, Bedford N, Wiffen B, Gilleen J. Failures of metacognition and lack of insight in neuropsychiatric disorders. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012;367:1379–90.

Hoven M, Lebreton M, Engelmann JB, Denys D, Luigjes J, van Holst RJ. Abnormalities of confidence in psychiatry: an overview and future perspectives. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9:1–18.

Rouault M, Seow T, Gillan CM, Fleming SM. Psychiatric symptom dimensions are associated with dissociable shifts in metacognition but not task performance. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84:443–51.

Hoven M, Denys D, Rouault M, Luigjes J, van Holst R. How do confidence and self-beliefs relate in psychopathology: a transdiagnostic approach. [Preprint]. 2022.

Koban L, Schneider R, Ashar YK, Andrews-Hanna JR, Landy L, Moscovitch DA, et al. Social anxiety is characterized by biased learning about performance and the self. Emotion. 2017;17:1144.

Aarts K, Pourtois G. Anxiety disrupts the evaluative component of performance monitoring: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:1286–96.

Kube T, Schwarting R, Rozenkrantz L, Glombiewski JA, Rief W. Distorted cognitive processes in major depression: a predictive processing perspective. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87:388–98.

Kube T, Rief W, Gollwitzer M, Gärtner T, Glombiewski JA. Why dysfunctional expectations in depression persist–Results from two experimental studies investigating cognitive immunization. Psychol Med. 2019;49:1532–44.

Lee AL, de Gardelle V, Mamassian P. Global visual confidence. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021;28:1233–42.

Sherman M, Seth A. Effects of expected task difficulty on metacognitive confidence and multitasking. [Preprint]. 2021.

Weil LG, Fleming SM, Dumontheil I, Kilford EJ, Weil RS, Rees G, et al. The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Conscious Cognition. 2013;22:264–71.

Kiebel SJ, Daunizeau J, Friston KJ. A hierarchy of time-scales and the brain. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4:e1000209.

Download references

Acknowledgements

For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a CC-BY public copyright license to any author-accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. MR is the beneficiary of a postdoctoral fellowship from the AXA Research Fund. MR’s work is also supported by a department-wide grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0017, EUR FrontCog). This work has received support under the program «Investissements d’Avenir» launched by the French Government and implemented by ANR (ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL). G-JW was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement (No 707404) and the Sara van Dam z.l. Foundation, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences. SMF is supported by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and Royal Society (206648/Z/17/Z). The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z). The Max Planck UCL Centre is a joint initiative supported by UCL and the Max Planck Society. The authors would like to thank Aislinn Bowler, Alexandra Hopkins, and Palee Womack for their assistance during recruitment and data collection.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Marion Rouault, Geert-Jan Will.

Authors and Affiliations

Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL University, 75005, Paris, France

Marion Rouault

Laboratoire de neurosciences cognitives et computationnelles, Département d’études cognitives, ENS, INSERM, PSL University, 75005, Paris, France

Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Geert-Jan Will

Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, London, UK

Stephen M. Fleming & Raymond J. Dolan

Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, London, UK

Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK

Stephen M. Fleming

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MR, G-JW, and SMF; Data collection: G-JW, Methodology: MR, G-JW, and SMF; Formal analysis: MR; Investigation: MR and G-JW; Writing—original draft: MR; Writing—review & editing: G-JW, SMF, and RJD; Funding acquisition: SMF and RJD.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion Rouault .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rouault, M., Will, GJ., Fleming, S.M. et al. Low self-esteem and the formation of global self-performance estimates in emerging adulthood. Transl Psychiatry 12 , 272 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02031-8

Download citation

Received : 29 September 2021

Revised : 15 June 2022

Accepted : 17 June 2022

Published : 11 July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02031-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

R425 first year student nurses ‘experience of encounters with death of a patient during clinical placement.

• Lebogang Molefe

BMC Nursing (2024)

Neural and computational underpinnings of biased confidence in human reinforcement learning

• Chih-Chung Ting
• Nahuel Salem-Garcia
• Maël Lebreton

Nature Communications (2023)

How do confidence and self-beliefs relate in psychopathology: a transdiagnostic approach

• Monja Hoven
• Judy Luigjes
• Ruth J. van Holst

Nature Mental Health (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Self-esteem and academic engagement among adolescents: a moderated mediation model.

• 1 Mental Health Education Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
• 2 School of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
• 3 School of Education, Hengshui University, Hengshui, China
• 4 School of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China

As an important predictor of academic achievement and an effective indicator of learning quality, academic engagement has attracted the attention of researchers. The present study explores the relationship among adolescent self-esteem and academic engagement, the mediating effect of academic self-efficacy, and the moderating effect of perceived social support. Four-hundred and eighty adolescents ( M age = 14.92) from the Hebei Province of China were recruited to complete anonymous questionnaires. The results show that self-esteem positively predicted adolescent academic engagement through the indirect mediating role of academic self-efficacy, and the percentage of this mediation effect of the total effect was 73.91%. As a second-stage moderator, perceived social support moderated the mediating effect of academic self-efficacy. Specifically, when students felt more perceived social support, the impact of academic self-efficacy on their academic engagement was greater. Our findings suggest that adolescent self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, and perceived social support are key factors that should be considered together to improve adolescent academic engagement. Therefore, parents and school educators should actively guide adolescents to improve their self-esteem and academic self-efficacy. Parents and educators should also construct an effective social support system to improve students’ perceived social support and enhance their academic engagement.

Introduction

With the development of positive psychology, human strengths and positive psychological qualities have received widespread attention. Researchers have focused on the positive opposite of burnout – “engagement” – which is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ). Academic engagement extends the concept of engagement, and it refers to the degree to which students engage in educational learning tasks (such as school-related coursework and learning activities) in the process of formal education ( George, 2009 ). Existing literature suggests that high academic engagement promotes academic achievement ( Johnson and Sinatra, 2013 ), improves physical and mental health ( Wefald and Downey, 2009 ), enhances students’ school adjustment ability ( Wang and Fredricks, 2014 ), and reduces students’ dropout decisions ( Fan and Williams, 2010 ). On the contrary, low academic engagement among adolescents can lead to academic failure, dropping out of school, drug abuse, juvenile crime, and the increase of negative emotions such as anxiety and depression ( Leslie et al., 2010 ; Li and Lerner, 2011 ).

Adolescence is a sensitive and critical period of development ( Blackwell et al., 2007 ), during which adolescents bear heavy schoolwork pressure while also adapting to significant physical and psychological changes. Some adolescents often experience recurring negative emotions such as anxiety and depression ( Sahin, 2014 ). In the Chinese education system, the phenomenon of examination-oriented education is serious. The standard of educational evaluation is single which takes score as only standard and much utilitarian awareness on violating nature of education exists in current education ( Wang, 2004 ). Adolescents’ academic performance is regarded as a critical indicator of their ability to learn ( Christenson et al., 2012 ). Researchers have explored the psychological factors (other than classroom teaching and learning methods) that affect academic performance, and this scholarship has concluded that academic engagement can effectively predict students’ current academic performance ( Hershberger and Jones, 2018 ) and also influence their future functional growth ( Fredricks et al., 2016 ).

However, we reviewed the relevant literature and found that the research on academic engagement has focused generally on college students. Specifically, it has focused on the characteristics of the class environment, such as the teacher-student relationship ( Yang and Lamb, 2014 ) and peer relationships ( Fredricks et al., 2004 ), and the characteristics of the family environment, such as family socioeconomic status ( Randolph et al., 2006 ) and family support ( Blondal and Adalbjarnardottir, 2014 ). There has been little research focus on the relationship between individual characteristics and academic engagement ( Li and Li, 2021 ). Self-esteem and self-efficacy have been confirmed to have an impact on academic engagement, but there is no research to confirm the respective contributions of these two factors, or on their combined impact on academic engagement. Moreover, research on the regulating mechanism of academic engagement is sparse. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the influence of the psychological factors that regulate or intervene in the academic engagement of adolescents; to fully consider the supportive resources of family, school, and society; and to put forward a plan to improve adolescent academic engagement that helps adolescents navigate the sensitive and critical period of adolescence more smoothly.

Self-Esteem and Academic Engagement

Self-esteem is the evaluation of an individual’s beliefs and attitudes toward his or her abilities and values ( Rosenberg, 1965 ). Self-esteem during adolescence tends to be unstable, because of the many changes that occur in the adolescents’ roles and responsibilities. Self-esteem tends to decline in early adolescence and recover in the middle and later stages of adolescence ( Trzesniewski et al., 2003 ). Adolescents with high levels of self-esteem tend to experience positive self-experiences ( Peng et al., 2019 ), high-quality interpersonal relationships ( Cameron and Granger, 2019 ), and better physical and mental health ( Li et al., 2010 ).

As a basic psychological structure, self-esteem can serve as a motivator for academic engagement ( Lim and Lee, 2017 ). Expectancy-value theory suggests that individuals’ positive self-evaluation can predict academic outcomes, such as academic engagement ( Fang, 2016 ). A study by Sirin and Rogers-Sirin (2015) showed that self-esteem affected the fields related to academic engagement, and that there was a significant positive correlation between self-esteem and academic engagement. The research data of Filippello et al. (2019) found that self-esteem can predict a person’s level of academic engagement. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: Self-esteem positively predicts adolescent academic engagement.

Academic Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Academic Engagement

Another term related to academic engagement that has also attracted widespread research attention is academic self-efficacy. Schunk (2003) defined this term as a student’s judgment of his or her ability to complete an academic task. Alivernini and Lucidi (2011) posited that academic self-efficacy reflected students’ cognitive ability in their academic fields and predicted academic achievement. Many studies have shown that academic self-efficacy has an impact on students’ academic engagement ( Uçar and Sungur, 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ). On the one hand, academic self-efficacy affects students’ academic efforts and persistence. Compared with students with low levels of academic self-efficacy, students with high levels of academic self-efficacy commit to higher goals and academic expectations, have stronger resistance to frustration, and demonstrate greater persistence when facing difficulties ( Wright et al., 2012 ). On the other hand, students’ confidence in their academic ability can influence their participation in school activities and learning tasks ( Eccles and Wigfield, 2002 ). Students who are confident in their academic abilities will put more effort into academic tasks, while those who lack self-confidence will be less engaged in their studies and are more likely to give up.

As mentioned in section “Self-Esteem and Academic Engagement,” self-esteem has a significant impact on academic engagement. However, it remains to be further explored how self-esteem influences academic engagement and what internal mechanism drives this relationship. Self-efficacy theory posits that academic self-efficacy is a motivational factor that can induce and maintain adaptive learning behaviors ( Ruzek et al., 2016 ). Whether self-esteem can affect adolescents’ academic engagement through academic self-efficacy is worthy of in-depth discussion.

Self-esteem and self-efficacy are connected but different concepts ( Judge and Bono, 2001 ). Self-esteem is a positive evaluation of one’s value and importance; that is, an individual’s evaluation of “being a person.” Self-efficacy is the speculation and judgment about whether a person can complete a certain task, and it is the evaluation of the individual’s ability to “do things,” based on experiences in specific activities. Previous literature has shown a significant positive correlation between self-esteem and academic self-efficacy ( Batool et al., 2017 ). Students with positive self-esteem have higher levels of academic self-efficacy ( Pahlavani et al., 2015 ). Both self-esteem and academic self-efficacy affect individual academic engagement, and self-esteem is closely related to academic self-efficacy; therefore, we can reasonably assume that academic self-efficacy is likely to play a mediating role between self-esteem and academic engagement. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H2: Academic self-efficacy mediates the association between self-esteem and adolescent academic engagement.

Perceived Social Support, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Academic Engagement

Although self-esteem may affect adolescents’ academic engagement through academic self-efficacy, this effect varies from person to person. Perceived social support refers to the individual’s feelings and evaluation of the degree of support he or she receives from family, friends, and important others ( Zimet et al., 1988 ). Social learning theory ( Bandura, 1977 ) suggests that others’ guidance, expectations, and support will affect an individual’s self-efficacy. Academic engagement plays an important role in individual development, but it is malleable and does not always occur autonomously. When individuals perceive high levels of external support and expectations, their positive learning motivation can be stimulated ( Gettens et al., 2018 ), and the strength of this learning motivation has an important impact on students’ academic engagement ( Liu et al., 2009 ).

However, the existing literature lacks the exploration of the mechanism of the impact of perceived social support on academic self-efficacy. Existing studies have shown that perceived social support can regulate the relationship between self-efficacy and learning goals ( Bagci, 2016 ): in the case of high levels of perceived social support, students’ self-efficacy can effectively predict learning goals, and the establishment of learning goals is conducive to students’ academic engagement ( King et al., 2013 ). Similar to the studies described above, we expect the following:

H3: Perceived social support moderates the relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement.

To sum up, we proposed a moderated mediation model (see Figure 1 ).

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The testers were trained in advance to ensure that they fully understood the requirements and precautions of the test. In the present study, the method of cluster sampling was used to invite all of the students of the junior high school grades 7, 8, and 9; all of the students of the senior high school grades 10 and 11; and of two schools in Hebei, China to participate in this study. They were asked to complete the questionnaires anonymously after the informed consent was obtained from the schools, teachers, and parents. Oral informed consent was obtained from each participant, and the participants were permitted to refuse to participate in the study. A total of 520 students voluntarily finished the questionnaires, of which 480 provided valid data (92.31%). Among them, 220 (45.8%) were male students, and 260 (54.2%) were female students. In age, participants ranged from 13 to 17 years, with an average age of 14.92 years ( SD = 1.47). One-hundred and nineteen students were from grade 7, accounting for 24.8% of the total; 86 students were from grade 8, accounting for 17.9% of the total; 88 students were from grade 9, accounting for 18.3% of the total; 89 students were from grade 10, accounting for 18.5% of the total; and 98 students were from grade 11, accounting for 20.4% of the total. All materials and procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the corresponding author’s institution.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965 ). This scale consists of a total of 10 items rated on 4-point scales from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). The total score can range from 10 to 40, with higher scores representing higher self-esteem. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.796, indicating an internally reliable scale.

Academic Engagement

The Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S; Gan et al., 2007 ) was used in this study, and the initial version was developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) . The UWES-S is a 17-item scale consisting of three factors: Vigor (six items), Dedication (five items), and Absorption (six items). Participants responded to the items on a 7-point scale from never (0) to every day (6), with higher scores representing higher levels of engagement. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the total scale was high (0.943), and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the three subscales of Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption were 0.846, 0.843, and 0.862, respectively.

Perceived Social Support

The Chinese version of the Perceived Social Support Scale (PSSS; Yan and Zheng, 2006 ) was used in this study, and the initial version was developed by Zimet et al. (1990) . The PSSS is a 12-item scale that measures an individual’s subjective perception of social support from family, friends, and others. Participants responded on a 7-point scale ranging from complete disagreement (1) to complete agreement (7). The total score of the PSSS ranged from 12 to 84, with the higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived social support. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the PSSS in our study was 0.897.

Academic Self-Efficacy

The Chinese version of the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES; Liang, 2000 ) was used in this study, and the initial version was developed by Pintrich and De Groot (1990) . This scale consists of a total of 22 items rated on a 5-point scale from complete disagreement (1) to complete agreement (5), with higher scores representing greater academic self-efficacy. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.848.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using version 22 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and PROCESS macro 3.3 ( Hayes, 2017 ) in this study. Before the analyses, all continuous variables were mean-centered. First, for all variables, the descriptive statistics and a bivariate correlation analysis were conducted in the SPSS. Then, PROCESS Model 4 ( Hayes, 2017 ) was used to examine the mediating role of academic self-efficacy. Next, regarding the analysis of moderated mediation, a moderated mediation analysis was examined using PROCESS Model 14 ( Hayes, 2017 ). Finally, we conducted a simple slope analysis to test whether the mediation effect of academic self-efficacy was different at different levels of the moderator variable. The dummy coded gender (1 = male and 2 = female) was the control variable in this analysis. Percentile bootstrap confidence intervals were calculated based on 5,000 samples.

Check for Common Method Bias

This study adopts Harman’s one-factor test ( Zhou and Long, 2004 ) to examine common method biases. Unrotated factor analysis showed that 11 factors were generated and could explain 61.46% of the total variance. The first principal factor explained 23.4% of the variance, which is less than 40%, indicating that there was no serious common method bias in this study.

Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 shows the means, SD, and Pearson correlations for all of the variables. Pearson correlation analyses revealed that self-esteem was positively correlated with academic engagement ( r = 0.23, p < 0.01) and academic self-efficacy ( r = 0.36, p < 0.01), and academic engagement was positively correlated with academic self-efficacy ( r = 0.52, p < 0.01).

Table 1 . Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.

Testing for Mediation

Table 2A shows the mediation analysis results. After controlling for covariates (gender and age), the results showed that in the first step, self-esteem positively predicted academic engagement, β = 0.23, p < 0.001 (Model 1 in Table 2A ). In the second step, self-esteem positively predicted academic self-efficacy, β = 0.36, p < 0.001 (Model 2 in Table 2A ). In the third step, academic self-efficacy positively predicted academic engagement, β = 0.47, p < 0.001 (Model 3 in Table 2A ). Finally, the biased-corrected percentile bootstrap method was used to show that the indirect effect of self-esteem on academic engagement through academic self-efficacy was significant, ab = 0.17, SE = 0.03, and 95% CI = [0.12, 0.23], the direct effect of self-esteem on academic engagement was not significant, c ’ = 0.06, SE = 0.04, and 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.15], as shown in Table 2B . Therefore, academic self-efficacy fully mediated the relationship between self-esteem and academic engagement. The percentage of this mediation effect of the total effect was 73.91%. These results support Hypotheses 1 and 2 (see Tables 2A and 2B ; Figure 1 ).

Table 2A . Mediation effects of academic self-efficacy on the relationship between self-esteem and academic engagement.

Table 2B . The bootstrapping analysis of the mediating effects.

Figure 1 . The proposed moderated mediation model.

Testing for the Moderated Mediation Model

Model 14 of the PROCESS macro ( Hayes, 2017 ) was used to examine the moderating role of perceived social support. Overall testing models are presented in Figure 2 , and the specific indirect effects are presented in Table 3A . The results showed that self-esteem positively predicted academic self-efficacy ( β = 0.36, p < 0.001); academic self-efficacy positively predicted academic engagement ( β = 0.47, p < 0.001); self-esteem and perceived social support did not predict academic engagement ( β = 0.05, p > 0.05; β = −0.01, p > 0.05, respectively); and the interaction effect of academic self-efficacy and perceived social support on academic engagement was significant ( β = 0.09, p < 0.05), and the index of the moderated mediation was 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.07], indicating that the association between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement was moderated by perceived social support.

Figure 2 . Path coefficients of the moderated mediation model. Covariates were included in the model but are not presented for simplicity. * p < 0.05; and *** p < 0.001.

Table 3A . Results of perceived social support moderate the mediation process.

We further conducted a simple slope analysis in SPSS 22.0 to explore the pattern of the moderating effect. Figure 3 presents the perceived social support (M ± SD) as a function of academic self-efficacy and academic engagement. The results indicate that academic self-efficacy was positively correlated with academic engagement for both adolescents with higher perceived social support ( B simple = 0.57, p < 0.001) and also for those with lower perceived social support ( B simple = 0.47, p < 0.001). Moreover, bias-corrected percentile bootstrap analysis revealed that the indirect effect was more significant for adolescents with higher perceived social support – β = 0.21, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.27] – than for those with lower perceived social support – β = 0.14, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.21], as shown in Table 3B . In sum, these results suggested that perceived social support moderated the relationship between self-esteem and academic engagement via academic self-efficacy, supporting Hypothesis 3.

Figure 3 . Perceived social support as a moderator on the relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement.

Table 3B . Conditional indirect effect of perceived social support when academic self-efficacy mediated between self-esteem and academic engagement.

The present study investigates the relationship between adolescent self-esteem and academic engagement in order to clarify how the potential mechanism of self-esteem might predict academic engagement. As expected, the results demonstrate (1) a positive association between self-esteem and academic engagement, (2) the mediating effect of academic self-efficacy, and (3) the moderating effect of perceived social support. Moreover, the mediating effect of academic self-efficacy was distinguished as being affected by different levels of perceived social support.

Self-Esteem and Academic Engagement of Adolescents

The results show that adolescent self-esteem positively predicts academic engagement. High levels of self-esteem can increase the academic engagement of adolescents; these results support our hypothesis and validate the expectancy-value theory. Individuals with high levels of self-esteem set stricter standards and only consider themselves “good enough” when they met those standards, resulting in positive self-evaluation and increasing academic engagement ( Filippello et al., 2019 ). From another perspective, individuals with high levels of self-esteem can effectively alleviate the negative academic emotions caused by high expectations ( Kort-Butler and Hagewen, 2011 ).

The path coefficient between self-esteem and academic engagement was no longer significant after adding the mediating variable (academic self-efficacy), indicating that the influence of self-esteem on academic engagement was entirely through academic self-efficacy. Achievement motivation theory believes that self-esteem can significantly predict individual achievement motivation ( Accordino et al., 2000 ), but there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between motivation level and behavior performance. Only moderate motivation can make individual behavior performance the best. Therefore, self-esteem may not directly predict adolescents’ academic engagement.

The Mediating Role of Academic Self-Efficacy

This study found that academic self-efficacy played a complete intermediary role between adolescent self-esteem and academic engagement, which verifies our research hypothesis and echoes the research conclusions of other scholars ( Pahlavani et al., 2015 ; Uçar and Sungur, 2017 ).

The self-esteem level and stability of adolescents are relatively low ( Zhang et al., 2010 ), but most previous studies focused on the self-esteem of other ages, and few studies showed how the self-esteem of adolescents affects their academic engagement. This study shows that adolescent self-esteem does not have a direct effect on academic engagement; rather, it indirectly affects academic engagement through the influence of academic self-efficacy. Students with high self-esteem have higher self-cognition and academic self-efficacy. They can better regulate all aspects of available resources ( Ouweneel et al., 2011 ) and thus achieve their academic expectations and ultimately increase their engagement in learning.

The Moderating Role of Perceived Social Support

Consistent with our hypotheses, perceived social support moderated the association between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement. Compared with adolescents with a low level of perceived social support, the academic self-efficacy of those with a high level of perceived social support had a more significant predictive effect on academic engagement. Self-efficacy was a stable predictor of individual behavior, and academic engagement was influenced by perceived social support. The predictive effect of self-efficacy on adolescent academic engagement was changed by perceived social support.

Our findings fit with the hypothesis of the “protection factor-protection factor model” ( Fergus and Zimmerman, 2005 ). Academic self-efficacy and perceived social support are both found to be protective factors, and the two promote and strengthen each other. The higher the level of perceived social support, the greater the predictive effect of academic self-efficacy on academic engagement. The results also validated the academic engagement impact model ( Skinner and Belmont, 1993 ), which proposes that the satisfaction of students’ basic psychological needs (autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs) directly influences their academic engagement, and that an external support system affects students’ behavior by satisfying their basic psychological needs. When students establish harmonious and caring interpersonal relationships with surrounding individuals, their relatedness needs can be satisfied, which further stimulates positive behaviors such as hard work, persistence, and active participation ( Legault et al., 2006 ). Similarly, students in classroom situations are more likely to internalize learning motivation and participate in learning activities autonomously when they feel that their basic psychological needs are supported ( Niemiec and Ryan, 2009 ).

This study considered the effect of perceived social support on the relationship between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement from the perspective of interpersonal relationship; however, according to different psychological theories, there may be other factors affecting academic engagement. Family investment theory believes that family socioeconomic status reflects the situation of economic capital, human capital, and social capital in the family environment comprehensively, and affects the learning attitude of students ( Randolph et al., 2006 ). Family socioeconomic status has an impact on academic self-efficacy ( Artelt et al., 2003 ); therefore, family socioeconomic status may also play a moderating role between academic self-efficacy and academic engagement. To sum up, the factors affecting academic engagement should be systematically investigated from different perspectives.

Limitations and Implications

There are several limitations to this study. First, the cross-sectional survey design used in the present study could not infer or verify the causal relationships among variables; a longitudinal design could be used in future studies. Second, only the self-reporting method was adopted in this study. While our results showed that there was no serious common method deviation, future research should adopt multiple research methods to collect data, such as the interview method and other evaluation methods that involve other actors (teachers, classmates, and parents). Third, due to the limitations of human and financial resources, only students in Hebei Province were selected for the test. Future research will try to sample from all of China and discuss important demographic information about the participants.

Despite the limitations of this study, it has research value and significance. This research explored the relationship among self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, perceived social support, and academic engagement. Previous studies have involved only two or three of these variables; this study used four variables to study and build a reasonable model. This work explored academic self-efficacy plays a mediating role between self-esteem and academic engagement, and it also examines the moderating role of perceived social support, further deepening our understanding of how self-esteem affects academic engagement. The model proposed in this study is helpful for educators to pay more attention to adolescents’ self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, and academic engagement, so as to conduct better psychological intervention for adolescents with insufficient academic engagement.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study takes an important step toward investigating the mechanism of the influence of self-esteem on academic engagement by testing a moderated mediation model. Self-esteem may positively predict adolescent academic engagement indirectly through academic self-efficacy. Perceived social support was found to be a second-stage moderator, and the mediating effect of academic self-efficacy between self-esteem and adolescents’ academic engagement was found to be stronger for adolescents with higher levels of perceived social support.

Given these conclusions, we make the following recommendations. First, attention should be paid to the promotion of adolescent self-esteem and academic self-efficacy. Parents and teachers should encourage adolescents to make a positive self-cognition evaluation; they should assist them in setting reasonable learning goals and guide them to reasonable attributions of success and failure when they encounter setbacks. Second, parents and teachers should create a positive and supportive learning environment in which students feel adequately supported, encouraged, and recognized. Peer support groups that use the encouragement given by peers to make students feel part of a community of trust and support should be established. Third, parents and teachers should pay attention to the state of students’ academic engagement and guide adolescents who have low academic engagement, or who seem to be exhibiting weariness and truancy. The teaching design should be novel and interesting, and the teaching method should be suitable for the needs of the students. Discussion and debate can be used to help full engage the students in the class material.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

LZ contributed to conception and design of the study. YZ performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. LZ, CP, and ZZ revised it critically for important intellectual content. ZZ collected the raw data and organized the database. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was supported by Hebei Province Education Science Research “13th Five-Year Plan” Project (2003056).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., and Slaney, R. B. (2000). An investigation of perfectionism, mental health, achievement, and achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychol. Sch. 37, 535–545. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(200011)37:6<535::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2-O

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alivernini, F., and Lucidi, F. (2011). Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, academic achievement, and intention to drop out of high school: a longitudinal study. J. Educ. Res. 104, 241–252. doi: 10.1080/00220671003728062

Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvaney, N., and Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for Life . Paris: OECD.

Google Scholar

Bagci, S. C. (2016). Does everyone benefit equally from self-efficacy beliefs? The moderating role of perceived social support on motivation. J. Early Adolesc. 38, 1–16. doi: 10.1177/0272431616665213

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Batool, S. S., Khursheed, S., and Jahangir, H. (2017). Academic procrastination as a product of low self-esteem: a mediational role of academic self-efficacy. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 32, 195–211.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., and Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev. 78, 246–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blondal, K. S., and Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2014). Parenting in relation to school dropout through student engagement: a longitudinal study. J. Marriage Fam. 76, 778–795. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12125

Cameron, J. J., and Granger, S. (2019). Does self-esteem have an interpersonal imprint beyond self-reports? A meta-analysis of self-esteem and objective interpersonal indicators. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23, 73–102. doi: 10.1177/1088868318756532

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., and Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement . Boston, MA: Springer.

Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Fan, W., and Williams, C. M. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic self–efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educ. Psychol. 30, 53–74. doi: 10.1080/01443410903353302

Fang, L. (2016). Educational aspirations of Chinese migrant children: the role of self-esteem contextual and individual influences. Learn. Individ. Differ. 50, 195–202. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.009

Fergus, S., and Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: a framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu. Rev. Public Health 26, 399–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

Filippello, P., Buzzai, C., Sorrenti, L., Costa, S., Abramo, A., and Wang, K. T. (2019). Italian version of the Family Almost Perfect Scale: psychometric characteristics and relationships with academic engagement, self-esteem, and personal perfectionism. Appl. Dev. Sci. 1–13. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2019.1647106

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74, 59–109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., and Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learn. Instr. 43, 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002

Gan, Y., Yang, M., Zhou, Y., and Zhang, Y. (2007). The two-factor structure of future-oriented coping and its mediating role in student engagement. Pers. Individ. Differ. 43, 851–863. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.009

George, D. K. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 50, 683–706. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0099

Gettens, K. M., Noémie, C., Koestner, R., Powers, T. A., and Gorin, A. A. (2018). The role of partner autonomy support in motivation, well-being, and weight loss among women with higher baseline BMI. Fam. Syst. Health 36, 347–356. doi: 10.1037/fsh0000362

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach . New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hershberger, M. A., and Jones, M. H. (2018). The influence of social relationships and school engagement on academic achievement in maltreated adolescents. J. Adolesc. 67, 98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.003

Johnson, M. L., and Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Use of task-value instructional inductions for facilitating engagement and conceptual change. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 38, 51–63. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.09.003

Judge, T. A., and Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 80–92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

King, R. B., Mcinerney, D. M., and Watkins, D. A. (2013). Examining the role of social goals in school: a study in two collectivist cultures. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 1505–1523. doi: 10.1007/s10212-013-0179-0

Kort-Butler, L. A., and Hagewen, K. J. (2011). School-based extracurricular activity involvement and adolescent self-esteem: a growth-curve analysis. J. Youth Adolesc. 40, 568–581. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9551-4

Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., and Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 567–582. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567

Leslie, L. K., James, S., Monn, A., Kauten, M. C., Zhang, J., and Aarons, G. (2010). Health-risk behaviors in young adolescents in the child welfare system. J. Adolesc. Health 47, 26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.12.032

Li, H. C. W., Chan, S. L. P., Chung, O. K. J., and Chui, M. L. M. (2010). Relationships among mental health, self-esteem and physical health in Chinese adolescents and exploratory study. J. Health Psychol. 15, 96–106. doi: 10.1177/1359105309342601

Li, Y., and Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Dev. Psychol. 47, 233–247. doi: 10.1037/a0021307

Li, X., and Li, Y. (2021). Empirical research on foreign learning engagement based on systematic literature review. Mod. Distance Educ. Res. 33, 73–83. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2021.02.008

Liang, Y. S. (2000). Study on achievement goals, attribution styles and academic self-efficacy of Collage students. master’s thesis. Central China Normal University, Wuhan.

Lim, Y., and Lee, O. (2017). Relationships between parental maltreatment and adolescents’ school adjustment: mediating roles of self-esteem and peer attachment. J. Child Fam. Stud. 26, 393–404. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0573-8

Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., Tan, O. S., Koh, C., and Ee, J. (2009). A self-determination approach to understanding students’ motivation in project work. Learn. Individ. Differ. 19, 139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.002

Liu, H., Yao, M., Li, R., and Zhang, L. (2020). The relationship between regulatory focus and learning engagement. Educ. Psychol. 40, 430–447. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1618441

Niemiec, C. P., and Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory Res. Educ. 7, 133–144. doi: 10.1177/1477878509104318

Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Flourishing students: a longitudinal study on positive emotions, personal resources, and study engagement. J. Posit. Psychol. 6, 142–153. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2011.558847

Pahlavani, M., Nezhad, F. N., and Nezhad, N. N. (2015). Relationship between self-esteem with procrastination and self-efficacy among employers of professional and technical organization of Zahedan. Indian J. Fundam. Appl. Life Sci. 5, 4882–4891.

Peng, W., Li, D., Li, D., Jia, J., Wang, Y., and Sun, W. (2019). School disconnectedness and adolescent internet addiction: mediation by self-esteem and moderation by emotional intelligence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 98, 111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.011

Pintrich, P. R., and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 33–40. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

Randolph, K. A., Fraser, M. W., and Orthner, D. K. (2006). A strategy for assessing the impact of time varying family risk factors on high school dropout. J. Fam. Issues 27, 933–950. doi: 10.1177/0192513X06287168

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., and Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: the mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learn. Instr. 42, 95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004

Sahin, C. (2014). An analysis of the relationship between internet addiction and depression levels of high school students. Particip. Educ. Res. 1, 53–67. doi: 10.17275/per.14.10.1.2

Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi–sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 33, 464–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Read. Writ. Q. 19, 159–172. doi: 10.1080/10573560308219

Sirin, S. R., and Rogers-Sirin, L. (2015). Exploring school engagement of middle-class African American adolescents. Youth Soc. 35, 323–340. doi: 10.1177/0044118X03255006

Skinner, E. A., and Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. J. Educ. Psychol. 85, 571–581. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., and Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 205–220. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205

Uçar, F. M., and Sungur, S. (2017). The role of perceived classroom goal structures, self-efficacy, and engagement in student science achievement. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 35, 149–168. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1278684

Wang, C. (2004). A critical reflectiononthe thought of “despising knowledge” in Chinese basic education. Peking Univ. Educ. Rev. 2, 5–23. doi: 10.19355/j.cnki.1671-9468.2004.03.002

Wang, M.-T., and Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Dev. 85, 722–737. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12138

Wefald, A. J., and Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction. J. Psychol. 143, 91–112. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91–112

Wright, S. L., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., and Murdock, J. L. (2012). Career development among first-year college students: college self-efficacy, student persistence, and academic success. J. Career Dev. 40, 292–310. doi: 10.1177/0894845312455509

Yan, B., and Zheng, X. (2006). Researches into relations among social-support, self-esteem and subjective well-being of college students. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 22, 60–64.

Yang, P.-J., and Lamb, M. E. (2014). Factors influencing classroom behavioral engagement during the first year at school. Appl. Dev. Sci. 18, 189–200. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2014.924710

Zhang, Y. X., Naguliaisaiti, R. E., Wei, H., Zhang, X. R., Chen, J., and Gu, C. H. (2010). Self-esteem across the life span. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 18, 1128–1135.

Zhou, H., and Long, L. (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 12, 942–950.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., and Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidemensional scale of perceived social support. J. Pers. Assess. 52, 30–41. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., and Berkoff, K. A. (1990). Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J. Pers. Assess. 55, 610–617. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_17

Keywords: academic engagement, academic self-efficacy, adolescents, perceived social support, self-esteem

Citation: Zhao Y, Zheng Z, Pan C and Zhou L (2021) Self-Esteem and Academic Engagement Among Adolescents: A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol . 12:690828. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.690828

Received: 04 April 2021; Accepted: 04 May 2021; Published: 03 June 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Zhao, Zheng, Pan and Zhou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lulu Zhou, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Current Research on Self-Esteem

• Is Self-Esteem Important?

Is Self-Esteem a Unique Construct?

What are the developmental origins of self-esteem, applied research: changing self-views and the impact on important life outcomes.

I am a social-developmental psychologist interested in understanding how personality and social factors influence a person’s developmental course from conception to death. I am interested in understanding how to raise children to grow up to be healthy, productive members of society; including, finding supportive relationships and having a family, supporting themselves and their family, and not bringing harm to others. As such, I am interested in the developmental origins, developmental course, and interrelations among self-esteem, achievement, and antisocial behavior, particularly how perceptions of the self affect a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior.

To address my research questions, I use a wide range of research designs, such as cross-sectional, experimental, longitudinal, behavioral genetic, and the analysis of archival datasets (including publishing an APA book on the analysis of secondary data analysis; Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010). I also integrate a wide range of statistical procedures into my research program, such as multilevel modeling (including growth modeling), meta-analysis, quantitative genetics, and structural equation modeling.

Below I describe my main lines of research. 

Is Self-Esteem Important ?

Although self-esteem is generally assumed to be a beneficial attribute, an emerging and increasingly influential perspective suggests that self-esteem is, at best, unrelated to any important outcomes, and, at worst, might be associated with negative consequences such as narcissism and aggression (e.g., Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Crocker & Park, 2004; Seligman, 1994; Twenge, 2006). I have used several approaches to test these claims.

Claim #1: Self-esteem has a “dark side” . I tested this claim by examining the relation between self-esteem and antisocial behavior in three, diverse studies. Our findings showed a robust  negative  relation between self-esteem and   antisocial behavior. This relation held for self and informant reports, participants from different nationalities (United States and New Zealand), and age groups (adolescents and college students; Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2005,  Psychological Science ). Moreover, this relation held both cross-sectionally and longitudinally and controlling for potential confounding variables. Thus, self-esteem does not appear to have a dark side.

Claim #2: Self-esteem is unrelated to any important outcomes . Using longitudinal data spanning from early adolescence (age 11) to early adulthood (age 26), I found that adolescents with higher self-esteem had better mental and physical health, better economic prospects, and lower levels of criminal behavior during adulthood, compared to adolescents with low self-esteem (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, Moffitt, Caspi, & Robins, 2006,  Developmental Psychology ). These long-term consequences of self-esteem could not be explained by adolescent depression, gender, or socioeconomic status. Moreover, the findings held when the outcome variables were assessed using objective measures (e.g., criminal reports, graduation rates) and informant reports; therefore, the findings cannot be explained by shared method variance in self-report data. All told, this research suggests that high self-esteem during adolescence has positive real-world consequences during adulthood.

Claim #3: Too much focus on self-esteem has created a generation of overly confident, miserable narcissists . Recently, researchers have suggested that today’s youth are more narcissistic, have higher self-esteem, and are more miserable than youth of the past (e.g., Twenge, 2006). Furthermore, the argument made is that society’s over-emphasis on self-esteem in recent decades has created a generation who is qualitatively different from previous generations. Specifically, individuals born in the 1970s to 1990s are thought to have higher self-esteem, more inflated opinions of themselves, higher levels of narcissism, and perhaps paradoxically, more misery than previous generations. As a result, they are not prepared for the trials of the “real world” (e.g., Twenge, 2006). These claims have important implications for the self-esteem field. If intervention programs to raise self-esteem created a generation of helpless narcissists, then perhaps future research should not focus on self-esteem. To test the claims about today’s youth, I used the Monitoring the Future data sets, which were specifically designed to study generational changes. We looked for generational changes in narcissism and self-enhancement (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008,  Psychological Science ; Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2008,  Journal of Research in Personality ; Donnellan & Trzesniewski, 2009,  Personality and Social Psychology Compass ; Donnellan & Trzesniewski, 2009,  Journal of Research in Personality ) and generational changes in 31 other constructs (e.g., self-esteem, happiness, loneliness; Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010;  Perspectives in Psychological Science ; Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2009,  Psychological Science , see also Arnett, Trzesniewski, & Donnellan, 2013,  Journal of Emerging Adulthood ). We failed to find substantial changes in the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of today’s youth compared to past generations. That is, we found little reason to conclude that the average member of Generation Me is dramatically different from members of previous generations. Today’s youth seem to be no more egotistical than previous generations and they appear to be just as happy and satisfied as previous generations. In fact, today’s youth seem to have psychological profiles that are remarkably similar to youth from the past 30 years. Thus, self-esteem levels today are the same as they were 30 years ago (4.04, SD = .71, in 1977 vs. 4.00, SD = .81 in 2006;  r (self-esteem and year) = -.01;  N  = 174,481) and there appears to be no reason to condemn interventions aimed at promoting self-esteem. Indeed, well-designed self-esteem interventions have been shown to have positive effects on child outcomes (e.g., Haney & Durlak, 1998; O’Mara, Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 2006).

This debate has proven quite controversial and comments by Dr. Twenge and several other prominent psychologists were solicited for our most comprehensive paper (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010;  Perspectives in Psychological Science ). Our hope is to broaden and move forward this debate and help clarify issues about personality development and the robustness of cohort effects and help clarify the portrait of today’s young people.

Another claim made about self-esteem is that it is nothing more than depression, neuroticism, and/narcissism. This is a very important issue because if self-esteem is simply depression or narcissism in disguise, then future research should focus on the core trait and not on self-esteem (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2003; Watson et al. 2002). However, my previous research suggests self-esteem is a unique construct. For example, although self-esteem and narcissism are positively correlated, they show unique, sometimes opposite, patterns of relations with other constructs (Donnellan et al., 2005; Paulhus, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2005). Moreover, in current research, I am using behavioral genetic techniques to provide new insights into the relation between self-esteem and related constructs. First, I have found that depression, neuroticism, and negative affect combined accounted for only 36% of the variance in self-esteem. Second, I found unique genetic influences on self-esteem after accounting for depression, neuroticism, and negative affect, suggesting self-esteem is also distinguishable from these constructs at the genetic level. Third, I found that although self-esteem predicts changes in depression, depression does not predict changes in self-esteem (Orth, Robins, Trzesniewski, Maes, & Schmitt, 2009,  Journal of Abnormal Psychology ). Instead, stability of self-esteem is predicted by a combination of unique genetic and environmental factors. One environmental factor that predicts initial level of self-esteem in children and adults is the childhood relationship with parents, whereas an environmental factor that predicts change in self-esteem during adulthood is the relationship with the spouse or partner. Neither the parent nor spousal relationship had an environmental impact on the individual’s level or change in depression. Thus, self-esteem is influenced by unique genetic and environmental factors, providing further support for the distinction between self-esteem and depression.

Most of my previous work on the development of self-esteem has focused on mean-level and rank-order stability and change during childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Donnellan, Kenny, Trzesniewski, Lucas, & Conger, 2012,  Journal of Research in Personality ; Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Potter, & Gosling, 2002,  Psychology & Aging;  Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2003,  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ). I am following up on this work by testing hypotheses about predictors of change.  For example, my colleagues and I have found that changes in health and SES account for the decline in self-esteem during old age (Orth, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2010,  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ).  Currently, I am testing the role of parent-child closeness on change and stability of self-esteem during adolescence.  Findings based on (a) parents and adolescents from two countries (US and Germany), (b) different measures of parenting (self-report, mother-report, father-report, and observations), and (c) a variety of longitudinal models (regressions, cross-lag models, parallel growth curves, enduring effects models, and latent difference models) show that parenting does not predict change in self-esteem (or vice-versa) even though the two are correlated within each time point.  This raises questions about the developmental origins of self-esteem, given prominent theories of self-esteem all implicate the role of the relationship with important others.  Therefore, I have turned to an earlier phase of the life span to find answers about how self-esteem is initially formed and the early predictors of self-esteem. 

Research on self-esteem in young children is difficult because it has long been believed that children younger than eight do not have global self-esteem (Harter, 1983; Harter & Pike, 1984), and the most popular measure of self-esteem for young children (the Self-Perception Profile for Young Children; SPPC; Harter, 1985) does not contain a subscale of global self-esteem.  As a result, almost no research has been done examining self-esteem in children younger than eight.  I have several lines of research aimed at addressing this gap in the literature.  First, I am testing global self-esteem items with the goal of creating not only a scale that is reliable and valid for children as young as five, but that also has invariant items across the life span (currently there are no invariant life span self-esteem scales available).  Preliminary findings show that the new invariant items are as reliable and have the same correlational pattern as existing self-esteem questions in adults and children eight and older, but reliability and correlations are lower for the younger children.  To gain a better understanding of this age difference, I am testing qualitative differences in conceptualizations of self-esteem.  Preliminary findings show that explanations for self-esteem are remarkably similar across age with the largest number of self-esteem explanations being in the categories of achievement, relationships, and psychological traits across ages.  Thus, younger and older children appear to conceptualized self-esteem in a similar way, suggesting that the lower reliability and validity might have to do with understanding of the items rather than the construct not being present in young children. 

Second, I have two longitudinal studies consisting of several assessments between eight months and 6 years that includes measures and observations of the parent-child relationship, temperament, and physiological reactions, and includes a measure of global self-esteem at age six. Hypotheses about the temperamental and parental influences on self-esteem are being tested, including a hypothesized interaction between parenting and stress reactivity.  Given the robust genetic influence on self-esteem that is independent from depression and negative affect I have hypothesized that higher innate stress reactivity results in an environment full of negative experiences which, over time, get internalized into a negative self-view.  However, I hypothesize that this effect can be ameliorated by a parent who teaches the child how to regulate their negative emotional reactions.  A third longitudinal study is underway to gain a deeper understanding of the development of self-esteem.  The first wave, currently being collected, is based on children aged 5 to 13.  Measures of self-esteem and behavior are being collected from the children and one parent, narrative and interview data are also being collected from the parent and child, and parent-child interactions are being observed.  This study will allow me to test hypotheses about how parental representations of self and of the child impact the way memories are discussed with the child and formed by the child, which in turn will affect the child’s representation of the self and evaluation of the self. 

I have two lines of applied research that seeks to translate basic research findings into interventions.  The first line of research focuses on changing the mindsets that individuals use to view themselves and those around them.  Specifically, it has been suggested that people vary on a continuum from believing in fixed traits or behaviors to malleable traits and behaviors (Dweck, 1999).  These fixed vs. growth mindsets impact how individuals approach and cope with challenges, and importantly, lab studies have found that these mindsets are changeable.  My colleagues and I have shown that interventions focused on promoting a more malleable mindset about intelligence leads to higher grades during middle school (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007,  Child Development ), promoting a more malleable mindset about personality leads to better coping and lower retaliation in response to being bullied during high school (Yeager, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2013,  Child Development ; Yeager, Trzesniewski, Tirri, Nokelainen, & Dweck, 2011,  Developmental Psychology ), and promoting a more malleable mindset about groups (e.g., Palestinians) in adults living in a retractable conflict environment promotes willingness to compromise for peace (Halperin, Crisp, Husnu, Trzesniewski, Dweck, & Gross, 2012,  Emotion ; Halperin, Russell, Trzesniewski, Gross, & Dweck, 2011,  Science ).  New directions for this research include testing the bullying focused intervention in a group of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder and testing the cognitive mechanisms that account for the achievement effects (co-PI, currently funded by IES, $1,600,000).

Finally, I am working with the California State 4-H Youth Development Program to deliver and evaluate a positive youth development program that promotes growth mindsets, helps youth discover passions, and teaches goal management skills (Campbell, Trzesniewski, Nathaniel, Enfield, Erbstein, 2013,  California Agricultural,  Healthy Families and Communities special issue; PI, currently funded by UC-ANR, $600,000).  This program is being delivered throughout the state through the 4-H club program and in partnership with afterschool programs.  Preliminary results suggest the program is successful in promoting a range of positive outcomes.  A more stringent test of the effects will be conducted through randomized-controlled trials over the next two years.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Anxiety, Affect, Self-Esteem, and Stress: Mediation and Moderation Effects on Depression

Affiliations Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Affiliation Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Affiliations Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Department of Psychology, Education and Sport Science, Linneaus University, Kalmar, Sweden

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Network for Empowerment and Well-Being, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Center for Ethics, Law, and Mental Health (CELAM), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

• Ali Al Nima, 
• Patricia Rosenberg, 
• Trevor Archer, 
• Danilo Garcia

• Published: September 9, 2013
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265
• Reader Comments

23 Sep 2013: Nima AA, Rosenberg P, Archer T, Garcia D (2013) Correction: Anxiety, Affect, Self-Esteem, and Stress: Mediation and Moderation Effects on Depression. PLOS ONE 8(9): 10.1371/annotation/49e2c5c8-e8a8-4011-80fc-02c6724b2acc. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/49e2c5c8-e8a8-4011-80fc-02c6724b2acc View correction

Mediation analysis investigates whether a variable (i.e., mediator) changes in regard to an independent variable, in turn, affecting a dependent variable. Moderation analysis, on the other hand, investigates whether the statistical interaction between independent variables predict a dependent variable. Although this difference between these two types of analysis is explicit in current literature, there is still confusion with regard to the mediating and moderating effects of different variables on depression. The purpose of this study was to assess the mediating and moderating effects of anxiety, stress, positive affect, and negative affect on depression.

Two hundred and two university students (males  = 93, females  = 113) completed questionnaires assessing anxiety, stress, self-esteem, positive and negative affect, and depression. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted using techniques based on standard multiple regression and hierarchical regression analyses.

Main Findings

The results indicated that (i) anxiety partially mediated the effects of both stress and self-esteem upon depression, (ii) that stress partially mediated the effects of anxiety and positive affect upon depression, (iii) that stress completely mediated the effects of self-esteem on depression, and (iv) that there was a significant interaction between stress and negative affect, and between positive affect and negative affect upon depression.

The study highlights different research questions that can be investigated depending on whether researchers decide to use the same variables as mediators and/or moderators.

Citation: Nima AA, Rosenberg P, Archer T, Garcia D (2013) Anxiety, Affect, Self-Esteem, and Stress: Mediation and Moderation Effects on Depression. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265

Editor: Ben J. Harrison, The University of Melbourne, Australia

Received: February 21, 2013; Accepted: July 22, 2013; Published: September 9, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 Nima et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Mediation refers to the covariance relationships among three variables: an independent variable (1), an assumed mediating variable (2), and a dependent variable (3). Mediation analysis investigates whether the mediating variable accounts for a significant amount of the shared variance between the independent and the dependent variables–the mediator changes in regard to the independent variable, in turn, affecting the dependent one [1] , [2] . On the other hand, moderation refers to the examination of the statistical interaction between independent variables in predicting a dependent variable [1] , [3] . In contrast to the mediator, the moderator is not expected to be correlated with both the independent and the dependent variable–Baron and Kenny [1] actually recommend that it is best if the moderator is not correlated with the independent variable and if the moderator is relatively stable, like a demographic variable (e.g., gender, socio-economic status) or a personality trait (e.g., affectivity).

Although both types of analysis lead to different conclusions [3] and the distinction between statistical procedures is part of the current literature [2] , there is still confusion about the use of moderation and mediation analyses using data pertaining to the prediction of depression. There are, for example, contradictions among studies that investigate mediating and moderating effects of anxiety, stress, self-esteem, and affect on depression. Depression, anxiety and stress are suggested to influence individuals' social relations and activities, work, and studies, as well as compromising decision-making and coping strategies [4] , [5] , [6] . Successfully coping with anxiety, depressiveness, and stressful situations may contribute to high levels of self-esteem and self-confidence, in addition increasing well-being, and psychological and physical health [6] . Thus, it is important to disentangle how these variables are related to each other. However, while some researchers perform mediation analysis with some of the variables mentioned here, other researchers conduct moderation analysis with the same variables. Seldom are both moderation and mediation performed on the same dataset. Before disentangling mediation and moderation effects on depression in the current literature, we briefly present the methodology behind the analysis performed in this study.

Mediation and moderation

Baron and Kenny [1] postulated several criteria for the analysis of a mediating effect: a significant correlation between the independent and the dependent variable, the independent variable must be significantly associated with the mediator, the mediator predicts the dependent variable even when the independent variable is controlled for, and the correlation between the independent and the dependent variable must be eliminated or reduced when the mediator is controlled for. All the criteria is then tested using the Sobel test which shows whether indirect effects are significant or not [1] , [7] . A complete mediating effect occurs when the correlation between the independent and the dependent variable are eliminated when the mediator is controlled for [8] . Analyses of mediation can, for example, help researchers to move beyond answering if high levels of stress lead to high levels of depression. With mediation analysis researchers might instead answer how stress is related to depression.

In contrast to mediation, moderation investigates the unique conditions under which two variables are related [3] . The third variable here, the moderator, is not an intermediate variable in the causal sequence from the independent to the dependent variable. For the analysis of moderation effects, the relation between the independent and dependent variable must be different at different levels of the moderator [3] . Moderators are included in the statistical analysis as an interaction term [1] . When analyzing moderating effects the variables should first be centered (i.e., calculating the mean to become 0 and the standard deviation to become 1) in order to avoid problems with multi-colinearity [8] . Moderating effects can be calculated using multiple hierarchical linear regressions whereby main effects are presented in the first step and interactions in the second step [1] . Analysis of moderation, for example, helps researchers to answer when or under which conditions stress is related to depression.

Mediation and moderation effects on depression

Cognitive vulnerability models suggest that maladaptive self-schema mirroring helplessness and low self-esteem explain the development and maintenance of depression (for a review see [9] ). These cognitive vulnerability factors become activated by negative life events or negative moods [10] and are suggested to interact with environmental stressors to increase risk for depression and other emotional disorders [11] , [10] . In this line of thinking, the experience of stress, low self-esteem, and negative emotions can cause depression, but also be used to explain how (i.e., mediation) and under which conditions (i.e., moderation) specific variables influence depression.

Using mediational analyses to investigate how cognitive therapy intervations reduced depression, researchers have showed that the intervention reduced anxiety, which in turn was responsible for 91% of the reduction in depression [12] . In the same study, reductions in depression, by the intervention, accounted only for 6% of the reduction in anxiety. Thus, anxiety seems to affect depression more than depression affects anxiety and, together with stress, is both a cause of and a powerful mediator influencing depression (See also [13] ). Indeed, there are positive relationships between depression, anxiety and stress in different cultures [14] . Moreover, while some studies show that stress (independent variable) increases anxiety (mediator), which in turn increased depression (dependent variable) [14] , other studies show that stress (moderator) interacts with maladaptive self-schemata (dependent variable) to increase depression (independent variable) [15] , [16] .

The present study

In order to illustrate how mediation and moderation can be used to address different research questions we first focus our attention to anxiety and stress as mediators of different variables that earlier have been shown to be related to depression. Secondly, we use all variables to find which of these variables moderate the effects on depression.

The specific aims of the present study were:

• To investigate if anxiety mediated the effect of stress, self-esteem, and affect on depression.
• To investigate if stress mediated the effects of anxiety, self-esteem, and affect on depression.
• To examine moderation effects between anxiety, stress, self-esteem, and affect on depression.

Ethics statement

This research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Gothenburg and written informed consent was obtained from all the study participants.

Participants

The present study was based upon a sample of 206 participants (males  = 93, females  = 113). All the participants were first year students in different disciplines at two universities in South Sweden. The mean age for the male students was 25.93 years ( SD  = 6.66), and 25.30 years ( SD  = 5.83) for the female students.

In total, 206 questionnaires were distributed to the students. Together 202 questionnaires were responded to leaving a total dropout of 1.94%. This dropout concerned three sections that the participants chose not to respond to at all, and one section that was completed incorrectly. None of these four questionnaires was included in the analyses.

Instruments

Hospital anxiety and depression scale [17] ..

The Swedish translation of this instrument [18] was used to measure anxiety and depression. The instrument consists of 14 statements (7 of which measure depression and 7 measure anxiety) to which participants are asked to respond grade of agreement on a Likert scale (0 to 3). The utility, reliability and validity of the instrument has been shown in multiple studies (e.g., [19] ).

Perceived Stress Scale [20] .

The Swedish version [21] of this instrument was used to measures individuals' experience of stress. The instrument consist of 14 statements to which participants rate on a Likert scale (0 =  never , 4 =  very often ). High values indicate that the individual expresses a high degree of stress.

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale [22] .

The Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Swedish version by Lindwall [23] ) consists of 10 statements focusing on general feelings toward the self. Participants are asked to report grade of agreement in a four-point Likert scale (1 =  agree not at all, 4 =  agree completely ). This is the most widely used instrument for estimation of self-esteem with high levels of reliability and validity (e.g., [24] , [25] ).

Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule [26] .

This is a widely applied instrument for measuring individuals' self-reported mood and feelings. The Swedish version has been used among participants of different ages and occupations (e.g., [27] , [28] , [29] ). The instrument consists of 20 adjectives, 10 positive affect (e.g., proud, strong) and 10 negative affect (e.g., afraid, irritable). The adjectives are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 =  not at all , 5 =  very much ). The instrument is a reliable, valid, and effective self-report instrument for estimating these two important and independent aspects of mood [26] .

Questionnaires were distributed to the participants on several different locations within the university, including the library and lecture halls. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire after being informed about the purpose and duration (10–15 minutes) of the study. Participants were also ensured complete anonymity and informed that they could end their participation whenever they liked.

Correlational analysis

Depression showed positive, significant relationships with anxiety, stress and negative affect. Table 1 presents the correlation coefficients, mean values and standard deviations ( sd ), as well as Cronbach ' s α for all the variables in the study.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.t001

Mediation analysis

Regression analyses were performed in order to investigate if anxiety mediated the effect of stress, self-esteem, and affect on depression (aim 1). The first regression showed that stress ( B  = .03, 95% CI [.02,.05], β = .36, t  = 4.32, p <.001), self-esteem ( B  = −.03, 95% CI [−.05, −.01], β = −.24, t  = −3.20, p <.001), and positive affect ( B  = −.02, 95% CI [−.05, −.01], β = −.19, t  = −2.93, p  = .004) had each an unique effect on depression. Surprisingly, negative affect did not predict depression ( p  = 0.77) and was therefore removed from the mediation model, thus not included in further analysis.

The second regression tested whether stress, self-esteem and positive affect uniquely predicted the mediator (i.e., anxiety). Stress was found to be positively associated ( B  = .21, 95% CI [.15,.27], β = .47, t  = 7.35, p <.001), whereas self-esteem was negatively associated ( B  = −.29, 95% CI [−.38, −.21], β = −.42, t  = −6.48, p <.001) to anxiety. Positive affect, however, was not associated to anxiety ( p  = .50) and was therefore removed from further analysis.

A hierarchical regression analysis using depression as the outcome variable was performed using stress and self-esteem as predictors in the first step, and anxiety as predictor in the second step. This analysis allows the examination of whether stress and self-esteem predict depression and if this relation is weaken in the presence of anxiety as the mediator. The result indicated that, in the first step, both stress ( B  = .04, 95% CI [.03,.05], β = .45, t  = 6.43, p <.001) and self-esteem ( B  = .04, 95% CI [.03,.05], β = .45, t  = 6.43, p <.001) predicted depression. When anxiety (i.e., the mediator) was controlled for predictability was reduced somewhat but was still significant for stress ( B  = .03, 95% CI [.02,.04], β = .33, t  = 4.29, p <.001) and for self-esteem ( B  = −.03, 95% CI [−.05, −.01], β = −.20, t  = −2.62, p  = .009). Anxiety, as a mediator, predicted depression even when both stress and self-esteem were controlled for ( B  = .05, 95% CI [.02,.08], β = .26, t  = 3.17, p  = .002). Anxiety improved the prediction of depression over-and-above the independent variables (i.e., stress and self-esteem) (Δ R 2  = .03, F (1, 198) = 10.06, p  = .002). See Table 2 for the details.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.t002

A Sobel test was conducted to test the mediating criteria and to assess whether indirect effects were significant or not. The result showed that the complete pathway from stress (independent variable) to anxiety (mediator) to depression (dependent variable) was significant ( z  = 2.89, p  = .003). The complete pathway from self-esteem (independent variable) to anxiety (mediator) to depression (dependent variable) was also significant ( z  = 2.82, p  = .004). Thus, indicating that anxiety partially mediates the effects of both stress and self-esteem on depression. This result may indicate also that both stress and self-esteem contribute directly to explain the variation in depression and indirectly via experienced level of anxiety (see Figure 1 ).

Changes in Beta weights when the mediator is present are highlighted in red.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.g001

For the second aim, regression analyses were performed in order to test if stress mediated the effect of anxiety, self-esteem, and affect on depression. The first regression showed that anxiety ( B  = .07, 95% CI [.04,.10], β = .37, t  = 4.57, p <.001), self-esteem ( B  = −.02, 95% CI [−.05, −.01], β = −.18, t  = −2.23, p  = .03), and positive affect ( B  = −.03, 95% CI [−.04, −.02], β = −.27, t  = −4.35, p <.001) predicted depression independently of each other. Negative affect did not predict depression ( p  = 0.74) and was therefore removed from further analysis.

The second regression investigated if anxiety, self-esteem and positive affect uniquely predicted the mediator (i.e., stress). Stress was positively associated to anxiety ( B  = 1.01, 95% CI [.75, 1.30], β = .46, t  = 7.35, p <.001), negatively associated to self-esteem ( B  = −.30, 95% CI [−.50, −.01], β = −.19, t  = −2.90, p  = .004), and a negatively associated to positive affect ( B  = −.33, 95% CI [−.46, −.20], β = −.27, t  = −5.02, p <.001).

A hierarchical regression analysis using depression as the outcome and anxiety, self-esteem, and positive affect as the predictors in the first step, and stress as the predictor in the second step, allowed the examination of whether anxiety, self-esteem and positive affect predicted depression and if this association would weaken when stress (i.e., the mediator) was present. In the first step of the regression anxiety ( B  = .07, 95% CI [.05,.10], β = .38, t  = 5.31, p  = .02), self-esteem ( B  = −.03, 95% CI [−.05, −.01], β = −.18, t  = −2.41, p  = .02), and positive affect ( B  = −.03, 95% CI [−.04, −.02], β = −.27, t  = −4.36, p <.001) significantly explained depression. When stress (i.e., the mediator) was controlled for, predictability was reduced somewhat but was still significant for anxiety ( B  = .05, 95% CI [.02,.08], β = .05, t  = 4.29, p <.001) and for positive affect ( B  = −.02, 95% CI [−.04, −.01], β = −.20, t  = −3.16, p  = .002), whereas self-esteem did not reach significance ( p < = .08). In the second step, the mediator (i.e., stress) predicted depression even when anxiety, self-esteem, and positive affect were controlled for ( B  = .02, 95% CI [.08,.04], β = .25, t  = 3.07, p  = .002). Stress improved the prediction of depression over-and-above the independent variables (i.e., anxiety, self-esteem and positive affect) (Δ R 2  = .02, F (1, 197)  = 9.40, p  = .002). See Table 3 for the details.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.t003

Furthermore, the Sobel test indicated that the complete pathways from the independent variables (anxiety: z  = 2.81, p  = .004; self-esteem: z  =  2.05, p  = .04; positive affect: z  = 2.58, p <.01) to the mediator (i.e., stress), to the outcome (i.e., depression) were significant. These specific results might be explained on the basis that stress partially mediated the effects of both anxiety and positive affect on depression while stress completely mediated the effects of self-esteem on depression. In other words, anxiety and positive affect contributed directly to explain the variation in depression and indirectly via the experienced level of stress. Self-esteem contributed only indirectly via the experienced level of stress to explain the variation in depression. In other words, stress effects on depression originate from “its own power” and explained more of the variation in depression than self-esteem (see Figure 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.g002

Moderation analysis

Multiple linear regression analyses were used in order to examine moderation effects between anxiety, stress, self-esteem and affect on depression. The analysis indicated that about 52% of the variation in the dependent variable (i.e., depression) could be explained by the main effects and the interaction effects ( R 2  = .55, adjusted R 2  = .51, F (55, 186)  = 14.87, p <.001). When the variables (dependent and independent) were standardized, both the standardized regression coefficients beta (β) and the unstandardized regression coefficients beta (B) became the same value with regard to the main effects. Three of the main effects were significant and contributed uniquely to high levels of depression: anxiety ( B  = .26, t  = 3.12, p  = .002), stress ( B  = .25, t  = 2.86, p  = .005), and self-esteem ( B  = −.17, t  = −2.17, p  = .03). The main effect of positive affect was also significant and contributed to low levels of depression ( B  = −.16, t  = −2.027, p  = .02) (see Figure 3 ). Furthermore, the results indicated that two moderator effects were significant. These were the interaction between stress and negative affect ( B  = −.28, β = −.39, t  = −2.36, p  = .02) (see Figure 4 ) and the interaction between positive affect and negative affect ( B  = −.21, β = −.29, t  = −2.30, p  = .02) ( Figure 5 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.g003

Low stress and low negative affect leads to lower levels of depression compared to high stress and high negative affect.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.g004

High positive affect and low negative affect lead to lower levels of depression compared to low positive affect and high negative affect.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073265.g005

The results in the present study show that (i) anxiety partially mediated the effects of both stress and self-esteem on depression, (ii) that stress partially mediated the effects of anxiety and positive affect on depression, (iii) that stress completely mediated the effects of self-esteem on depression, and (iv) that there was a significant interaction between stress and negative affect, and positive affect and negative affect on depression.

Mediating effects

The study suggests that anxiety contributes directly to explaining the variance in depression while stress and self-esteem might contribute directly to explaining the variance in depression and indirectly by increasing feelings of anxiety. Indeed, individuals who experience stress over a long period of time are susceptible to increased anxiety and depression [30] , [31] and previous research shows that high self-esteem seems to buffer against anxiety and depression [32] , [33] . The study also showed that stress partially mediated the effects of both anxiety and positive affect on depression and that stress completely mediated the effects of self-esteem on depression. Anxiety and positive affect contributed directly to explain the variation in depression and indirectly to the experienced level of stress. Self-esteem contributed only indirectly via the experienced level of stress to explain the variation in depression, i.e. stress affects depression on the basis of ‘its own power’ and explains much more of the variation in depressive experiences than self-esteem. In general, individuals who experience low anxiety and frequently experience positive affect seem to experience low stress, which might reduce their levels of depression. Academic stress, for instance, may increase the risk for experiencing depression among students [34] . Although self-esteem did not emerged as an important variable here, under circumstances in which difficulties in life become chronic, some researchers suggest that low self-esteem facilitates the experience of stress [35] .

Moderator effects/interaction effects

The present study showed that the interaction between stress and negative affect and between positive and negative affect influenced self-reported depression symptoms. Moderation effects between stress and negative affect imply that the students experiencing low levels of stress and low negative affect reported lower levels of depression than those who experience high levels of stress and high negative affect. This result confirms earlier findings that underline the strong positive association between negative affect and both stress and depression [36] , [37] . Nevertheless, negative affect by itself did not predicted depression. In this regard, it is important to point out that the absence of positive emotions is a better predictor of morbidity than the presence of negative emotions [38] , [39] . A modification to this statement, as illustrated by the results discussed next, could be that the presence of negative emotions in conjunction with the absence of positive emotions increases morbidity.

The moderating effects between positive and negative affect on the experience of depression imply that the students experiencing high levels of positive affect and low levels of negative affect reported lower levels of depression than those who experience low levels of positive affect and high levels of negative affect. This result fits previous observations indicating that different combinations of these affect dimensions are related to different measures of physical and mental health and well-being, such as, blood pressure, depression, quality of sleep, anxiety, life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and self-regulation [40] – [51] .

Limitations

The result indicated a relatively low mean value for depression ( M  = 3.69), perhaps because the studied population was university students. These might limit the generalization power of the results and might also explain why negative affect, commonly associated to depression, was not related to depression in the present study. Moreover, there is a potential influence of single source/single method variance on the findings, especially given the high correlation between all the variables under examination.

Conclusions

The present study highlights different results that could be arrived depending on whether researchers decide to use variables as mediators or moderators. For example, when using meditational analyses, anxiety and stress seem to be important factors that explain how the different variables used here influence depression–increases in anxiety and stress by any other factor seem to lead to increases in depression. In contrast, when moderation analyses were used, the interaction of stress and affect predicted depression and the interaction of both affectivity dimensions (i.e., positive and negative affect) also predicted depression–stress might increase depression under the condition that the individual is high in negative affectivity, in turn, negative affectivity might increase depression under the condition that the individual experiences low positive affectivity.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their openness and suggestions, which significantly improved the article.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: AAN TA. Performed the experiments: AAN. Analyzed the data: AAN DG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AAN TA DG. Wrote the paper: AAN PR TA DG.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. MacKinnon DP, Luecken LJ (2008) How and for Whom? Mediation and Moderation in Health Psychology. Health Psychol 27 (2 Suppl.): s99–s102.
• 4. Aaroe R (2006) Vinn över din depression [Defeat depression]. Stockholm: Liber.
• 5. Agerberg M (1998) Ut ur mörkret [Out from the Darkness]. Stockholm: Nordstedt.
• 6. Gilbert P (2005) Hantera din depression [Cope with your Depression]. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Prisma.
• 8. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• 10. Beck AT (1967) Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• 21. Eskin M, Parr D (1996) Introducing a Swedish version of an instrument measuring mental stress. Stockholm: Psykologiska institutionen Stockholms Universitet.
• 22. Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• 23. Lindwall M (2011) Självkänsla – Bortom populärpsykologi & enkla sanningar [Self-Esteem – Beyond Popular Psychology and Simple Truths]. Lund:Studentlitteratur.
• 25. Blascovich J, Tomaka J (1991) Measures of self-esteem. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS (Red.) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes San Diego: Academic Press. 161–194.
• 30. Eysenck M (Ed.) (2000) Psychology: an integrated approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
• 31. Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
• 32. Johnson M (2003) Självkänsla och anpassning [Self-esteem and Adaptation]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
• 33. Cullberg Weston M (2005) Ditt inre centrum – Om självkänsla, självbild och konturen av ditt själv [Your Inner Centre – About Self-esteem, Self-image and the Contours of Yourself]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
• 34. Lindén M (1997) Studentens livssituation. Frihet, sårbarhet, kris och utveckling [Students' Life Situation. Freedom, Vulnerability, Crisis and Development]. Uppsala: Studenthälsan.
• 35. Williams S (1995) Press utan stress ger maximal prestation [Pressure without Stress gives Maximal Performance]. Malmö: Richters förlag.
• 37. Garcia D, Kerekes N, Andersson-Arntén A–C, Archer T (2012) Temperament, Character, and Adolescents' Depressive Symptoms: Focusing on Affect. Depress Res Treat. DOI:10.1155/2012/925372.
• 40. Garcia D, Ghiabi B, Moradi S, Siddiqui A, Archer T (2013) The Happy Personality: A Tale of Two Philosophies. In Morris EF, Jackson M-A editors. Psychology of Personality. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 41–59.
• 41. Schütz E, Nima AA, Sailer U, Andersson-Arntén A–C, Archer T, Garcia D (2013) The affective profiles in the USA: Happiness, depression, life satisfaction, and happiness-increasing strategies. In press.
• 43. Garcia D, Nima AA, Archer T (2013) Temperament and Character's Relationship to Subjective Well- Being in Salvadorian Adolescents and Young Adults. In press.
• 44. Garcia D (2013) La vie en Rose: High Levels of Well-Being and Events Inside and Outside Autobiographical Memory. J Happiness Stud. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9443-x.
• 48. Adrianson L, Djumaludin A, Neila R, Archer T (2013) Cultural influences upon health, affect, self-esteem and impulsiveness: An Indonesian-Swedish comparison. Int J Res Stud Psychol. DOI: 10.5861/ijrsp.2013.228.

Self-Esteem Research: 20 Most Fascinating Findings

However, despite ongoing research and our intuitive understanding that self-esteem is linked to feelings of self-worth, there is much we don’t know.

This article explores psychology’s current view of self-esteem as a concept before investigating some of the most recent and exciting research. We introduce findings from evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience. We also look at how we can use this knowledge, alongside positive psychology, to support clients.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download these three Self-Compassion Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will not only help you increase the compassion and kindness you show yourself, but will also give you the tools to help your clients, students, or employees show more compassion to themselves.

This Article Contains:

Current view of self-esteem, how did self-esteem evolve, self-esteem and genetics, self-esteem and the brain, self-esteem versus narcissism, work values, 5 findings on self-esteem and body image, 6 positive practices to grow self-esteem, a take-home message.

There is no shortage of definitions of self-esteem. And yet, even though they vary considerably across popular culture, psychology, neuroscience, and beyond, they all seem to have a relationship with the concept of self-worth .

In this article, we begin by looking at what we mean when we talk about self-esteem, why it is important, and the current understanding of self-esteem within psychology.

The following sections discuss some of the latest and most fascinating findings from wide-ranging research into self-esteem and how that knowledge can influence and increase our sense of self-worth.

What is self-esteem?

Cognitive scientist Juan Yang offers a useful insight into how self-esteem impacts our goals and behavior. “ People strive to feel good about themselves or seek to maintain their self-esteem, and this is fundamental to human nature .” Self-esteem is a judgment or self-evaluation of our work or goodness and how well we feel we are doing in areas of our life that we rate as important (Yang, Xu, Chen, Shi, & Han, 2016).

But while the definition is useful and intuitively valid, it soon becomes clear that self-esteem is a complex construct like many other psychological concepts. Forming a clear, concise, and helpful definition is a challenge.

Webster’s dictionary defines self-esteem as “ satisfaction with oneself” and “ one’s good opinion of one’s dignity or worth .” Those higher in self-esteem have an inherently strong sense of worth, while those low in self-esteem can sometimes feel worthless and even dislike themselves (Abdel-Khalek, 2016; Jordan, Zeigler-Hill, & Cameron, 2017).

Self-esteem, then, is a reflection on how we see ourselves and our sense of worth. It is not binary – very high or extremely low – it is on a scale (Jordan et al., 2017). And, like self-efficacy, self-esteem is based on an individual’s judgment.

However, while self-efficacy  informs beliefs regarding our capabilities, self-esteem relates to our sense of worthiness (Ellis, 2019). An individual can have a low self-belief in their ability to perform a task (self-efficacy) that does not impact their sense of worth (self-esteem). On the other hand, those with low overall, or global, self-esteem are likely to display low self-efficacy levels across multiple tasks (Ellis, 2019).

As such, self-esteem appears vital to our mental and physical wellbeing. Research has confirmed that it improves performance in particular domains such as in education and, more generally, positively impacts our physical and psychological health and social acceptance (Jordan et al., 2017).

Global versus domain-specific

Self-esteem appears to operate at two distinct levels. Our global self-esteem represents an overall view of our self-worth across multiple dimensions of our lives. In contrast, domain-specific self-esteem  is particular to a single area or individual activity, such as how we look, our performance at school, and whether we succeed at work.

Nevertheless, global and domain-specific self-esteem are connected. Higher overall self-esteem influences our perception of our abilities in specific domains (Brown, Dutton, & Cook, 2001).

State versus trait self-esteem

Another important and related distinction arises from consideration of temporary versus enduring measures of self-esteem.

Trait self-esteem refers to an individual’s average perception of self-esteem; it is stable across different situations and over time. On the other hand, state self-esteem is situation specific. It will vary at different times depending on other factors including recent successes or failures and acceptance versus rejection (Jordan et al., 2017).

Psychological health and self-esteem

Low self-esteem is associated with mental health problems and serves as a diagnostic criterion for several mental health issues (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Despite cross-cultural variability, typically those higher in self-esteem are more satisfied, happier, and have fewer negative moods (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).

Physical health and self-esteem

Higher self-esteem is associated with physical wellbeing. In contrast, reduced self-esteem may lead to poorer physical health and a reduced ability to recover from illness (Stinson et al., 2008). The connection is possibly related to those low in self-esteem being less likely to engage in health-promoting behaviors such as exercise and attending check-ups.

In the next sections, we will revisit some of the points above using the latest research and take views from beyond psychology, including evolutionary science, neuroscience, and biology.

Why have humans evolved a fundamental need to hold positive views about themselves?

The answer undoubtedly lies deep in our ancestral history.

Our drive for self-esteem may stem from another basic human need: to form appropriate alliances and be part of a group, thereby increasing our chance of survival (Workman & Reader, 2015). After all, to survive the environments for which we evolved, working as a group improved our survival chance.

Sociometer theory  expands on this idea by suggesting that self-esteem is a crucial indicator of social acceptance. Being low in self-esteem is a warning; it indicates that the individual is at risk of social exclusion and must repair social relationships.

Therefore, much like thirst  results in a specific behavior to remove the need, so does self-esteem (MacDonald & Leary, 2012).

Failing to act leads to increased rejection, poor-quality relationships, and further worsening of self-esteem. While taking positive action – perhaps to improve mate selection or achieve and maintain social status – will increase self-esteem.

The theory also explains why social feedback from others, which indicates acceptance, significantly affects our self-view (Yang et al., 2016).

Terror management theory takes a very different, almost philosophical stance, concluding that self-esteem protects our very human capacity to be aware of our mortality (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004). The theory proposes that we have evolved psychological mechanisms to avoid debilitating anxiety or nausea from a self-awareness of our very limited existence.

As the existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, describes it:

You are your life, and nothing else.

Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit (written 1943)

The theory predicts that we construct world views to provide stability and meaning. Therefore, high self-esteem is contingent on meeting the standards prescribed by our self-proclaimed values or religious doctrine. The theory does appear to explain why those high in self-esteem experience reduced generalized levels of anxiety.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you to help others create a kinder and more nurturing relationship with themselves.

Download 3 Free Self-Compassion Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Research has shown that around 50% of our personality and our self-worth feelings are inherited; the rest is environmental (Horsburgh, Schermer, Veselka, & Vernon, 2009; Svedberg, Hallsten, Narusyte, Bodin, & Blom, 2016; Bleidorn et al., 2018).

While the exact nature of the genetic influence or the breakdown of elements of our environment that are most significant remain unclear, it is an important distinction.

Rather than interpret that ‘who we are’ is fixed at birth, we must look at it the other way around. The results show that we have enormous scope for growth, development, and change.

The environment is crucial; parenting, schooling, work, sports, pastimes, relationships, and so on make up the remaining 50%.

Although the details are still to be understood through further research, we can summarize it as:

If you want to be high in self-esteem, choose your parents and your environment wisely.

And yet, exactly where and how remains unclear.

Research is beginning to understand some relationships between self-esteem and the brain, but it has a long way to go.

A 2016 research paper appearing in Nature  used functional M.R.I. technology to scan students’ brains and found links between trait self-esteem and neural activity. It also found that the self-esteem trait seems to modulate the neural activity in response to self-evaluation (Yang et al., 2016).

A more recent study found that specific brain regions are involved in translating an individual’s subjective view of reputation into state self-esteem (Kawamichi et al., 2018).

While exciting, there remains much to be learned about the brain processes involved in the growth, maintenance, and loss of self-esteem.

While some have viewed that narcissism – an inflated sense of self-worth, superiority, and an overboard desire for others’ admiration – represents excessive self-esteem, recent research has suggested otherwise.

According to the authors of research in 2016, narcissism is not an “ extreme manifestation of high self-esteem ” (Brummelman, Thomaes, & Sedikides, 2016). This is an important distinction. The person high in self-esteem sees themselves as worthy; the narcissist sees themselves as superior.

Despite both traits being connected with favorable views of the self, they differ qualitatively. Self-esteem is more of a measure of adequacy rather than an inflated sense of self-importance.

And they are not codependent. For example, a narcissist may even see themselves as low in self-esteem.

I may be better than everyone else, but I am still not happy with who I am.

This distinction is essential when it comes to intervention. While narcissism can be harmful, it is vital not to lose a sense of worth in any intervention.

Work values, defined as the “ goals or rewards people seek through their work ,” are linked to positive mental health and wellbeing, and have two dimensions: intrinsic, where work is meaningful, engaging, and a learning opportunity; and extrinsic, where the focus is on salary, prestige, and security.

A 2020 study looked at data from over 23 years and found that high levels of intrinsic work values in adolescence are linked to positive emotions in adulthood. Notably, intrinsic work values, both in adolescence and adulthood, are also associated with increased self-esteem over the long term. Potentially, adults strive toward learning new things and new abilities and developing skills (Fukasawa, Watanabe, Nishi, & Kawakami, 2020).

That self-esteem is associated with intrinsic motivation should be no surprise. After all, according to the Self-Determination Theory , intrinsic motivation is facilitated by meeting the basic psychological needs of relatedness, autonomy, and competence and is linked with physical and mental wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2018).

The popularity of social media sites is incredible, offering a portal into the lives of the famous, friends, family, and work colleagues through their written thoughts, opinions, and photographs. However, valid concerns continue to surface regarding their effect on mental health and wellbeing.

Indeed, the all-pervasive selfie taking in young women (and many other groups) appears linked to higher self-objectification levels and lower self-esteem (Veldhuis, Alleva, Bij de Vaate, Keijer, & Konijn, 2018).

A 2016 study found that 79% of 160 female student participants were dissatisfied with how they looked (Pop, 2016). Furthermore, weight and lower self-esteem were associated with an increased dissatisfaction in their physical appearance. The authors of the study suggested that exercise could have the dual benefit of increased weight loss and a positive impact on body image and self-esteem.

According to research, concern regarding body image is a source of mental distress for many women and is strongly associated with self-esteem. The lower the feelings of self-worth, the greater the body dissatisfaction. However, findings suggest that self-compassion can help overcome some of the negative emotions (Stapleton, Crighton, Carter, & Pidgeon, 2017).

Indeed, in a 2017 study, participants who attended a self-compassion and self-esteem writing group showed improvements in their body appreciation (Seekis, Bradley, & Duffy, 2017).

Improving self-compassion may indirectly benefit our perception of how we look and our self-esteem, reducing our distress when we view ourselves negatively. Changing our perceptions will ultimately have a positive impact on how we think of ourselves.

Though much of the research has focused on young women, there is no reason to think the findings do not apply across gender and age groups.

Spending time working with clients on their sense of self-worth can benefit not only their self-opinion and how they see themselves, but also their interaction with others and the relationships they form.

Try out some of the following PositivePsychology.com self-esteem tools and exercises to explore and develop self-esteem and self-compassion:

• Things I Like About Me – use this worksheet to explore what you like about yourself.
• Designing Affirmations – design and practice meaningful and positive self-affirmations.
• Self Esteem Journal for Adults  – use journaling to promote positive self-reflection and self-esteem.
• The Self-Esteem Check-up  – gain insight into your sense of self-love , self-respect, and confidence in your capabilities.

17 Exercises To Foster Self-Acceptance and Compassion

Help your clients develop a kinder, more accepting relationship with themselves using these 17 Self-Compassion Exercises [PDF] that promote self-care and self-compassion.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Self-esteem will continue to fascinate psychologists for decades to come. Increased research into our ancestral background, genetic makeup, inner workings of the brain, and attempts to create artificial thinking will drive new understandings.

In the meantime, existing psychology practices and recent research confirm that self-esteem is crucial not only to our sense of who we are, but also to our development as children and the relationships we form as adults.

It is understood that self-esteem is a complex psychological concept that must be viewed in an ecologically valid sense. After all, self-esteem is undeniably related to and can benefit from improved self-compassion, body image, and the environment in which we live.

As self-esteem is an overall judgment of one’s self-worth, healthy levels must be maintained, or clients risk feelings of worthlessness and dislike of themselves. Such positive or negative valuations are likely to lead to correspondingly healthy or unhealthy behavior.

When low self-esteem is identified or suspected, it is vital to work with clients to intrinsically motivate them toward self-enhancing behavior patterns, focusing on increasing a sense of self-compassion. After all, life does not always happen the way we expect.

The more you open your heart to this reality instead of constantly fighting against it, the more you will be able to feel compassion for yourself and all your fellow humans in the experience of life.

Kirsten Neff

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download three Self-Compassion Exercises for free .

• Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2016). Introduction to the psychology of self-esteem. Retrieved September 9, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ahmed_Abdel-Khalek/publication/311440256_Introduction_to_the_Psychology_of_self-esteem/links/587e475308ae9a860ff53995/Introduction-to-the-Psychology-of-self-esteem.pdf
• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
• Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 4 , 1–44.
• Bleidorn, W., Hufer, A., Kandler, C., Hopwood, C. J., & Riemann, R. (2018). A nuclear twin family study of self-esteem. European Journal of Personality , 32(3) , 221–232.
• Brown, J. D. (2010). High self-esteem buffers negative feedback: Once more with feeling. Cognition and Emotion , 24 , 1389–1404.
• Brown, J. D., Dutton, K. A., & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation. Cognition and Emotion , 15 , 615–631.
• Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., & Sedikides, C. (2016). Separating narcissism from self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 25(1) , 8–13.
• Cameron, J., & Granger S. (2016). Self-esteem and belongingness. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer, Cham.
• Ellis, P. (2019). Self-efficacy and endurance performance. In C. Meijen (Author), Endurance performance in sport: Psychological theory and interventions. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
• Fukasawa, M., Watanabe, K., Nishi, D., & Kawakami, N. (2020). Longitudinal association between adolescent work values and mental health and wellbeing in adulthood: A 23-year prospective cohort study. Scientific Reports, 10(1) .
• Horsburgh, V. A., Schermer, J. A., Veselka, L., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). A behavioral genetic study of mental toughness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences , 46 , 100–105.
• Jordan, C. H., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Cameron, J. J. (2017). Self-esteem. In: V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer, Cham.
• Kawamichi, H., Sugawara, S. K., Hamano, Y. H., Kitada, R., Nakagawa, E., Kochiyama, T., & Sadato, N. (2018). Neural correlates underlying change in state self-esteem. Scientific Reports, 8(1) .
• MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2012). Individual differences in self-esteem. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identit y, 2nd ed., (pp. 354–377). New York: Guilford Press.
• Neff, K. (2020). Definition and three elements of self compassion. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://self-compassion.org/the-three-elements-of-self-compassion-2/
• Pop, C. (2016). Self-esteem and body image perception in a sample of university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research , 16(64) , 31–44.
• Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin , 130 , 435–468.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . New York: The Guilford Press.
• Seekis, V., Bradley, G. L., & Duffy, A. (2017). The effectiveness of self-compassion and self-esteem writing tasks in reducing body image concerns. Body Image , 23 , 206–213.
• Stapleton, P., Crighton, G. J., Carter, B., & Pidgeon, A. (2017). Self-esteem and body image in females: The mediating role of self-compassion and appearance contingent self-worth. The Humanistic Psychologist , 45(3) , 238–257.
• Stinson, D. B., 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 , 412–428.
• Svedberg, P., Hallsten, L., Narusyte, J., Bodin, L., & Blom, V. (2016). Genetic and environmental influences on the association between performance-based self-esteem and exhaustion: A study of the self-worth notion of burnout. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 57(5) , 419–426.
• Veldhuis, J., Alleva, J. M., Bij de Vaate, A. J. D., Keijer, M., & Konijn, E. A. (2018). Me, my selfie, and I: The relations between selfie behaviors, body image, self-objectification, and self-esteem in young women. Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 9(1) , 3–13.
• Workman, L., & Reader, W. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: An introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Yang, J., Xu, X., Chen, Y., Shi, Z., & Han, S. (2016). Trait self-esteem and neural activities related to self-evaluation and social feedback. Scientific Reports , 6(1) , 1–10.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Very beautiful concepts and images embeded about self-esteem Best regards Bizhan amiri ( studying family counseling Master of arts from iran)

Very interesting article, thank you. I am at the beginning of research on UK veterans and their likelihood of acquiring dementia earlier than usual. There are many risk factors: probable combat PTSD, too much alcohol, etc., that are less common in non veterans. The particular cohort I will be studying though are all likely to have high self-esteem, mainly because of the high profile work they did whilst serving. I am inclined to believe that high self-esteem could help the balance, but I understand there is no evidence to back that up as yet, however, I was wondering if you know of any high level research in process on the subject? Kind regards

Glad you enjoyed the post. That’s an interesting research topic! So are you thinking self-esteem might reduce the risk of acquiring dementia earlier? If yes, it’s possible that self-esteem may actually predict some of your independent variables. E.g., people with high self-esteem may be less likely to over-consume alcohol (see Hull & Young, 1983 ). In other words you might have a mediation model (or several).

I am not aware of a direct link between self-esteem and early-onset dementia, but I am not well connected with clinical researchers in this space. So, yes, definitely something to investigate!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Dr. Sutton: Thank you for your informative article on self-esteem. I really liked the research information, the various definitions of self-esteem and self-esteem related to health. Thank you.

Excellent resources that are good to share with colleagues Thank you

Thank you, Jeremy, for making this available to everyone! I think self-esteem is something we all need to look at with compassion and clarity and with the idea that we are always in a state of emotional development. We can change how we think and feel! Rochelle

Hi, I enjoy reading about the mind body & soul with an affinity towards neuroscience & mental well being- think Andrew Huberman & Stigma pidcast Steven Hays. As someone who was born with a physical outward skin disease called Collodian x linked Icthyosis & endured a level of self hatred in a social way- I managed through my own mental visualization & love of my parents to create beauty within. This created a foundational of personal self esteem that gave me the impetus to succeed in all areas of life with the ideology of daily gratitude for life, opportunity & spiritual faith. Yes, I am the walking talking miracle- now being studied for genetic & rare diseases at Yale. I believe true self esteem can be taught learned & changed through our environment beginning with our first teachers – our parents. If they don’t have it or are lacking in their own lives it’s hard for children to get a good start. Those challenges & our self talk manifest throughout our lives through our behaviors, relationships & choices we make. Rock on with high self esteem with reality & self knowledge in a world of click n sends of fantasy . Thank you.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Social Identity Theory: I, You, Us & We. Why Groups Matter

As humans, we spend most of our life working to understand our personal identities. The question of “who am I?” is an age-old philosophical thought [...]

Discovering Self-Empowerment: 13 Methods to Foster It

In a world where external circumstances often dictate our sense of control and agency, the concept of self-empowerment emerges as a beacon of hope and [...]

How to Improve Your Client’s Self-Esteem in Therapy: 7 Tips

When children first master the expectations set by their parents, the experience provides them with a source of pride and self-esteem. As children get older, [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (50)
• Coaching & Application (57)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (45)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (29)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (18)
• Positive Parenting (4)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

3 Self-Compassion Tools (PDF)

Advertisement

Supported by

‘Slow’ Review: We Don’t Have to Take Our Clothes Off

The second feature by the Lithuanian filmmaker Marija Kavtaradze asks what a relationship looks like when you factor out the sex.

• Share full article

By Beatrice Loayza

“Slow,” a relationship drama from Lithuania with a delicate touch, offers an understanding of intimacy that is rare in romance movies.

Elena (Greta Grineviciute), a contemporary dancer, meets Dovydas (Kestutis Cicenas), a sign language interpreter, at a class for deaf adolescents — she teaches the steps and he translates her instructions for the students. After the first session, the two 30-somethings begin a modest flirtation that inches toward the physical, but Dovydas pulls out a wild card when Elena invites him to her room: He is asexual.

The second feature by Marija Kavtaradze, “Slow” takes this difference as its point of departure. What does a relationship look like when you factor out the sex? It’s clear that Elena has a hard time accepting Dovydas as he is, a frustration that links back to her childhood self-esteem issues.

The couple’s journey is predictably bumpy, in part because the film aligns too consistently with Elena’s normative outlook. Dovydas’s sexuality baffles her, and Kavtaradze struggles to justify why the couple makes sense together despite this friction. Scenes meant to illustrate their special chemistry seem plucked out of a run-of-the-mill indie movie (an awkward-but-cute dance; in another scene, eyes locked from across the bar).

Grineviciute and Cicenas, however, give depth to a story that becomes stuck on the sorrows of the couple’s discrepancies. Dovydas alternates between sheepish and resolute, making his bouts of jealousy feel organic and vulnerable; Elena — we see in fierce, breathy interludes of her dance rehearsals — wields her physicality and thwarted desires as extensions of her personality.

Throughout the film, we see Dovydas enthusiastically performing a kind of sign language karaoke against a vivid blue backdrop; his facial expressions are like a lovesick balladeer. The film makes too little of this intuitive connection between lovers, both adept, in their own ways, at communicating passion by other means.

Slow Not rated. In Lithuanian, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 48 minutes. In theaters.

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

The Netflix stalker series “ Baby Reindeer ” combines the appeal of a twisty thriller with a deep sense of empathy. The ending illustrates why it’s become such a hit .

We have entered the golden age of Mid TV, where we have a profusion of well-cast, sleekly produced competence, our critic writes .

The writer-director Alex Garland has made it clear that “Civil War” should be a warning. Instead, the ugliness of war comes across as comforting thrills .

Studios obsessively focused on PG-13 franchises and animation in recent years, but movies like “Challengers” and “Saltburn” show that Hollywood is embracing sex again .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.