Robins Et Al 2001 One Item Self-esteem

http://psp.sagepub.com/Bulletin

Personality and Social Psychology

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/27/2/151The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0146167201272002 2001 27: 151Pers Soc Psychol Bull

Richard W. Robins, Holly M. Hendin and Kali H. TrzesniewskiSelf-Esteem Scale

Measuring Global Self-Esteem: Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measure and the Rosenberg

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology BulletinAdditional services and information for

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/27/2/151.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 1, 2001Version of Record >>

at University of Sussex Library on October 6, 2011psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETINRobins et al. / MEASURING GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM

Measuring Global Self-Esteem:Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measureand the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Richard W. RobinsHolly M. HendinKali H. TrzesniewskiUniversity of California, Davis

Four studies examined the construct validity of two global self-esteem measures. In Studies 1 through 3, the Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)showed strong convergent validity for men and women, for differ-ent ethnic groups, and for both college students and communitymembers. The SISE and the RSE had nearly identical correla-tions with a wide range of criterion measures, including domain-specific self-evaluations, self-evaluative biases, social desirabil-ity, personality, psychological and physical health, peer ratingsof group behavior, academic outcomes, and demographic vari-ables. Study 4 showed that the SISE had only moderate conver-gent validity in a sample of children. Overall, the findings sup-port the reliability and validity of the SISE and suggest it canprovide a practical alternative to the RSE in adult samples. Moregenerally, the findings contribute to the research literature by fur-ther elaborating the nomological network of global self-esteem.

The measurement of self-esteem is a long-standingissue in psychology, dating back to Jamess (1890) semi-nal writings on the self. Over the years, researchers haveproposed a wide range of self-esteem measures. In addi-tion to numerous self-report scales, there are experi-ence sampling measures (Savin-Williams & Jaquish,1981), pictorial measures for children (Harter & Pike,1989), Q-sort prototype measures based on observerjudgments (Waters, Noyes, Vaughn, & Ricks, 1985), peerratings (Demo, 1985), self-ideal discrepancy measures(Block & Robins, 1993), measures based on letter prefer-ences (Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997), and reaction timemeasures (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).However, the vast majority of researchers rely on facevalid self-report scales. Of these, the RosenbergSelf-Esteem Scale (RSE) (Rosenberg, 1965) is by far themost widely used (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991; Gray-Little,

Williams, & Hancock, 1997). The RSE also has receivedmore psychometric analysis and empirical validationthan any other self-esteem measure (Byrne, 1996;Gray-Little et al., 1997; Wylie, 1989). In a recent review,Gray-Little et al. (1997) concluded that the RSE is a reli-able and valid measure of global self-worth and deservesits widespread use and continued popularity (p. 450).However, they also point out that the 10-item RSE couldbe shortened without compromising the measurementof global self-esteem (p. 450).

The present article proposes a new measure of self-esteem based on a single item. We will present evidencethat this item has acceptable psychometric propertiesand can serve as a useful proxy for the RSE in a variety ofresearch contexts. For example, a single-item measurewould be advantageous in large-scale surveys, pre-screening packets (e.g., to select participants who arehigh vs. low in self-esteem), longitudinal studies, experi-ence sampling studies, and other research contexts inwhich time constraints limit the number of items thatcan be administered. These types of studies ofteninclude shortened versions of the RSE, but unfortu-

151

Authors Note: This research was funded by a faculty research grant(University of California, Davis), an Office of Educational Researchgrant (University of California, Berkeley), a Provosts Dissertation Re-search Award (University of California, Berkeley), and a National Sci-ence Foundation graduate fellowship. We thank Veronica Benet,Jonathan Cheek, Chris Fraley, Samuel Gosling, Oliver John, GeraldMendelsohn, Delroy Paulhus, and Niels Waller for comments on anearlier version of this article. We thank Brent Roberts and BrentDonnellan for help collecting the data reported in Studies 1 and 4.Correspondence should be addressed to Richard W. Robins, Depart-ment of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8686;email: [email protected].

PSPB, Vol. 27 No. 2, February 2001 151-161 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.


nately, researchers do not consistently select the sameitems, for example, OMalley and Bachman (1983) usedfour of the RSE items, whereas Tafarodi and Swann(1995) used six RSE items (only two items overlappedbetween the two studies). Moreover, a single-item mea-sure eliminates item redundancy and therefore reducesthe fatigue, frustration, and boredom associated withanswering highly similar questions repeatedly. In ourexperience, even when the RSE items are interspersedwith items from other scales, participants frequentlywrite comments such as, I have already answered thisquestion! Such reactions may lead participants to skipquestions, respond randomly, and engage in other test-taking behaviors that contribute to invalid protocols. Forthese reasons, there is a need for a standard and briefmeasure of self-esteem.

Despite the practical virtues of single-item measures,there are a number of psychometric reasons to be skepti-cal about them. First, multiple-item scales tend to bemore reliable. According to the Spearman-Brown for-mula and classical reliability theory, item responsesreflect both random measurement error and true scorevariance. By aggregating over multiple items, errorsifthey are randomcancel out. However, there are goodreasons to believe that measurement errors are not ran-dom across items in the RSE. Due to the redundancy ofitem content in the RSE, errors are unlikely to be aver-aged out as the number of items is increased. Moreover,asking more or less the same question 10 times may infact compound systematic errors (e.g., socially desirableresponding). Thus, the assumptions of the Spearman-Brown formula may be unrealistic for the RSE.

A second reason to have multiple-item scales is toensure content validity for multifaceted constructs.However, global self-worth refers to a persons overallpositive versus negative feelings about the self; it isexplicitly not domain specific and conceptuallyunidimensional. Thus, the 10 items of the RSE do nottap into different content domains (Gray-Little et al.,1997) but rather ask about general feelings of self-regardwithout reference to specific facets of the self. Moreover,global self-esteem is a subjective self-evaluation that isnot necessarily based on any specific behaviors. Conse-quently, self-esteem may be easier to measure with a sin-gle item than constructs such as conscientiousness,which refer to an amalgamation of several domains ofbehaviors (e.g., punctuality, orderliness, responsibility).Thus, a conscientiousness scale with adequate contentvalidity would require items assessing each domain,whereas a global self-esteem scale may possess adequatecontent validity with only a single item.

The benefits of using single-item measures, whenappropriate, have been noted by researchers (Burisch,1984). For example, researchers studying life satisfac-

tion (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976), subjectivewell-being (Diener, 1984; Sandvik, Diener, & Seidlitz,1993), affect (Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn, 1989), rela-tionships (Aron, Aron, & Danny, 1992), and attachmentstyle (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) all have found single itemsto be useful supplements to more extensive measure-ment procedures. In short, single-item measures canprovide an acceptable balance between practical needsand psychometric concerns.

We report findings from four studies to support theconstruct validity of the Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale(SISE). Study 1 is a longitudinal study in which the SISEand the RSE were administered six times over the courseof 4 years of college; the SISE and the RSE were related toeach other and to a wide range of variables to examinethe construct validity of the two measures. In Study 2, weexamined correlations of the SISE and the RSE withmeasures of socially desirable responding and examinedthe effects of a 5-point versus a 7-point response scale. InStudy 3, we examined the correlation between the SISEand the RSE in a community sample. In Study 4, we ex-amined the convergent validity of the SISE in a sample offourth- to eighth-grade students by using the Global Self-Esteem Scale from Harters (1985) Self-Perception Pro-file for Children.

STUDY 1

Method

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

This study used data from an ongoing longitudinalstudy of 508 undergraduate students who attended theUniversity of California at Berkeley. The sample isdiverse in terms of ethnicity (42% Asian, 40% Caucasian,11% Chicano/Latino, 6% African American, 1% NativeAmerican), gender (56% women), socioeconomic sta-tus (20% came from families with household incomesless than $25,000 and 20% from families with householdincomes greater than $100,000), and academic ability(combined Scholastic Aptitude Test [SAT] scoresranged from 650 to 1540, M = 1183, SD = 180).

Participants were assessed annually throughout col-lege. During the first week of college, at the end of thesemester, and at the end of each academic year, partici-pants were contacted by mail and asked to complete anextensive questionnaire in exchange for money orcourse credit. To validate our single-item scale, mea-sures of theoretical relevance to self-esteem wereselected from the larger set of measures included in thelongitudinal study. Table 1 shows the assessment periodswhen participants completed each measure.

152 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN


MEASURES

Self-esteem. Participants completed three measures ofself-esteem: the SISE, the RSE, and the Texas SocialBehavior Inventory-Form A (TSBI) (Helmreich & Stapp,1974). All three measures were rated on a 5-point scaleranging from 1 (not very true of me) to 5 (very true of me)and were administered along with several hundred itemsfrom other scales. The SISE consists of the item, I havehigh self-esteem. The RSE consists of 10 items assessingglobal self-esteem (e.g., On the whole, I am satisfiedwith myself). Previous studies have reported alphareliabilities for the RSE ranging from .72 to .88 (Gray-Lit-tle et al., 1997). In the present sample, alpha reliabilitiesranged from .88 to .90 across the six assessments. TheTSBI consists of 16 items focused on self-esteem in socialsettings (e.g., I have no doubts about my social compe-tence). The alpha reliability of the TSBI was .82 in thepresent sample.

Domain-specific self-evaluations. Participants rated theircompetence in seven domains: general intelligence, quan-titative ability, verbal ability, social skills, artistic ability,athletic ability, and physical attractiveness (Pelham &Swann, 1989). Ratings were made on a 10-point percentilescale ranging from 1 (bottom 5% of college students) to 10(top 5%). Academic self-concept was assessed using astandardized composite of seven items (s ranged from

.79 to .88), tapping two facets of perceived academic abil-ity: direct self-reports of ability (e.g., Compared to theaverage University of California [UC] Berkeley student,how would you rate your academic ability?) andexpected performance in college (e.g., Realistically,what overall grade point average [GPA] do you think youwill attain in college?).

Self-evaluative biases. Self-enhancement bias was definedas the degree to which participants overestimated theiracademic ability relative to accepted measures of actualacademic ability. Specifically, we used a residual score(computed via regression) reflecting the discrepancybetween the academic self-concept scale and a compos-ite measure of academic ability based on standardizedtest scores and high school grades (Robins & Beer, inpress; see also Robins & John, 1997). Positive values indi-cate self-enhancement (i.e., overestimation by the self)and negative values indicate self-diminishment (i.e.,underestimation by the self).

Self-serving attributional bias was defined as the ten-dency to make internal attributions for academic successand external attributions for academic failure. We usedthe Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale(MMCS) (Lefcourt, von Baeyer, Ware, & Cox, 1979) toassess causal attributions to two internal factors (i.e., abil-ity, effort) and two external factors (i.e., situation, luck)

Robins et al. / MEASURING GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM 153

TABLE 1: Study 1: Assessment Periods for Self-Esteem Scales and Criterion Measures

Beginning End of End of End of End of End ofMeasures of College First Semester First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year

Self-esteemSISE X X X X X XRSE X X X X X XTSBI X

Domain-specific self-evaluationsAcademic ability X X X X X XSeven domains X X X

Self-evaluation biasSelf-enhancement XSelf-serving attribution X

PersonalityNEO Big Five X XOptimism X XShyness X

Psychological and physical well-beingLife satisfaction X X X X X XAffect XDepression X X X XPerceived stress X X X XPhysical health X X X X

Group behaviorPeer ratings X

Academic outcomesSAT scores XHigh school GPA XCollege GPA X X X X X XAttrition X X X X X X

NOTE: SISE = Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale, RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, TSBI = Texas Social Behavior Inventory, and GPA = grade pointaverage.


separately for success and failure experiences. Self-serving bias was computed as the sum of four scales:internal attributions for success, external attributionsfor failure, external attributions for success (reverse-scored), and internal attributions for failure (reverse-scored).

Personality. The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 60-item measure of theFive-Factor Model completed by participants at thebeginning and end of college (s = .83 and .82 for Extra-version, .76 and .77 for Agreeableness, .81 and .83 forConscientiousness, .84 and .85 for Neuroticism, and .77and .75 for Openness to Experience, respectively, for thetwo assessments). Participants also completed Cheekand Melchiors (1990) three-component measure of shy-ness, which assesses the physiological, cognitive, andbehavioral aspects of shyness. The three items assessingthe three components were summed to form a globalmeasure of shyness ( = .65). We assessed dispositionaloptimism using the six-item Life Orientation TestRevised (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) ( = .86).

Psychological and physical well-being. Participants com-pleted four measures of psychological well-being: (a) the20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies DepressionScale (Radloff, 1977) (s = .90 to .92), (b) the single-itemOverall Life Satisfaction Scale (Campbell et al., 1976),(c) the six-item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, &Mermelstein, 1983) (s = .70 to .76), and (d) the Positiveand Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,1988) (s = .88 for positive affect and .88 for negativeaffect). Two single-item measures of physical well-beingwere used: (a) a global, subjective indicator (How wouldyou rate your physical health right now?) and (b) a moreobjective indicator (How often did you go to the stu-dent health services or a private doctor this year?).

Peer-rated group behavior. Participants interacted ingroups of four to five for a 20-minute decision-makingtask. Following the interaction, participants rated them-selves and the other group members on the followingdimensions: overall effectiveness in the group, talkative-ness, cooperativeness, competitiveness, task orientation,and creativity.

Academic outcomes. SAT scores, high school GPA,cumulative college GPA, and attrition information wereobtained from university records.

Demographics. Gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic sta-tus, and age were obtained from university records.

Results and Discussion

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Averaged across all six assessment periods, the SISEhad a mean of 3.5 (SD = 1.1), a median of 4, and a mode

of 4; the frequency distribution of the averaged scoreswas as follows: 1 = 5.3%, 2 = 14%, 3 = 26.2%, 4 = 35.2%,and 5 = 19.2%. Thus, the SISE is approximately normallydistributed with some negative skewness (.47); that is,most individuals reported having relatively high self-esteem with a minority reporting lower self-esteem. Aver-aged across assessment periods, the RSE had a mean of3.8 (SD = .7) and a median of 3.9, with scores ranging from1.3 to 5.0. Similar to the SISE, the RSE had an approxi-mately normal distribution but with slightly more skew-ness (.63).

TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY AND STABILITY OVER TIME

Internal consistency reliability (e.g., Cronbachs coef-ficient alpha) cannot be computed for a single-item scale.However, Heise (1969, Equation 9) developed a proce-dure to estimate the reliability of a single-item scalebased on its pattern of autocorrelations over three pointsin time. The Heise procedure provides an estimate of test-retest reliability that separates true change from mea-surement error. We computed the Heise estimate threetimes using the across-time correlations of the SISE fromthe beginning to the end of college.1 The mean reliabil-ity estimate for the SISE was .75. To demonstrate theeffectiveness of the Heise procedure, we also used thismethod to estimate the reliability of the RSE. The meanreliability estimate for the RSE was .88 (the same as itsalpha reliability).

To examine stability over time, correlations of theSISE and RSE were computed across the six assessments.The mean across-time correlation (averaged across all 15possible time intervals) was similar for the SISE (mean r =.61) and the RSE (mean r = .69). Moreover, the pattern ofacross-time correlations was similar for the two mea-sures, and both showed a simplex structure (i.e., highercorrelations between adjacent time periods and lowercorrelations across longer time intervals).

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

Concurrent correlations between the SISE and theRSE ranged from .72 to .76 across the six assessments,with a median of .75. (In comparison, the 10 RSE itemshad median item-total correlations ranging from .46 to.71.) These correlations were similar for men (Mdn =.74) and women (Mdn = .73) and for Caucasians (Mdn =.80), African Americans (Mdn = .71), Asians (Mdn = .70),and Latinos (Mdn = .70). After correcting for attenua-tion due to unreliability in the SISE and RSE, convergentcorrelations in the total sample ranged from .89 to .94with a median of .93. Thus, it appears that virtually all ofthe reliable variance in the SISE overlaps with the RSE.Correlations with the TSBI were somewhat lower; theTSBI correlated .58 with the SISE and .62 with the RSE.These lower convergent validity correlations most likelyreflect the fact that the TSBI is primarily a measure of



social self-esteem and not global self-esteem (Blascovich &Tomaka, 1991).

Factor analyses of the 10 RSE items suggested a singlegeneral factor (Gray-Little et al., 1997): All items hadhigh loadings on the first unrotated factor, a scree testshowed an elbow after the first factor, and an analysisusing structural equation modeling showed relativelygood fit with a single-factor model (Comparative FitIndex [CFI] = .90). Moreover, when two factors wereextracted and rotated using an oblique rotation, theycorrelated .55, which also suggests a strong general fac-tor. The SISE was strongly related to both factors; it cor-related .81 with the first factor and .65 with the secondfactor. These factors did not correspond to the positivelykeyed and negatively keyed item factors found in someprevious studies of the RSE factor structure (Carmines &Zeller, 1979; Hensley & Roberts, 1976).

Next, we compared the convergent and discriminantvalidity of the two self-esteem measures. Table 2 showscorrelations of the SISE and the RSE with 37 differentcriteria. The two measures showed remarkably similarcorrelations with the domain-specific self-evaluations.High-self-esteem individuals tended to see themselves asacademically competent, intelligent, socially skilled, ath-letic, and physically attractive. These findings are consis-tent with previous research linking global self-esteem tospecific self-evaluations (e.g., Marsh, 1986) as well as withthe recognition that global self-esteem is related but notequivalent to a persons domain-specific self-evaluations(e.g., Harter, 1998; Pelham & Swann, 1989; Rosenberg,1979).

Both measures also showed that high-self-esteem indi-viduals are prone to self-evaluative biases. In particular,high-self-esteem individuals beliefs about their aca-demic ability were unrealistically positive (relative totheir test scores and achievement) and they made self-serving attributions for their academic successes and fail-ures (i.e., taking credit for success but externalizingblame for failure). These findings are consistent withprevious research showing a link between self-esteemand positive illusions about the self (e.g., Aspinwall &Taylor, 1992; Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988; Taylor &Brown, 1988).

The SISE and RSE had highly similar Big Five profiles,deviating more than slightly only in their correlationswith Agreeableness and Neuroticism. The Big Five corre-lates are highly similar to those found in a very large sam-ple (N = 241,154) obtained over the Internet betweenthe SISE and NEO-FFI measures of Extraversion (r =.38), Agreeableness (r = .13), Conscientiousness (r =.25), Neuroticism (r = .50), and Openness (r = .17)(Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Gosling, & Potter, 2001).The Big Five correlates are also similar to those reportedby Haig (1998), who found correlations between the

RSE and NEO-PI-R measures of Extraversion (r = .45),Agreeableness (r = .13), Conscientiousness (r = .43),Neuroticism (r = .69), and Openness (r = .10) in a sam-ple of 345 college students. Both self-esteem measureswere strongly positively correlated with optimism and neg-


TABLE 2: Study 1: Construct Validity of the Single-Item Self-EsteemScale (SISE) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)

SISE RSE

Domain-specific self-evaluationsAcademic ability .20* .24*General intellectual ability .19* .20*Quantitative ability .17* .15*Verbal ability .12 .16*Social skills .27* .27*Artistic ability .13 .10Athletic ability .19* .18*Physical attractiveness .31* .31*

Self-evaluative biasesSelf-enhancement bias .28* .32*Self-serving attributions .30* .38*

PersonalityNEO Extraversion .39* .41*NEO Agreeableness .04 .23*NEO Conscientiousness .23* .28*NEO Neuroticism .57* .70*NEO Openness to Experience .11 .16*Optimism .44* .48*Shyness .26* .28*

Psychological and physical well-beingLife satisfaction .45* .54*Dispositional affectpositive .53* .56*Dispositional affectnegative .38* .56*Depression .25* .34*Perceived stress .36* .39*Physical well-being .23* .26*Number of doctor visits .01 .07

Peer-rated group behaviorEffectiveness in group task .17* .15*Talkative .15* .19*Cooperative .08 .14*Competitive .04 .04Task-oriented .15* .19*Creative .10 .17*

Academic outcomesSAT scores .08 .07High school GPA .10 .03College GPA .05 .07Attrition .00 .01

DemographicsSex (keyed toward male) .16* .12*Socioeconomic status .02 .02Age .01 .00

NOTE: Ns ranged from 299 to 496. Values in the table are correlationsbetween self-esteem scores obtained in the first assessment, with crite-rion variables aggregated across all available assessment periods. Thetwo columns in the table correlate at .98. For three of the criterion vari-ables (NEO Agreeableness, NEO Neuroticism, and DispositionalAffectNegative), the correlation with the SISE differed significantly(p < .01) from the correlation with the RSE, based on a t test for the dif-ference between dependent correlations. GPA = grade point average.*p < .01.


atively correlated with shyness, which is consistent withresearch showing that high-self-esteem individuals tendto be optimistic (Scheier et al., 1994) and low in shyness(Cheek & Melchior, 1990).

The SISE and RSE had similar relations with measuresof psychological and physical health. The most notabledifference between the two measures was the stronger rela-tion between the RSE and measures of depressive and neg-ative affect, perhaps reflecting the fact that the RSEincludes items tapping negative feelings toward the self(e.g., All in all, I am inclined to feel that Im a failure.).Supporting this possibility, the negatively keyed RSE itemshad stronger relations with the maladjustment measuresthan did the positively keyed items.2 Whether this is anadvantage or disadvantage of the RSE relative to the SISEdepends on ones theory about how strongly globalself-esteem should be related to psychological distress.3

The findings for the peer ratings of behavior wereconsistent with the self-report measures of personalityand adjustment. High-self-esteem individuals on boththe SISE and the RSE were described by their peers aseffective, talkative, cooperative, task-oriented, and cre-ative in the group interaction. Together, the self- andpeer criterion measures paint a portrait of the high-self-esteem individual as functioning effectively in both thepsychic and interpersonal domains.

Neither the SISE nor the RSE was strongly associatedwith any of the academic outcomes. The correlations areconsistent with, although somewhat weaker than, thosereported in previous studies; for example, Hansford andHattie (1982) conducted a meta-analysis of the relationbetween self-esteem and academic performance andfound an average effect size of .14 for college students.Thus, our findings replicate previous research showingthat self-esteem and objective academic outcomes areonly weakly related and further confirm the realizationthat self-esteem may not be the panacea for academicproblems that many hoped it would be (California TaskForce on Self-Esteem, 1990).

Consistent with previous research, men reportedslightly higher self-esteem than did women at every assess-ment period (e.g., Major, Barr, Zubek, & Babey, 1999;Robins, Trzesniewski, Gosling, & Potter, 2001). The mag-nitude of this gender difference was approximately thesame for the SISE (Cohens d = .26, p < .05) and the RSE(Cohens d = .21, p < . 05). There were significant ethnicdifferences for the SISE, F(3, 474) = 4.3, p < .05, and theRSE, F(3, 474) = 3.8, p < .05; the pattern of differenceswas the same for both measures: Asian Americansreported significantly lower levels of self-esteem thanCaucasians (ds = .36 and .32, ps < .05, respectively) andmarginally significantly lower self-esteem than AfricanAmericans (ds = .31 and .44, ps < .15, respectively). Nei-ther the SISE nor the RSE had significant correlations

with socioeconomic status or age. The similarity betweenthe SISE and the RSE in their demographic correlatesprovides additional support for the psychological equiv-alence of the two scales.

To further explore the similarity between the SISEand the RSE, we recomputed all of the correlations inTable 2 separately for men and women. The two columnscorrelated .97 for men and .97 for women, and for bothgenders the correlations differed only minimally in abso-lute level. In addition, to address the possibility that aggre-gating over time reduces error variance in the SISE morethan in the RSE, we also computed all possible concurrentcorrelations between the self-esteem measures and eachcriterion variable and then averaged the resulting corre-lations. We found a nearly identical pattern for the SISEand the RSE (correlation between columns = .98) and aminimal difference in absolute level. Finally, to addressthe possibility that repeated assessments of the SISEincrease its validity, we computed the correlations inTable 2 using only the first wave of self-esteem data.Again, the pattern of correlations for the SISE and theRSE was nearly identical (correlation between columns =.99), and there was a minimal difference in absolutelevel.

In summary, the findings from Study 1 provide sub-stantial support for the convergence between the SISEand the RSE. The two measures were highly correlatedwith each other and had similar relations with a broadrange of criterion measures selected because of theirtheoretical or empirical link with self-esteem. In virtuallyall cases, the correlations were consistent with previousresearch on global self-esteem. Thus, the findings sup-port the construct validity of both the SISE and the RSEand contribute to the general research literature by fur-ther elaborating the nomological network of global self-esteem.

STUDY 2

Study 2 had three goals. First, we examined the con-vergent correlation between the SISE and the RSE in anindependent sample. Second, we tested whether a 7-point rating scale would increase the convergent validityof the SISE relative to the 5-point scale used in Study 1.The length of the response scale might affect the validityof the measure because (a) it might increase the amountof reliable variance (if individuals can reliably discrimi-nate among seven scale points when rating their self-esteem then the 5-point scale would lose valid informa-tion) and (b) it might affect the distributional propertiesof the measure, including the degree of skewness andkurtosis. Third, we examined the degree to which theSISE and the RSE are related to two different facets ofsocially desirable responding (Paulhus, 1994, 1998): self-deceptive enhancement (the tendency to give honestly



held but inflated self-descriptions) and impression man-agement (the tendency to consciously provide inflatedself-descriptions as a form of self-presentation to anaudience).

Method

SAMPLE

The study included 208 undergraduate students (61%women) who participated in this study as part of a courserequirement.

MEASURES

Participants completed the SISE, the RSE, and the 40-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding(BIDR) (Paulhus, 1994). The BIDR measures two formsof socially desirable responding: Self-Deceptive Enhance-ment (SDE) and Impression Management (IM). Onehundred thirty-nine participants completed the ques-tionnaire using a 5-point rating scale, and 69 participantsused a 7-point scale. Alpha reliabilities for the 5-pointand 7-point versions, respectively, were .89 and .93 for theRSE, .72 and .79 for the SDE, and .78 and .78 for the IM.


The SISE and RSE correlated .74 for the 5-point scaleand .73 for the 7-point scale (see Table 3). These valuesare similar to the median correlation of .75 found inStudy 1 and provide further support for the convergentvalidity of the SISE. However, the length of the responsescale (5-point scale vs. 7-point scale) does not appear toaffect the convergent validity of the SISE.

In terms of socially desirable responding, the SISEand SDE correlated .21 and .47 and the RSE and SDEcorrelated .22 and .49, respectively, for the 5-point and7-point scales. The SISE and IM correlated .04 and .05and the RSE and IM correlated .13 and .08, respectively,for the 5-point and 7-point scales. Thus, both the SISEand the RSE were associated with self-deceptiveenhancement but neither was associated with impressionmanagement. This is consistent with previous researchon self-esteem and socially desirable responding(Paulhus, 1994, 1998) and provides further support forthe relation found in Study 1 between self-esteem andself-enhancement bias.

Men reported higher self-esteem than women onboth the SISE (Cohens d = .24 and .70, for the 5-pointand 7-point scales) and the RSE (Cohens d = .02 and .34,for the 5-point and 7-point scales). This sex difference isconsistent with the findings from Study 1.

In summary, Study 2 replicated the correlation betweenthe SISE and the RSE in a second sample of college stu-dents and showed that this correlation is equally strongfor a 5-point and 7-point rating scale. Study 2 also showedthat high scorers on both the SISE and the RSE show a

tendency toward self-deceptive enhancement but theydo not seem to be consciously managing their impressions.

STUDY 3

The goal of Study 3 was to replicate the convergentcorrelation between the SISE and the RSE in a noncollegestudent sample. It is possible that the single-item mea-sure of self-esteem is only valid in college student samples,where the participants are highly educated and gener-ally focused on their competencies, goals, and aspira-tions. If so, the high convergence between the SISE andthe RSE found in Studies 1 and 2 may not generalize to acommunity sample.

Method

SAMPLE

Participants were 66 individuals recruited from sev-eral community locations, including shopping malls, busstations, day care centers, and movie theaters. The sam-ple was diverse in terms of gender (64% women), age(range = 21 to 61, Mdn = 44), and ethnicity (67% Cauca-sian, 17% Chicano/Latino, 12% Native American, 3%African American, 1% Asian). Participants were employedin a wide range of occupations, including manual labor(e.g., sheet metal worker), clerical (e.g., administrativeassistant), managerial (e.g., store manager), and profes-sional (e.g., architect).

MEASURES

Participants completed the SISE and the RSE (= .87),which were embedded in a longer questionnaire.


The correlation between the SISE and the RSE was.80, even higher than in the two college student samples(see Table 3). The higher correlation was not due togreater variance in the self-esteem scores; the standarddeviations of the SISE and the RSE were slightly lower in


TABLE 3: Correlation Between the Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale(SISE) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) AcrossThree Studies

Total Sample Men Women

Study 1 .75* .74* .75*(N = 496) (.93) (.91) (.92)

Study 2a .74*/.73* .76*/.71* .74*/.70*(N = 208) (.91)/(.87) (.93)/(.87) (.90)/(.84)

Study 3(N = 66) .80* (.99) .79* (.95) .79* (> .99)

NOTE: Values in parentheses are corrected correlations, disattenuatedfor unreliability in the RSE and the SISE (the SISE reliability estimatefrom Study 1 was used for all corrections).a. Correlations for 5-point/7-point response scales, respectively.*p < .01.


the community sample than in the college student sam-ples. The correlation between the SISE and the RSE wasnot moderated by the occupational status of the partici-pant; the correlation was .81 for individuals employed injobs requiring a college degree (n = 29) and .79 for indi-viduals employed in jobs that did not require a collegedegree (n = 37). This suggests that the SISE may be avalid measure of global self-esteem in noncollege stu-dent samples, although we recommend that additionalvalidation evidence be obtained before using the SISE insuch contexts.

Men reported slightly higher self-esteem than did wo-men, which is consistent with Studies 1 and 2. The mag-nitude of this gender difference was approximately thesame for the SISE (Cohens d = .40, p < .05) and the RSE(Cohens d = .51, p < .05). Age was not significantly corre-lated with self-esteem for either the SISE (r = .14) or theRSE (r = .09).

STUDY 4

Study 4 had three goals. The first goal was to deter-mine whether the SISE shows convergent validity in asample of children. To test this, we collected self-esteemdata on a sample of children in Grades 4 through 8 andcorrelated the SISE with the Global Self-Esteem (GSE)Scale from the Self-Perception Profile for Children(Harter, 1985), the most widely used self-esteem scale forchildren. The second goal was to determine whetherobserver ratings using the SISE show convergent validitywith observer ratings using the GSE. To test this, we cor-related parent ratings of their childs self-esteem usingthe SISE and the GSE. The third goal was to determinewhether agreement between child and parent ratings ofself-esteem is comparable for the two measures ofself-esteem.

Method

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 212 children (58% girls) andtheir parents or primary caregivers. The sample con-sisted of fourth- to eighth-grade students recruited froma kindergarten through eighth-grade school in a pre-dominantly middle-class suburban community. The sam-ple was 65% Caucasian, 15% Chicano/Latino, 10% Afri-can American, 5% Asian, and 5% Native American.

PROCEDURE

To control for differences in reading ability, the chil-dren were interviewed individually and the questionswere presented visually on a computer screen and readaloud to the children through headphones. The com-puter recorded response latencies for each item. Atrained interviewer was present throughout the inter-view to assist the child and to answer any questions the

child might have about the meaning or content of thequestions. Parents completed the self-esteem measuresat home and returned the questionnaire by mail. Forboth children and parents, the self-esteem items wereembedded in a larger questionnaire.

SELF-ESTEEM MEASURES

SISE. Children rated their self-esteem using the SISE.The item was worded exactly as in Studies 1 through 3 (Ihave high self-esteem), and responses were made on a5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). A parent or primary caregiver also rated the childsself-esteem using the SISE (My son/daughter has highself-esteem). For a subset of participants, two parents orcaregivers provided SISE data, in which case we averagedtheir ratings.

Self-Perception Profile for Children. Children completedthe six-item GSE Scale of the Self-Perception Profile forChildren (Harter, 1985). A parent or primary caregiverdescribed his or her childs self-esteem using the sameset of items worded in the third person. For a subset ofparticipants, two parents or caregivers completed thescale, in which case we averaged their scale scores. Thealpha reliability was .77 for child-reported self-esteemand .84 for parent reports of the childs self-esteem.


The correlation between the SISE and the GSE Scalewas .52 in the total sample (rs = .55 for boys and .50 forgirls). There were no systematic trends across Grades 4to 8 (convergent rs = .59, .37, .66, .50, and .43 for Grades4 to 8, respectively). Overall, these convergent correla-tions are moderate in magnitude but substantially lowerthan we found in Studies 1 through 3. This suggests thatthe SISE may not be as valid for children as it is for adults.Nonetheless, the convergence between the SISE and theGSE is sufficiently high to justify further research into itsconstruct validity for children (e.g., correlations withexternal criteria).

Our second question concerned the convergencebetween parental reports of their childs self-esteemusing the SISE and the GSE. The correlation betweenthe SISE and the GSE was .74, which is near the reliabilityof the two measures. This suggests that parental ratingsof self-esteem are highly similar for the two measures.

Our third question concerned the convergencebetween child and parent reports of self-esteem; that is,to what extent do the childrens self-reports of self-esteemcorrespond with parent reports of the childs self-esteem? The child SISE correlated .24 with the parentSISE and .30 with the parent GSE; the child GSE corre-lated .34 with the parent GSE and .35 with the parentSISE. Thus, child-parent convergence was comparable



in magnitude for the two self-esteem measures but some-what higher for the multiple-item GSE Scale.

How can we explain the fact that the convergent valid-ity of the SISE was lower in the child sample than in thecollege student samples (Studies 1 and 2) or the commu-nity sample (Study 3)? The lower validity may simplyreflect the limited language proficiency of fourth- toeighth-grade students (e.g., they do not fully understandthe meaning of self-esteem). However, this seems unlikelygiven that the convergent correlations do not increasewith age. Another possibility is that the SISE is simply lessstrongly associated with the item content on the GSEthan the item content on the RSE. However, this alsoseems unlikely because the GSE items (I like the kind ofperson I am) are similar in content to the RSE items(e.g., I take a positive attitude toward myself) and,moreover, the convergent correlations were very highfor the parent ratings of the SISE and GSE.4 Part of thedifference may be due to the lower reliability of the GSEScale ( = .77) compared to the RSE. However, even thedisattenuated convergent correlation is only .68 (cor-recting for unreliability in the GSE and the SISE), whichis considerably lower than the disattenuated correlationsreported in Studies 1 through 3 (see Table 3).

Finally, a developmental interpretation is plausible.The findings from all four studies suggest an interestingdevelopmental trend: The validity of the SISE may in-crease from childhood to late adolescence to adulthood.We found the lowest convergence in the child sample (r =.52), much higher convergence in the two college stu-dent samples (rs = .73 to .75), and even higher conver-gence in the community sample (r = .80), which had amedian age of 44. It is possible that this trend reflects thedevelopment of a consistent and coherent self-schema;from this perspective, children may show lower conver-gence because they do not have fully developed globalschemas for self-esteem. Consistent with this interpreta-tion, we found that response latency on the SISE moder-ated the relation between the SISE and the GSE (beta ofthe interaction term in a moderated multiple regressionanalysis = .21); specifically, the convergent validity ofthe SISE was .72 for individuals 1 SD below the mean inresponse latency (schematics), .51 for individuals at themean, and .30 for individuals 1 SD above the mean(aschematics) (Aiken & West, 1991).5 Interestingly, theestimated convergent correlation for schematic chil-dren is comparable to what we found for college stu-dents in Studies 1 and 2.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Together, the findings from Studies 1 through 4 fur-ther elaborate the nomological network of globalself-esteem and show that global self-esteem has impor-tant and wide-ranging implications for interpersonal

and intrapsychic functioning. In general, the results rep-licate previous research on the correlates of self- esteem.The findings also provide information about self-esteemcorrelates that have received relatively little attention inthe self-esteem literature, including how self-esteemrelates to peer ratings of behavior in a group interactiontask, how self-esteem relates to the Big Five personalitytraits, and the degree to which parent and child ratingsof self-esteem converge. The replication of our findingsusing two measures of self-esteem strengthens thegeneralizability of the research.

In addition to contributing to an understanding ofthe correlates of global self-esteem, the present researchprovides further support for the construct validity of themost widely used measure of global self-esteemtheRSEas well as supporting the validity of a new measureof global self-esteem based on a single itemthe SISE.The SISE had very high convergent validity with the RSEin all three studies using adult samples (see Table 3) andlower, but still moderate, convergent validity with Har-ters GSE scale in the child sample. The strong conver-gence between the SISE and the RSE held (a) for malesand females, (b) for different ethnic groups, (c) for bothcollege students and community members, (d) for dif-ferent occupational statuses, (e) across 4 years of col-lege, and (f) for a 5-point and 7-point rating scale. More-over, the SISE and the RSE had a nearly identical patternof correlates with a wide range of criterion variables,including domain-specific self-evaluations, self-evaluativebiases, two forms of social desirability, personality traits,psychological and physical health, peer ratings of groupbehavior, demographic characteristics, and severalobjective measures of academic outcomes. Thus, thefindings suggest that in most cases, researchers using theSISE will find virtually the same relations as they wouldhave had they used the RSE. Given its greater practicality,therefore, the SISE may be a useful alternative to the RSEin some research contexts.

Clearly, the SISE has limitations. First, the SISE is notas reliable as the RSE. Yet, despite its lower reliability, theSISE exhibited essentially the same pattern of correla-tions as the RSE. Second, the SISE may be more suscepti-ble to extremity and acquiescence response stylesbecause it has only one positively keyed item. However,this concern is ameliorated by the fact that the SISE cor-relates almost as highly with a composite of the five nega-tively keyed RSE items (rs = .66 to .70 across Studies 1 to 3)as it does with a composite of the five positively keyedRSE items (rs = .71 to .75 across Studies 1 to 3). Third, theSISE is a blatantly face-valid measure and shows somesusceptibility to socially desirable responding, in particu-lar to self-deceptive enhancement. This is undoubtedly aproblem but one that is equally applicable to the RSE (asStudy 2 shows) and the GSE. If one wants a subtle mea-



sure of deep-seated feelings of self-worth, neither theSISE nor the RSE nor the GSE is the measure of choice.Fourth, scale validation is an ongoing process (one nevervalidates a scale but rather provides progressively moreevidence for a particular interpretation of the scale) andresearchers should be cautious about using the SISEwithout validating it in other contexts and in a widerrange of samples. For example, Study 4 suggests that theSISE may not be as valid in childhood and further evi-dence is needed for its construct validity in that age group.

The finding that a single item can provide a valid mea-sure of global self-esteem is itself of theoretical impor-tance, which may have implications for the developmentof self-esteem and the way in which evaluative knowledgeabout the self is organized and retrieved. We have specu-lated that a single item may provide an adequate mea-sure of self-esteem because most adults are schematic forself-esteem. Self-esteem is an indicator of social status ingroup and interpersonal contexts and helps to motivateand regulate behavior in achievement contexts, and thusserves important adaptive functions (Leary, 1999;Robins, Norem, & Cheek, 1999). Consequently, globalself-esteem is likely to be repeatedly activated in a widerange of situations and is therefore likely to be chroni-cally accessible by adulthood. The fact that most adultsare schematic for global self-esteem may reduce randomerror in self-reports of self-esteem (but not systematicerrors that are correlated across items). Thus, in terms ofmeasuring global feelings of self-worth, it may simply benecessary to activate the self-esteem schema (which canbe done with a single item) so redundant items providelimited additional information. This interpretation issupported by the lower convergent validity found for theSISE in the child sample, as well as the moderating effectof response latency (see Study 4).

This raises an important caveat: We are not arguingthat single-item self-report scales are generally useful inpsychological assessment or that they can be used tomeasure all (or even most) psychological constructs. Forexample, it is unlikely that a single-item measure wouldbe valid for a multifaceted and psychodynamically com-plex construct such as narcissism or for a construct onwhich a nontrivial proportion of adults are not sche-matic, such as independence (Markus, 1977). The presentfindings are informative about the circumstances underwhich a single item can provide a suitable alternative tomultiple-item scales. Specifically, a single self-reportitem may be adequate when the construct is (a) highlyschematized for most individuals, (b) unidimensionalin content, and (c) primarily reflects subjective experi-ence. In the present case, we are convinced by the accu-mulated evidence that the SISE sacrifices little in the wayof reliability and validity while at the same time provid-ing a practical alternative to the RSE. In short, if the goalis to discover whether individuals consciously experi-

ence positive self- regard, it may be possible, as Allport(1942) suggested, to simply ask them.

NOTES

1. The Heise procedure assumes an equivalent interval betweenassessments so we excluded the data from the end of the first semesterassessment; this left five assessment periods, each separated by about1 year.

2. Overall, however, the pattern of correlations was highly similarfor the negatively keyed Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) items andthe positively keyed RSE items. When we recomputed all of the correla-tions in Table 2 separately for the negatively and positively keyed items,the correlation between the two sets of correlations (computed acrossthe 37 criteria) was .99, and they differed minimally in absolute level.

3. Psychological theory is somewhat ambiguous about what thenomological net of self-esteem should look like with regard to mea-sures of neuroticism and depression. Self-esteem and neuroticism aregenerally considered to be distinct constructs, and very high conver-gent correlations between a measure of self-esteem and a measure ofneuroticism could suggest a lack of discriminant validity, perhaps dueto shared method variance, item content overlap, and/or response-style effects (e.g., socially desirable responding). On the other hand, insome psychological theories (e.g., Beck, 1972), negative beliefs aboutthe self are considered central to depression and the two constructs arenot entirely distinct. From this perspective, one would expect verystrong relations between measures of self-esteem and measures of psy-chological distress.

4. In addition, in a pilot study of 304 fifth- and eighth-grade stu-dents, we administered the Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE) andthe RSE and found a convergence correlation of .51, which is almostexactly the same as we found for the SISE and the Global Self-Esteem(GSE) Scale.

5. To ensure that this effect was not due to general processingspeed, we conducted another analysis in which we subtracted meanresponse latency for a set of control items (ratings of teachers) fromresponse latency for the SISE. This corrected measure of responselatency also significantly moderated the relation between the SISE andthe GSE. To ensure that the effect was not due to a few outliers, we con-ducted two additional moderated multiple regression analyses exclud-ing individuals who were 3 or more and 2 or more standard deviationsabove the mean; in both analyses, response latency continued to signif-icantly moderate the relation between the SISE and the GSE.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpret-ing interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allport, G. W. (1942). The use of personal documents in psychological science(Bulletin 49). New York: Social Science Research Council.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Danny, S. (1992). Inclusion of Other in SelfScale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation:A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differencesand coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 63, 989-1003.

Beck, A. T. (1972). Depression: Causes and treatments. Philadelphia: Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Press.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). The Self-Esteem Scale. In J. P. Rob-inson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personalityand social psychological attitudes (pp. 115-160). New York: AcademicPress.

Block, J., & Robins, R. W. (1993). A longitudinal study of consistencyand change in self-esteem from early adolescence to early adult-hood. Child Development, 64, 909-923.

Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem anddirect versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 55, 445-453.

Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction:A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214-227.



Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span: Issues andinstrumentation. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

California Task Force on Self-Esteem. (1990). Toward a state of self-esteem:The final report of the California task force to promote self-esteem and per-sonal and social responsibility. Sacramento: California Department ofEducation.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality ofAmerican life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Rus-sell Sage.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, andself-consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social andevaluation anxiety (pp. 47-82). New York: Plenum.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure ofperceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional man-ual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Demo, D. H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Refining ourmethods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1490-1502.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95,542-575.

Gray-Little, B., Williams, V.S.L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An itemresponse theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 443-451.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998). Measuringindividual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit associa-tion test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Haig, J. R. (1998). Self-esteem and depression: An exploration of a facet levelrelationship of the five-factor personality model. Poster presented at theAmerican Psychological Society, Washington, DC.

Hansford, B. C., & Hattie, J. A. (1982). The relationship between selfand achievement/performance measures. Review of EducationalResearch, 52, 123-142.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children (revisionof the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Denver, CO: Universityof Denver.

Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. InN. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 553-617). New York: John Wiley.

Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived compe-tence and social acceptance for young children. Child Development,55, 1969-1982.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as anattachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,511-524.

Heise, D. R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test-retest cor-relation. American Sociological Review, 34, 93-101.

Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). Short forms of the Texas SocialBehavior Inventory (TSBI): An objective measure of self-esteem.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 473-475.

Hensley, W. E., & Roberts, M. K. (1976). Dimensions of RosenbergsScale of Self-Esteem. Psychological Reports, 38, 583-584.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vols. 1 & 2). New York:Holt.

Kitayama, S., & Karasawa, M. (1997). Implicit self-esteem in Japan:Name letters and birthday numbers. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 23, 736-742.

Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 8, 32-35.

Lefcourt, H. M., von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox, D. J. (1979). Themultidimensional-multiattributional causality scale: The develop-ment of a goal specific local of control scale. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 11, 286-304.

Major, B., Barr, L., Zubek, J., & Babey, S. H. (1999). Gender and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gilbert(Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet

Taylor Spence (pp. 223-253). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association.

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

Marsh, H. W. (1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets ofself-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1224-1236.

OMalley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1983). Self-esteem: Change and sta-bility between ages 13 and 23. Developmental Psychology, 19, 257-268.

Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Reference manual for the Balanced Inventory of Desir-able Responding, Version 6. British Columbia, Canada: University ofBritish Columbia, Department of Psychology.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness oftrait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.

Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scalefor research in the general population. Applied Psychological Mea-surement, 1, 385-401.

Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (in press). Positive illusions about the self:Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 80.

Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). Effects of visual perspective andnarcissism on self-perception: Is seeing believing? Psychological Sci-ence, 8, 37-42.

Robins, R. W., Norem, J. K., & Cheek, J. M. (1999). Naturalizing theself. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality(pp. 443-477). New York: Guilford.

Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J.(2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem across the lifespan. Davis: Uni-versity of California, Department of Psychology.

Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J.(2001). Self-esteem across the life span. Davis: University of California,Department of Psychology.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A sin-

gle-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 57, 493-502.

Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: Theconvergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report mea-sures. Journal of Personality, 61, 317-342.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Jaquish, G. A. (1981). The assessment of ado-lescent self-esteem: A comparison of methods. Journal of Personality,49, 324-336.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishingoptimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, andself-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1995). Self-liking and self-compe-tence as dimensions of global self-esteem: Initial validation of ameasure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 322-342.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psy-chological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,193-210.

Waters, E., Noyes, D. M., Vaughn, B. E., & Ricks, M. (1985). Q-sort defi-nition of social competence and self-esteem: Discriminant validityof related constructs in theory and data. Developmental Psychology,21, 508-522.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANASscales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.

Received March 29, 1999Revision accepted December 8, 1999



Robins Et Al 2001 One Item Self-esteem

Documents

Transcript of Robins Et Al 2001 One Item Self-esteem