Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question

Debates about the benefits of self-esteem have persisted for decades, both in the scientific literature and in the popular press. Although many researchers and lay people have argued that high self-esteem helps individuals adapt to and succeed in a variety of life domains, there is widespread skepticism about this claim. The present article takes a new look at the voluminous body of research (including several meta-analyses) examining the consequences of self-esteem for several important life domains: relationships, school, work, mental health, physical health, and antisocial behavior. Overall, the findings suggest that self-esteem is beneficial in all these domains, and that these benefits hold across age, gender, and race/ethnicity, and controlling for prior levels of the predicted outcomes and potential third variable confounds. The meta-analytic estimates of self-esteem effects (which average .10 across domains) are comparable in size to estimates for other hypothesized causal factors such as self-efficacy, positive emotionality, attachment security, and growth mindset, and larger than some generally accepted pharmaceutical interventions. Discussion focuses on several issues that are critical for evaluating the findings, including the strength of the evidence for making causal inferences, the magnitude of the effects, the importance of distinguishing between self-esteem and narcissism, and the generalizability of the results. In summary, the present findings support theoretical conceptions of self-esteem as an adaptive trait that has wide-ranging influences on healthy adjustment and adaptation, and suggest that interventions aimed at boosting self-esteem might, if properly designed and implemented, benefit individuals and society as a whole. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

The benefits of self-esteem: Reply to Krueger et al. (2022) and Brummelman (2022)

Krueger et al. (2022) argue that our review (Orth & Robins, 2022) finds benefits of self-esteem primarily for subjective outcomes and largely fails to demonstrate any "objective" benefits. We disagree with this portrayal of the findings and highlight research that provides evidence for the benefits of self-esteem using objective measures. We also address Krueger et al.'s claim that positivity bias in self-reports can account for the effects of self-esteem on subjectively assessed life outcomes, and explain how the statistical analyses used to document these effects substantially control for this bias. We maintain that there is now a large body of evidence from meta-analyses and large-scale longitudinal studies demonstrating that high self-esteem has adaptive consequences for social relationships, school, work, mental health, physical health, and antisocial behavior. Brummelman (2022) presents a compelling theoretical framework that can guide the design of interventions to improve children's self-esteem. We agree with his concerns about the need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of self-esteem interventions and the importance of ensuring that children's self-esteem can be raised without causing them to become narcissistic. The research reviewed in our article indicates that high self-esteem is adaptive for children, adolescents, and adults, suggesting that well-designed and effective self-esteem interventions might be beneficial for individuals of all ages. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Low self-esteem prospectively predicts depression in adolescence and young adulthood

Low self-esteem and depression are strongly correlated in cross-sectional studies, yet little is known about their prospective effects on each other. The vulnerability model hypothesizes that low self-esteem serves as a risk factor for depression, whereas the scar model hypothesizes that low self-esteem is an outcome, not a cause, of depression. To test these models, the authors used 2 large longitudinal data sets, each with 4 repeated assessments between the ages of 15 and 21 years and 18 and 21 years, respectively. Cross-lagged regression analyses indicated that low self-esteem predicted subsequent levels of depression, but depression did not predict subsequent levels of self-esteem. These findings held for both men and women and after controlling for content overlap between the self-esteem and depression scales. Thus, the results supported the vulnerability model, but not the scar model, of self-esteem and depression

Life satisfaction trajectories during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood: Findings from a longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth.

Despite the importance of life satisfaction for health and well-being, there is a paucity of longitudinal studies tracking changes in life satisfaction in ethnic minority youth. In a sample of 674 Mexican-origin youth, the present research examined life satisfaction trajectories from middle (age 14) to late adolescence (age 17) and from late adolescence to young adulthood (age 21). On average, life satisfaction did not change significantly from age 14 to 17, and then decreased from age 17 to 21 (d = .30), perhaps reflecting difficulties transitioning into adult roles. Drawing on ecological systems theory, we examined both proximal (i.e., family) and distal (i.e., social-contextual) environmental factors (measured via self- and parent-reports) that may account for between-person variation in life satisfaction trajectories. Youth with more positive family environments in middle adolescence (age 14) had higher mean life satisfaction from middle adolescence to young adulthood (age 21). In contrast, youth with more negative family environments and who experienced greater economic hardship and more ethnic discrimination in middle adolescence (age 14) had lower life satisfaction during this period. Many of these factors also predicted change in life satisfaction from middle (age 14) to late adolescence (age 17), but not from late adolescence to young adulthood (age 21). This research extends the current understanding of life satisfaction during a critical developmental period in an understudied population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Neural connectivity biotypes: associations with internalizing problems throughout adolescence.

BackgroundNeurophysiological patterns may distinguish which youth are at risk for the well-documented increase in internalizing symptoms during adolescence. Adolescents with internalizing problems exhibit altered resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) of brain regions involved in socio-affective processing. Whether connectivity-based biotypes differentiate adolescents' levels of internalizing problems remains unknown.MethodSixty-eight adolescents (37 females) reported on their internalizing problems at ages 14, 16, and 18 years. A resting-state functional neuroimaging scan was collected at age 16. Time-series data of 15 internalizing-relevant brain regions were entered into the Subgroup-Group Iterative Multi-Model Estimation program to identify subgroups based on RSFC maps. Associations between internalizing problems and connectivity-based biotypes were tested with regression analyses.ResultsTwo connectivity-based biotypes were found: a Diffusely-connected biotype (N = 46), with long-range fronto-parietal paths, and a Hyper-connected biotype (N = 22), with paths between subcortical and medial frontal areas (e.g. affective and default-mode network regions). Higher levels of past (age 14) internalizing problems predicted a greater likelihood of belonging to the Hyper-connected biotype at age 16. The Hyper-connected biotype showed higher levels of concurrent problems (age 16) and future (age 18) internalizing problems.ConclusionsDifferential patterns of RSFC among socio-affective brain regions were predicted by earlier internalizing problems and predicted future internalizing problems in adolescence. Measuring connectivity-based biotypes in adolescence may offer insight into which youth face an elevated risk for internalizing disorders during this critical developmental period

Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects

Cross-lagged models are by far the most commonly used method to test the prospective effect of one construct on another, yet there are no guidelines for interpreting the size of cross-lagged effects. This research aims to establish empirical benchmarks for cross-lagged effects, focusing on the cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) and the random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM). We drew a quasirepresentative sample of studies published in four subfields of psychology (i.e., developmental, social–personality, clinical, and industrial–organizational). The dataset included 1,028 effect sizes for the CLPM and 302 effect sizes for the RI-CLPM, based on data from 174 samples. For the CLPM, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the distribution corresponded to cross-lagged effect sizes of .03, .07, and .12, respectively. For the RI-CLPM, the corresponding values were .02, .05, and .11. Effect sizes did not differ significantly between the CLPM and RI-CLPM. Moreover, effect sizes did not differ significantly across subfields and were not moderated by design characteristics. However, effect sizes were moderated by the concurrent correlation between the constructs and the stability of the predictor. Based on the findings, we propose to use .03 (small effect), .07 (medium effect), and .12 (large effect) as benchmark values when interpreting the size of cross-lagged effects, for both the CLPM and RI-CLPM. In addition to aiding in the interpretation of results, the present findings will help researchers plan studies by providing information needed to conduct power analyses and estimate minimally required sample sizes

Do people know how their personality has changed? Correlates of perceived and actual personality change in young adulthood

How much do we think our personality changes over time? How well do our perceptions of change correspond with actual personality change? Two hundred and ninety students completed measures of the Big Five personality traits when they first entered college. Four years later, they completed the same measures and rated the degree to which they believed they had changed on each dimension. Participants tended to view themselves as having changed substantially, and perceptions of change showed some correspondence with actual personality change. Perceived and actual change showed theoretically meaningful correlations with a host of variables related to different aspects of college achievement and adjustment

The narcissism epidemic is dead; long live the narcissism epidemic

Are recent cohorts of college students more narcissistic than their predecessors? To address debates about the so-called “narcissism epidemic,” we used data from three cohorts of students (N1990s = 1,166; N2000s = 33,647; N2010s = 25,412) to test whether narcissism levels (overall and specific facets) have increased across generations. We also tested whether our measure, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), showed measurement equivalence across the three cohorts, a critical analysis that had been overlooked in prior research. We found that several NPI items were not equivalent across cohorts. Models accounting for nonequivalence of these items indicated a small decline in overall narcissism levels from the 1990s to the 2010s (d = ?0.27). At the facet-level, leadership (d = ?0.20), vanity (d = –0.16), and entitlement (d = –0.28) all showed decreases. Our results contradict the claim that recent cohorts of college students are more narcissistic than earlier generations of college students