Global Self-Esteem and Specific Self-Esteem: Different Concepts, Different Outcomes

Author(s): Morris Rosenberg, Carmi Schooler, Carrie Schoenbach and Florence Rosenberg
Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 141-156
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096350
Accessed: 08-05-2015 08:44 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM:
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, DIFFERENT OUTCOMES

Morris Rosenberg Carmi Schooler

University of Maryland and National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of Mental Health

Carrie Schoenbach Florence Rosenberg

National Institute of Mental Health Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research and UniformedServices
University of the Health Sciences

In this paper, we attempt to shed light on the nature of relevance of, and
relationship between global self-esteem and specific self-esteem. We mar-
shal evidence that the two types of self-esteem may have strikingly different
consequences, global self-esteem being more relevantto psychological well-
being, and specific self-esteem being more relevant to behavior. We use lin-
ear structural equation causal modeling to test this hypothesisfor the case
of global self-esteem (Rosenberg 1979) and specific (academic) self-esteem.
Ourfindings show that, while global self-esteem is more strongly related to
measures of psychological well-being, specific (academic) self-esteem is a
much better predictor of school performance. Otherfindings indicate that
the degree to which specific academic self-esteem affects global self-esteem,
particularly the positive component of global self-esteem, is a-function of
how highly academic performance is personally valued.

O )ver the past 40 years, the concept of Looking at the general body of research on
self-esteem has assumed an important self-esteem today, it is evident that most of
place in the field of social psychology. A this literature deals with global self-esteem,
computer search of the literature (Kitano that is, the individual's positive or negative
1989) found over 6,500 article titles that ex- attitude toward the self as a totality. In the
plicitly used the term "self-esteem" and over last decade, however, a number of writers
30,000 titles that used the term "self' in have stressed the importanceof studying spe-
some hyphenated form, many of which also cific self-esteem, as well (e.g., Harter 1985;
dealt with self-esteem (e.g., self-concept, Marsh 1986; Marsh and Shavelson 1985;
self-evaluation, self-respect, self-confi- Swann 1987). As Marsh (1990) expresses it:
dence). "More recently, self-concept theory has
stressed the multi-dimensionality of self-
*Direct all correspondence to Carmi Schooler, concept, and empirical studies have identi-
Laboratory of Socio-environmental Studies,
fied distinct, a priori facets of self-concept"
NIMH, NIH, Rm BIA-14, Federal Building, 7550
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892. The (p. 107).
authors presented an earlier version of this paper The aim of this paper is to shed light on
to Research Committee 42, Social Psychology, at the nature and relevance of global and spe-
the 12th World Congress of Sociology, Madrid, cific self-esteem and their relationship to
Spain, July 1990. This paper, which represents a each other. We begin by focusing on two
very substantial revision of the earlier one and general features of attitudes to clarify the
includes new analyses, was completed after distinctions we make regarding self-esteem.
Morris Rosenberg's untimely death in 1992. First, the study of any attitude, and self-es-
Among the analyses completed after Rosenberg's
teem is an attitude, must take account of the
death are those that separatethe positive and nega-
tive aspects of self-esteem and those that examine fact that people may
have attitudes both to-
how valuing academic performancerelates to spe- ward an object as a whole (global or general)
cific academic self-esteem and global self-esteem. and toward specific "facets" of that object

American Sociological Review, 1995, Vol. 60 (February:141-156) 141

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 142
(Marsh 1990). For example, a student may
have attitudes toward her university as a
whole, but she may also have different atti-
tudes toward a specific department,the qual-
ity of the faculty, or the attractivenessof the
campus. Although the differences between
global and specific attitudes are sometimes
overlooked, they are not equivalent or inter-
changeable. This point applies equally to
self-esteem, which can be viewed as an atti-
tude toward an object, even though the
holder of the attitude and the object toward
which the attitude is held-the self-are the
same (Rosenberg 1979).
A second feature of attitudes is that they
include both cognitive and affective ele-
ments. That attitudes are cognitive is evident
from the fact that they refer to objects-an
attitude represents some thought about a par-
ticular thing (e.g., person, material object,
group, idea, etc.). That they are affective is
shown by the fact that attitudes have both di-
rection (i.e., a positive or negative orienta-
tion toward some object) and intensity. Self-
esteem research has tended to overlook the
degree to which these cognitive and affective
components differentially permeate specific
and global self-esteem.
Like other attitudes, individuals' views of
themselves can contain both positive and
negative components. Thus, decades ago or-
thogonal principal component factor analy-
ses carried out by Kohn and Schooler (1969)
indicated that the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg 1979) contained two com-
ponents-self-confidence and self-depreca-
tion. Using structural equation based mea-
surement models they later confirmed that a
two-component model that separates the
positive and negative aspects of self-esteem
provides a better fit to the data than does the
single general component model that charac-
terized Rosenberg's (1979) original concep-
tion (Kohn and Schooler 1983).
More recently, Owens (1993) theorized
that, in addition to self-esteem and self-con-
sistency, the two central motives credited by
self-concept theory for protecting and main-
taining one's self-image, other theoretical
perspectives suggest plausible functions for
the less global concepts of self-deprecation
and self-confidence. According to Owens,
for example, self-verification theory (Swann,
Stein-Seroussi, and Giesler 1992) suggests
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
that "negative self-conceptions may help
people maintaina viable self-system and pre-
dictable orderly social relations"(p. 289). On
the other hand, "'effectance motivation' that
compels judgment of one's own competence
and efficacy (Gecas and Schwalbe 1983) ...
should impel one to focus more sharply on
one's own varying degrees of ability, compe-
tence, and efficacy-all attributes of self-
confidence" (Owens 1993:290).
On a more empirical level, Owens (1993)
has reconfirmed the existence of the self-
confidence and self-deprecation components
of self-esteem. He also has shown that both
components fit well into a second-order
construct of global self-esteem, with self-
confidence having an appreciably higher as-
sociation than self-deprecation with global
self-esteem (e.g., at age 23 the effect of glo-
bal self-esteem on self-confidence is .88 and
on self-deprecation is -.64). We will con-
sider this issue further in our analyses sec-
tion.
We have defined the following objectives:
(1) To illustrate how investigators have
sometimes reached incorrect conclu-
sions by treatingglobal and specific self-
esteem as surrogatesfor one another.
(2) To demonstrate that global and specific
self-esteem differ in their consequences
and how these different consequences
have led to some of the mispredictions
and weak associations reportedin the lit-
erature.
(3) To show that the effects of global and
specific self-esteem may be mediated by
each other.
(4) To examine how global and specific self-
esteem affect one another, with particu-
lar emphasis on whether the effect of a
specific facet of self-esteem on global
self-esteem is a function of the degree to
which that facet is valued.
(5) To explore how global and specific self-
esteem differentially affect, and are dif-
ferentially affected by, behavioral out-
comes.
(6) To determine the relative importance of
the positive and negative components of
global self-esteem with respect to a be-
havioral outcome, school performance.
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
THE FALLACYOF EQUATING GLOBAL
AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
In more than a few self-esteem studies, the
failure to distinguish the parts from the
whole has led to a numberof misunderstand-
ings. A well-known example is the large
body of research on the relationship between
race and self-esteem. Some studies focus on
pride in one's race (racial self-esteem),
whereas others focus on pride in oneself
(personal self-esteem) (Porter and Washing-
ton 1989). This distinction is often over-
looked. In his exhaustive review of the lit-
erature,Cross (1985) pointed out that 87 per-
cent of the 161 studies he examined explored
either racial self-esteem or personal self-es-
teem, but not both. In most studies, low re-
gard for one's race was considered equiva-
lent to low regard for oneself. Cross (1985)
reportedthat, although researchersclearly set
out to assess racial self-esteem, as a result of
their failure to make a sharp distinction be-
tween racial and personal self-esteem, they
often presented the racial self-esteem results
"as if' their study had actually assessed level
of self-worth. Similarly, children with poor
academic self-concepts are often described
as having low self-esteem, based on the im-
plicit assumption that a child who feels that
he or she is a poor student is thereby express-
ing low general self-esteem (Wylie 1979).
Clearly, the aspects of oneself on which
one's global self-esteem is based and the
choice of reference group to which one com-
pares oneself are complex matters. There is
considerable experimental evidence (Major,
Sciacchitano, and Crocker 1993) and survey-
based evidence (Rosenberg 1979) supporting
the hypothesis that members of stigmatized
groups avoid threats to their self-esteem by
comparing themselves primarily with others
who are members of their own stigmatized
group rather than with members of an ad-
vantaged out-group (Crocker and Major
1989). Other evidence indicates that mem-
bers of stigmatized or disadvantaged groups
also protect their self-esteem by selectively
devaluing those domains in which the out-
group is advantaged and selectively valuing
those domains in which their in-group has
advantages (Major et al. 1993). Research on
coping suggests that other general coping
strategies exist, based not only on the choice
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
143
of comparison groups but also on ignoring or
devaluing problematic areas of functioning
(Pearlin and Schooler 1978). All these possi-
bilities are consistent with the hypothesis
that decreasing the value one gives to do-
mains in which oneself or one's reference
group does poorly protects global self-es-
teem (Harter 1985; Rosenberg 1979). If this
hypothesis is correct, global and specific
self-esteem are different phenomena-they
may be dynamically interrelatedphenomena,
but they are not directly interchangeable.
Marsh's (1986) research provides clear
empirical evidence that global and specific
self-esteem cannot serve as surrogates for
one another.He examined the relationship of
subjects' self-evaluations on 12 facets of the
self to their global self-esteem. He found that
the associations ranged from .06 to .60, with
most falling within the .30 to .50 range. Even
if we accept the possibility that measurement
errormight lower the correlations somewhat,
such relatively low correlations are exactly
what one would expect if specific and global
self-esteem are related but not interchange-
able phenomena.
It might seem apparent that the relation-
ship between one's judgment of a particular
facet of oneself and one's global self-esteem
would depend in large part on the rank of
that facet in one's personal hierarchy of self-
values. Although this point underlies the
point made in the preceding paragraph and
was clearly noted many years ago by Will-
iam James ([1890] 1950), not all empirical
findings unequivocally supportthe relevance
of psychological centrality. (For examples of
mixed evidence, see Faunce 1982; Gecas and
Seff 1990; Harter 1985; Hoelter 1986; Hoge
and McCarthy 1984; Marsh 1986; Rosenberg
1989; Thomas 1989.) Using data measuring
how much our respondents value academic
achievement, we empirically test whether the
relationship between global self-esteem and
specific academic self-esteem varies when
the value placed on academic achievement
varies.
RELATIONSHIPS OF GLOBAL AND
SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM TO
BEHAVIOR AND WELL-BEING
It is particularlyimportantto distinguish be-
tween global and specific self-esteem be-
144 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

cause the relationships reportedin the litera- ger relationships between specific self-es-
ture between self-esteem and other variables teem and a behavioral outcome. As noted,
are often weaker than might be expected. when we speak of specific self-esteem, we
This is true whether self-esteem is treated as refer to a particularfacet of the self (Marsh
cause or outcome. For example, Wylie 1986). Insofar as this facet relates to some
(1979) and others reported that sociodemo- area of competence, specific self-esteem has
graphic variables show no better than mod- much in common with the concept of self-
est success in predicting self-esteem. (Some efficacy. When Bandura (1982) speaks of
reasons for these results have been discussed self-efficacy, he refers to the individual's con-
by McCarthy and Yancey 1971; Rosenberg fidence that he or she can attainspecified per-
and Pearlin 1978; Rosenberg and Simmons formance levels. Bandura (1982) identified
1972). Although there have been some suc- several reasons why perceived self-efficacy
cesses (e.g., Menaghan and Parcel 1990), in tends to enhance performanceoutcomes. One
general, self-esteem has not proved to be an reason, he noted, is that "people who judge
impressive predictorof behavioraloutcomes. themselves ineffective in coping with envi-
One reason for these comparatively weak ronmental demands tend to generate high
relationships between self-esteem and behav- emotional arousal, become excessively pre-
ior has been the failure to recognize that glo- occupied with personal deficiencies, and
bal and specific self-esteem are both impor- cognize potential difficulties as more formi-
tant, but that they are importantfor different dable than they really are. Such self-referent
reasons and are relevant in different ways. A concerns undermineeffective use of the com-
central hypothesis of this paper is that spe- petencies people possess" (pp. 25-26).
cific self-esteem is most relevant to behav- Another reason Bandura(1982) offered for
ior, whereas global self-esteem is most rel- perceived self-efficacy to result in successful
evant to psychological well-being. Much performanceis that "self-judged efficacy ...
self-esteem research, we believe, relates pre- determines how much effort people will ex-
cisely the wrong type of self-esteem to the pend and how long they will persist in the
outcome variable (Scheff, Retzinger, and face of obstacles and aversive experi-
Ryan 1989), examining the relationship be- ences.... In the face of difficulties, people
tween global self-esteem and specific behav- who entertain serious doubts about their ca-
iors or behavioral outcomes. We believe, on pacities slacken their efforts or give up alto-
the contrary, that a specific behavior is best gether, whereas those who have a strong
predicted by a specific self-esteem that is in sense of efficacy exert greater effort to mas-
some way connected to that behavior, ter the challenges" (p. 25). At comparable
whereas psychological well-being is best ability levels, then, self-efficacious persons
predicted by global self-esteem. Let us con- are more apt to experience successful out-
sider some of the evidence on which our hy- comes.
pothesis is based. Global self-esteem, on the other hand,
seems much less likely to exercise a power-
ful direct effect on performance. For one
Self-Esteem and Behavior thing, the central feature of global self-es-
The expectation that specific. self-esteem teem appears to be self-acceptance or self-
would have stronger effects on behavior than respect. Competence is only one factor, and
global self-esteem derives from the Fishbein not necessarily the most importantone, con-
and Azjen (1975) model, which postulates tributing to such feelings. Second, as we
that the power of an attitude to predict a be- have noted, some facets of the self may be
havior is a function of how closely that atti- peripheralto feelings of self-worth, whereas
tude relates to the act in question-the more others may be central. Unless a particular
specific the attitude, the greaterits predictive facet is important to the individual, there is
power. If so, then a specific self-esteem little reason to think that global self-esteem
should be a better predictor of a specific be- will tell us much about a person's behavior
havior than is global self-esteem. or performancewith respect to that facet, nor
Self-efficacy theory and self-attribution will such behavior necessarily indicate much
theoryoffer other reasons for expecting stron- about global self-esteem. For example,

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
knowing that someone has high global self-
esteem will tell us little about that person's
assessment of his or her competence as a
pole-vaulter or as a writer of sonnets. Con-
versely, the fact that I consider myself totally
inept as a pole-vaulter in itself offers little
indication of my overall feeling of self-
worth. We do not suggest that global self-es-
teem is totally unrelatedto behavior, but that
this relationship is likely to be weaker than
the relationship of specific self-esteem to a
relevant behavior or performance.
Although evidence is limited, the results of
both experimental and correlational studies
support this view. In an experimental study,
Shrauger (1972) asked female undergradu-
ates to specify what percentage of under-
graduates would perform better than them-
selves on a "concept attainment task." The
percentage score served as the measure of
specific self-esteem. General (global) self-
esteem was based on a modification of a self-
esteem measure used extensively by Diggory
(1966). The concept attainment task was a
modification of a measure developed by
Weick (1964). Shrauger found that specific
self-esteem was a significant predictorof ac-
tual performance on the concept attainment
test, but that global self-esteem was not.
Correlational findings are consistent with
the experimental results. In Bachman's
(1970) study of tenth-gradeboys, the correla-
tion between global self-esteem and school
marks was .23, whereas the correlation be-
tween school marks and self-concept of aca-
demic ability was .48. Reviewing a number
of studies dealing with the relationship be-
tween self-esteem and academic perfor-
mance, Wylie (1979) concluded that the cor-
relation between global self-esteem and grade
point average is usually about .30, whereas
the association between specific self-esteem
(academic self-concept) and grade point av-
erage is more likely to be in the range of .45
to .70. Wylie (1979:698-700) also reporteda
number of other instances in which specific
self-esteem is correlatedwith specific behav-
ior but global self-esteem is not.
Self-Esteem and Psychological Well-Being
Although global self-esteem is less likely
than specific self-esteem to be a good pre-
dictor of behavior or performance, there is
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
145
reason to believe that it is a decidedly better
predictor of psychological well-being.
The theoretical foundation for this expec-
tation lies in "self-enhancement theory"
(Baumeister 1982; Greenwald 1980; Jones
1973; Kaplan 1975; Swann 1987), which
states that self-esteem is a fundamental hu-
man motive. Thus, the self-esteem motive
(also called the "self-maintenance motive"
by Tesser and Campbell [1983] and the "mo-
tive for self-worth"by Covington [1984]) has
been identified by Maslow (1970) as one of
the "prepotent"human needs. All of these
theories share the view that there exists in
human beings a universal desire to protect
and enhance their feelings of self-worth and
that the frustration of this desire generates
some measure of psychological distress.
Maintenanceof self-esteem leads to self-pro-
tective motives, self-enhancement processes,
and a variety of coping processes. As noted
earlier in the discussion of the fallacy of
equating global with specific self-esteem,
such self-maintenance motives and processes
have been shown to affect the comparison
group one chooses as well as how one reacts
to unfavorable comparisons (Major et al.
1993).
That global self-esteem is associated with
psychological well-being has been demon-
strated repeatedly in past research. One
firmly established finding in this literatureis
the inverse association between self-esteem
and depression (Rosenberg 1985; Wylie
1979). Studies of children, adolescents,
adults, and the elderly all show the same pat-
tern. Pearlin and Lieberman's (1979) study
of 2,300 adults in the Chicago Metropolitan
Area showed a correlation of -.49 between
self-esteem and depression. Similar findings
appear in Kaplan and Pokorny (1969) and
Rosenberg and Simmons (1972). Using struc-
tural equation models to examine the causal
relationships underlying these frequently re-
ported correlations, we have found that self-
esteem and depression significantly affect
each other, although the negative relationship
between the two variables seems to be due
somewhat more to the effect of depression on
self-esteem than to the effect of self-esteem
on depression (Rosenberg, Schooler, and
Schoenbach 1989). Clinical evidence (e.g.,
Beck, Rush, Shaw, and Emery 1979) supports
these quantitativeresults. Global self-esteem
146
has also been shown to be strongly related to
levels of anxiety, whether expressed in so-
matic symptoms (Luck and Heiss 1972;
Rosenberg 1989) or in psychological mani-
festations (Luck and Heiss 1972; Rosenberg
1985). Specific self-esteem, on the other
hand, may have little direct effect on psycho-
logical well-being, and, as noted above, what
effects it does have may be influenced by the
psychological centrality of the particular
facet of the self that is involved.
To summarize our hypotheses, with respect
to behavior or behavioral outcomes, we ex-
pect specific self-esteem to be a better pre-
dictor than global self-esteem. On the other
hand, with regard to psychological well-be-
ing, global self-esteem will be a better pre-
dictor than specific self-esteem. No previous
studies, as far as we know, have made these
comparisons.
DATA AND MEASURES
We use data drawn from the Youth in Transi-
tion study (Bachman 1970). This longitudi-
nal study, based on a probability sample of
2,213 tenth-grade boys in 87 high schools
throughoutthe contiguous 48 states, includes
four waves extending over an eight-year
span. Our analysis is limited to the 1,886
boys who participated in the first two waves
of the study-1966 and 1968.
In our analysis, global self-esteem is mea-
sured by 6 of the 10 items of the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg 1989). Aca-
demic self-esteem (our specific self-esteem
measure) is based on a 3-item index.'
School marks, which serve as the behavioral
outcome, are based on self reported grade
point average. The following psychological
well-being measures are included in this in-
I We use Bachman's School Ability Self-Con-
cept Index, which is based on subjects' responses
to three questions. Two questions are coded on a
scale from 1 through 6-far below average to far
above average: (1) "How do you rate yourself in
school ability compared with those in your grade
in school?"; (2) "How intelligent do you think
you are compared to others your age?" The third
question, (3) "Comparedto others your age, how
important is it to you to be able to use your intel-
ligence?" is coded from 1 through 5-much less
important than average to much more important
than average.
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
vestigation: depression (6 items), anomie (8
items), general anxiety (7 items), resent-
ment (7 items), anxiety and tension (5
items), irritability (7 items), life satisfaction
(1 item), guilt (5 items), happiness (6
items), and negative affective states (4
items). In Tables 1 and 2, the data for these
measures are from summary scores on the
items.2
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the zero-order correlation
coefficients for each of these 10 well-being
indices with global self-esteem on the one
hand, and with specific (academic) self-es-
teem on the other.3
Table 1 clearly shows that global self-es-
teem is more strongly related to most mea-
sures of psychological well-being (depres-
sion, anomie, general anxiety, resentment,
anxiety-tension, irritability, life satisfaction,
happiness, and negative affective states)
than is specific self-esteem. The mean
strength of the relationship of global self-es-
teem to all 10 measures is .337, whereas the
mean strength relationship of academic self-
esteem to these measures is .079. The single
exception is the guilt variable, which is un-
related to global self-esteem but is signifi-
cantly related to academic self-esteem. On
the -other hand, when we consider our spe-
cific behavioral outcome (school perfor-
mance), then specific (academic) self-es-
teem turns out to be much more highly cor-
related than is global self-esteem (.488 ver-
sus .253). This pattern of correlations indi-
cates that self-esteem is significantly related
to a number of other variables, but only if
2These indices and the items used to create
them are described in the Documentation Manual
for Bachman's Youth in Transition study (Bach-
man 1975).
3 We measure global self-esteem using an in-
dex created by summing the responses to six
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale items from the
Bachman (1970) data (coded from 1 through 5-
never true to almost always true): (1) "I feel I'm
a person of worth"; (2) "I feel I have a number of
good qualities"; (3) "I am able to do things as
well as most other people"; (4) "I feel I do not
have much to be proud of"; (5) "I take a positive
attitude toward myself"; (6) "Sometimes I think I
am no good at all."
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 147

Table 1. Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients of Global and Specific Mediators

Psychological Well-Being and Behav-
ioral Outcome with Global Self-Esteem Although the data in Table 1 are generally
and Specific (Academic) Self-Esteem: consistent with our hypothesis that global
Tenth-Grade Boys, 1966 and 1968
self-esteem is a better predictor of psycho-
Global Academic logical well-being, whereas specific self-es-
Outcome Variable Self-Esteem Self-Esteem teem is a better predictor of behavioral out-
comes, it is nevertheless true that some dis-
Psychological Well-Being crepant effects appear.For example, there is
Depression -.432*** -.103*** a significant association between global self-
Anomie -.409*** -. 154*** esteem and school marks, and there are some
Generalanxiety -.232*** -.010 small but significant associations between
Resentment -.346*** -.120*** specific self-esteem and certain measures of
psychological well-being. To a modest ex-
Anxiety/tension -.319*** -.023
tent, then, global self-esteem does predict
Irritability -.353*** -.044 behavior and specific self-esteem does pre-
Life satisfaction .318*** .052* dict psychological well-being. Do these find-
Guilt -.033 .087*** ings represent exceptions to our generaliza-
Happiness .499*** .105***
tion? Not necessarily. Global and specific
self-esteem may each mediate the effect of
Negative affective -.424*** -.093*** the other. For example, if global self-esteem
states
is associated with school marks because glo-
Behavioral Outcome bal self-esteem affects academic (specific)
School marks(GPA) .253*** .488*** self-esteem and academic self-esteem in turn
affects school marks, then it would still be
p <.05 **p< .01 ***p< .001 (two-tailedtests)
true that specific self-esteem is directly re-
Note: N = 1,886. sponsible for the behavioral outcome. Glo-
bal self-esteem would "depend on" specific
the appropriate type of self-esteem (global self-esteem to exercise its behavioral effect.
or specific) is paired with the appropriate Conversely, if the association between spe-
correlate (psychological well-being or per- cific self-esteem and psychological well-be-
formance). ing were attributableto the fact that specific
These data also tell us something about the self-esteem affected global self-esteem and
nature of both types of self-esteem. Atti- that global self-esteem, in turn, affected psy-
tudes, as we pointed out earlier, have both chological well-being, then one could still
cognitive and affective elements. This is as say that global self-esteem is directly respon-
true of attitudes toward the self as toward sible for psychological well-being.
anything else, but the affective and cognitive Table 2 presents the coefficients from the
components of self-attitudes may not be multiple regression of both types of self-es-
equally representedin global self-esteem and teem (global and specific) on both types of
specific self-esteem. Given the stronger as- outcomes (psychological well-being and
sociation of global self-esteem with psycho- school marks). It is difficult to test the hy-
logical well-being, it is probable that global pothesis that the relationship between spe-
self-esteem is chiefly an expression of per- cific self-esteem and psychological well-be-
sonal affect. And given the stronger associa- ing is largely mediated by global self-esteem,
tion of specific self-esteem with behavioral because the original relationship is so weak,
outcome, it is likely that specific self-esteem, althougheven this weak relationshipbecomes
which is probably largely a matter of judg- weaker still when global self-esteem is con-
ment or evaluation of a particularcharacter- trolled (average correlation declines from
istic, may be more cognitive in nature. It is .079 to .067). Controlling academic self-es-
thus understandablethat these two types of teem also does not diminish the relationship
self-esteem should have different effects- of global self-esteem to psychological well-
each effect, of course, being very important being (average correlation actually increases
in its own right. from .337 to .359). When we turn to the be-

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 148 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Table 2. Coefficients from Multiple Regressions equally plausible theoretical arguments that
of Psychological Well-Being and Behav- the specific causes the global or that the glo-
ioral Outcome on Global Self-Esteem bal causes the specific: Thus, since global
and Specific (Academic) Self-Esteem:
self-esteem is in some sense based on the
Tenth-Grade Boys, 1966 and 1968
judgments of various parts of the self, the
IndependentVariable parts (specifics) might be seen as responsible
for the whole (global). On the other hand,
Global Academic
DependentVariable Self-Esteem Self-Esteem
assessments of particular facets of the self
may well be based on one's overall feelings
Psychological Well-Being of self-worth. It is therefore requisite to em-
Depression -.451*** .056* pirically examine whether the parts are
Anomie -.405*** -.011 chiefly responsible for the whole or the
Generalanxiety -.261 ***
whole for the parts.
.082***
This question has rarely been investigated
Resentment -.346*** .002
systematically in the literature. Perhaps this
Anxiety-tension -.355*** .101*** history of neglect is attributableto the lack
Irritability -.385*** .092*** of a satisfactory methodology for dealing
Life satisfaction .342*** -.069** with possible reciprocal effects and to the
Guilt -.072** .113*** stringent data requirementsfor the appropri-
Happiness .527*** -.081 *** ate analyses. Today, however, the availabil-
Negative affective -.447*** .065** ity of structural equation modeling proce-
states dures (Joreskog and Sorbom 1976) and panel
data sets make it possible to specify the ef-
Behavioral Outcome fect each variable has on the other.
School marks(GPA) .093*** .455*** We begin by examining the reciprocal ef-
*p<.05 ** <.01 p < .001 (two-tailedtests) fects of academic self-esteem and global
Note: N = 1,886. This table reportsthe results of self-esteem.4 Several features of the causal
11 multipleregressionanalyses, each of which used aspects of these models should be noted.
global self-esteem and academic self-esteem as the First, we use panel data (waves 1 and 2,
two independentvariables. based on 1,886 respondents), which helps to
solve the structural equation models and to
estimate the causal influences. To solve the
havioral outcome, however, the data suggest simultaneous equations necessary for esti-
that global self-esteem affects specific (aca- mating reciprocal effects, instrumentationis
demic) self-esteem, which, in turn, affects necessary: An instrument is a variable that
school marks.We see that, when specific self- identifies an equation by not being allowed
esteem is held constant through multiple re- to have a direct effect on the dependent vari-
gression, the relationship between global able of that equation. For an instrument to
self-esteem and school marksis substantially identify an equation meaningfully, there
reduced (from .25 to .09). On the other hand, must be good theoreticaljustification that its
the relationship between specific self-esteem
and school marks is almost unaffected when 4 The measure of global self-esteem used in
global self-esteem is controlled (change from Tables 1 and 2 is based on summary scores. In
.49 to .46). These findings, then, are consis- the present analysis, global self-esteem (based on
tent with the view that specific self-esteem the same items) is estimated for 1966 and 1968
has a direct effect on behavior (or behavioral as part of a full-information linear structural
outcomes), whereas global self-esteem has a equation model (Joreskog and Sorbom 1976). All
direct effect on psychological well-being. of the correlations of residuals of the same vari-
ables at both points in time are estimated. In ad-
dition, significant correlations of residuals be-
Global and Specific Self-Esteem: Which tween different variables are included where sug-
Causes Which? gested by an examination of the first-order par-
tial derivatives. In all structural equations dis-
What is the causal connection between glo- cussed, we allow errors in the causal equations to
bal and specific self-esteem? One can make be correlated.

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
effect should only be indirect, and the instru-
ment must be reasonably correlated with the
variable it is not allowed to affect directly. In
our model, cross-lagged effects are omitted
to provide a source of instrumentationfor the
reciprocal effects that are modeled for wave
2. These wave 2 effects are viewed as out-
comes of long-term processes and thus rep-
resent the sum of the lagged and contempo-
raneous effects.
Additional instrumentalvariables are also
employed. Instrumentsfor the global to aca-
demic self-esteem relationship are positive
family relationships, numberof best friends,
physical appearance,and complexion. All of
these instrumental variables could be ex-
pected to directly affect global self-esteem.
None of them would be expected to have a
direct effect on academic self-esteem; any
effect would be indirect through global self-
esteem's effect on academic self-esteem. In-
strumentsfor the academic to global self-es-
teem relationship are hours spent on home-
work, positive school attitudes, negative
school attitudes, and valuation of academic
achievement. All of these instrumental vari-
ables would be expected to affect academic
self-esteem without directly affecting global
self-esteem. / "Far above average (top 10 percent)." Note
We introduce the following variables as
controls affecting both global self-esteem
and academic self-esteem: race, age, intact
family, mother's education, father's educa-
tion, family socioeconomic status, father's
occupational status, mother's occupational
status, and numberof siblings.
The model of the reciprocal effects of glo-
bal self-esteem and academic self-esteem fits
the data reasonably well, with a chi-square/
d.f. ratio of 4.05. This shows that global self-
esteem and academic self-esteem affect one
another significantly, but that academic self-
esteem has a more powerful effect on global
self-esteem than the other way around (.21
versus .1 1). Both effects are significant at the
p < .05 level.
A second question is: Does the same pat-
tern of findings appear when we consider a
specific facet of the self-concept that rests on
a higher level of abstraction,namely, self-es-
timate of intelligence? Facets of the self-con-
cept, as Marsh and Shavelson (1985) have
noted, exist at different levels of specificity.
Some facets may be highly specific, others
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
149
more general. This is why Marsh and Shavel-
son conceptualized the self-concept as a hi-
erarchical structure. Consider, for example,
facets of the self-concept that exist in the in-
tellectual realm. At a highly specific level
might be a child's assessment of his or her
reading ability or math ability (Marsh 1986).
At a somewhat broader level would be the
child's academic self-esteem, which would
be based in part on math and reading ability
and in part on other facets. Still broader
would be the child's assessment of his or her
general level of intelligence, which would be
affected by academic self-esteem but also by
other facets. When we consider the recipro-
cal effects of global and specific self-esteem,
then, it is importantto consider the level of
specificity or generality of the specific self-
concept facet.
We addressed this question by examining
the reciprocal effects of global self-esteem
and the students' estimates of their own in-
telligence. Self-estimate of intelligence was
measuredby responses to the following item:
"How intelligent do you think you are com-
pared with other boys your age?" Six catego-
ries of response were provided ranging from
"Far below average (bottom 10 percent)" to
that this item was also included in the aca-
demic self-esteem scale; however, compared
to the other items in that scale, it is general
and makes no specific reference to the school
experience.
To identify the path from global self-es-
teem to self-estimate of intelligence, the fol-
lowing instrumental variables were used:
respondent's height, weight, number of
friends, level of social support, closeness to
father, closeness to mother, parents' ten-
dency to reason with the child in disciplin-
ary situations, parentalpunitiveness, and sta-
bility of global self-esteem. All of these
would be expected to affect global self-es-
teem directly and self-estimate of intelli-
gence only indirectly. Instruments for the
path from perceived intelligence to global
self-esteem include certain performance
measures (scores on a job information test
and on a test of political knowledge), posi-
tive school attitudes, negative school atti-
tudes, and stability of self-assessment of in-
telligence. All of these variables would be
expected to have a direct effect on self-as-
150
sessment of intelligence and only indirect ef-
fects on global self-esteem. Again, cross-
lagged effects were constrained to 0 in order
to provide a source of instrumentation.
This model was found to fit the data rea-
sonably well, as shown by a chi-square/d.f.
ratio of 3.45. Again, we find that the specific
facet of intelligence has a more powerful ef-
fect on global self-esteem than the other way
around. Both variables produce significant
effects upon one another,but the effect of in-
telligence on global self-esteem is .24,
whereas the effect of global self-esteem on
intelligence is .11.
Intellectual ability, then, whether narrowly
conceived as academic ability or broadly
conceived as general intelligence, produces
a more powerful effect on global self-esteem
than the other way around. Note that this ef-
fect appears despite the fact that only single
items are used to measure the two more nar-
rowly defined concepts (academic self-es-
teem and self-estimate of intelligence), while
global self-esteem is modeled with multiple
indicators based on a widely used measure.
High school boys' general feelings of self-
worth appear to be significantly affected by
their judgments of their intellectual ability,
but their general feeling of self-worth has a
weak effect on their opinions of their intel-
lectual ability.
We do not suggest, of course, that specific
self-esteem is necessarily more likely to af-
fect global self-esteem than the other way
around. Intellectual ability may not be typi-
cal of other facets of the self. Our prediction
would be that the relative effects of various
facets of the self-concept on global self-es-
teem would depend on the degree of
"schematization" of the specific facets
(Markus 1977)-if a particularfacet is firmly
established or solidly crystallized and is bol-
stered by clear evidence, then it is likely to
be fairly independentof the individual's gen-
eral feeling of self-worth. For example, if
many experiences of failure have taught a
pupil through clear evidence that he or she is
incompetent in school, then his or her gen-
eral feeling of self-worth will do little to
change this conviction. But if a particular
facet is nonschematic (uncrystallized), then
global self-esteem may exercise a more pow-
erful effect on that specific facet. For ex-
ample, if people are asked to judge their
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
"meaningful insight ability" (Berger and
Conner 1969), it is possible that those who
think well of themselves generally may as-
sume they are probably good at insight and
that those who have negative general atti-
tudes toward themselves will assume that
they probably are not. In this instance, glo-
bal self-esteem would have a more powerful
impact on specific self-esteem than the other
way around.
Is the Degree to Which Specific Academic
Self-Esteem Affects Global Self-Esteem a
Function of How Much Academic
Performance Is Personally Valued?
The assertion that the relationship between
one's evaluation of a particular facet of the
self and one's global self-esteem is a func-
tion of the importance of that facet in one's
hierarchy of self-values seems highly plau-
sible. Nevertheless, empirical evidence is
mixed. Our data set allows us to test this as-
sertion as it applies to academic self-esteem,
global self-esteem, and valuing academic
performance.
To do this we divided our respondents into
two groups at the mid-point of the range of
the variablemeasuringhow much the respon-
dent valued academic performance.We then
reran our analyses of the reciprocal effects
of global and academic self-esteem sepa-
rately for the respondentsin the low-value (N
= 333) and high-value (N = 1,487) segments
of the distribution.
Our models in both cases were satisfac-
tory, with a chi-square/d.f. ratio for the low-
value group of 1.72 and 2.13 for the high-
value group. The reciprocal effects between
global self-esteem and academic self-esteem
were significant only for the high-value
group; neither effect was significant in the
smaller, but still substantial, sample that did
not particularlyvalue academic performance.
The magnitudeof the effect of academic self-
esteem on global self-esteem was more than
three times greaterfor those who valued aca-
demic performancerelatively highly-the ef-
fect for the high-value group was .23 (t =
5.55); the effect for the low-value group was
.07 (t =.77). On the other hand, the effect of
global self-esteem on academic self-esteem
was similar for the two groups-the effect
for the high-value group was .12 (t = 2.70);
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 151

for the low-value group the effect was .15 (t tain underprivilegedgroups is that they have
= 1.38). In fact, it is only among the high- low self-esteem and that their performance
value group that specific academic self-es- could be improved by enhancing their self-
teem has a greater effect on global self-es- esteem. But this argumentassumes that poor
teem than the other way around (.23 versus self-esteem causes poor school performance.
.12). Thus, at least in this instance, our find-
If school marks are chiefly responsible for
ings strongly support the conjecture that the self-esteem ratherthan the other way around,
effect of specific self-esteem on global self- then efforts to enhance self-esteem for the
esteem is a function of the degree to which purpose of raising children's achievement
the relevant area of functioning is valued. levels would be misguided.
We also examined whether the level of Second, assuming that self-esteem is caus-
specific self-esteem or global self-esteem af- ally related to school marks, the question re-
fects the degree to which the relevant area of mains: Which self-esteem-specific or glo-
functioning is valued. Using academic self- bal? If, for example, specific self-esteem af-
esteem as our measure of specific self-es- fects school performance but global self-es-
teem, we tested its effect relative to that of teem does not, then the efforts of educators
global self-esteem on valuing academic per- to help children to like and respect them-
formance. In addition, we tested whether selves as a whole may contributeto their psy-
valuing academic performance reciprocally chological well-being but do little to improve
affected academic self-esteem. We did this their school performance.What may actually
by adding "valuing academic performance" be needed is to help them improve their spe-
as a third endogenous variable to our full- cific (academic) self-esteem. It is our impres-
sample model examining the reciprocal ef- sion that most interventions designed to im-
fects of academic and global self-esteem. prove self-esteem and thus to enhance aca-
The new model, which also includes recipro- demic performance are actually attempts to
cal paths between academic self-esteem and modify global rather than specific self-es-
valuing academic performance,seems appro- teem. It is thus essential to know which kind
priately identified and fits the data reason- of self-esteem to change in orderto positively
ably well (chi-square/d.f. = 3.88). Neverthe- affect children's success in school.
less, none of the effects involving academic In an earlier study (Rosenberg, Schooler,
performance was significant, nor were the and Schoenbach 1989), we examined the re-
reciprocal effects between academic and glo- ciprocal effects of global self-esteem and
bal self-esteem notably changed from what school marks. That analysis showed that
they were when valuing academic perfor- school marks had a more powerful effect on
mance was not included in the model. These global self-esteem than global self-esteem
findings seem to rule out the theoretical pos- had on school marks (. 15 versus .08).
sibilities that global and/or academic self-es-Whereas the effect of marks on global self-
teem affect the degree to which academic esteem was highly significant, the effect of
performance is valued or that valuing aca- global self-esteem on marks was only mar-
demic performanceaffects academic self-es- ginally significant. Does this relationship
teem. What valuing academic performance also exist between specific (academic) self-
does is to increase the effect of academic esteem and school marks?
self-esteem on global self-esteem. We constructed a model to test the recip-
rocal effects of academic self-concept and
school performance. The data fit the model
Academic Self-Esteem and Academic reasonably well, yielding a chi-square/d.f.
Performance: Which Causes Which? ratio of 3.5. Each variable, we find, exercises
Low self-esteem has often been invoked as a a strong and statistically significant effect on
possible cause of poor school performance the other; furthermore, the effects are ap-
(e.g., CaliforniaLegislature 1986; Covington proximately equal. The effect of grades on
1984; Purkey 1970; Scheirer and Kraut academic self-esteem is .27; the effect of
1979). For example, it is sometimes sug- academic self-esteem on school marks is .30.
gested that one reason for the relatively poor Similar results occur when we consider the
academic performance of people from cer- reciprocal effects of school marks and self-

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152
assessment of intelligence. These data also
fit the model reasonably well, with a chi-
square/d.f. ratio of 3.25. Each variable has a
highly significant effect on the other and
again these effects are equal (both effects are
.36); self-estimates of intelligence thus ap-
pear to affect, and to be affected by, school
performance. This evidence suggests that
changes in self-esteem can in fact bring
about an improvement in school perfor-
mance; but it must be the right self-esteem,
namely, specific academic self-esteem. Strat-
egies designed to enhance global self-esteem
(for example, by convincing a child that he
or she is lovable or worthy of respect) will,
our data suggest, have little or no effect on
his or her school performance.
It could also be argued that, to improve
school performance, positive or negative
self-esteem should be changed rather than
global self-esteem. On the one hand, efficacy
theory implies that it is primarily the self-
confidence generated by positive self-esteem
that enhances school performance (Bandura
1982). On the other hand, the literature on
learned helplessness suggests that the self-
deprecation of negative self-esteem, feelings
of personal helplessness, and poor perfor-
mance are causally linked (Abramson,
Seligman, and Teasdale 1978).
To test whether either self-confidence or
self-deprecation is more closely tied to aca-
demic performance than is global self-es-
teem, we replicated our analyses substituting
each of these variables for global self-es-
teem.5 The only significant finding that
emerged regarding the relationship between
these two aspects of self-esteem and aca-
demic performance is that school marks sig-
I Some of the other available measures may
Self-confidence and self-deprecation are
based on structural equation measurement mod-
els derived from the original Kohn and Schooler
(1983) analyses of self-esteem. Four indicators of
self-confidence are based on responses to the fol-
lowing four statements (coded from 1 through 5,
never true to almost always true): "I am a person
of worth"; "I feel that I have a number of good
qualities"; "I am able to do things as well as most
other people"; "I take a positive attitude toward
myself." The two indicators of self-deprecation
are based on responses to two statements (same
coding as above): "Sometimes I think I am no
good at all"; "I feel that my life is not very use-
ful."
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
nificantly affect self-confidence (beta = .17).
The effect of self-confidence on school
marksis lower (.07) and not significant. Nei-
ther the effect of grades on self-deprecation
(-.11) nor the effect of self-deprecation on
grades (-.04) was significant, although the
former was at the borderline of significance
(p < .08). Not surprisingly, given Owens's
(1993) finding that self-confidence is more
strongly related to global self-esteem than is
self-deprecation, the magnitudes of the paths
between self-confidence and grades are also
more similar to the magnitudes of the paral-
lel paths between global self-esteem and
school marks we reportedin our earlier study
(Rosenberg, Schooler, and Schoenbach
1989). In any case, all of these effects are
smaller than the parallel effects involving
academic self-esteem or self-assessment of
intelligence. Furthermore, although our
analyses suggest that raising the academic
self-esteem or self-estimates of intelligence
among students may increase academic per-
formance, nothing in our findings suggests
that raising their levels of global self-esteem
or general self-confidence, or decreasing
their levels of general self-deprecation would
have any such effect.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Our aim has been to better understand the
nature, interconnections, and relevance of
specific self-esteem and global self-esteem.
In evaluating our conclusions we must ad-
dress several limitations in our data. First,
our only measure of global self-esteem is the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1989). Al-
though it is the most widely used of all self-
esteem measures, it is only one among many.
include somewhat different aspects of self-
esteem than does the Rosenberg scale.6
6 For example, the Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory (Coopersmith 1967) contains four in-
ternally consistent subscales (social self, peers,
home/parents, academic), although factor analy-
sis revealed a dominant global self-esteem factor
(Burns 1979; Edgar, Powell, Watkins, Moore, and
Zakharov 1974). The Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale (Fitts 1965) includes, among others, sub-
scales on how respondents view their own moral
worth and perceive themselves in reference to
their families. Analyses of the Piers-Harris Scale
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
Another limitation of our data is that our
only specific self-esteem measure is aca-
demic self-esteem. We do not know if the
same patternof results would hold if we used
measures of other types of specific self-es-
teem, like social or sexual self-esteem. Dif-
ferent kinds of specific self-esteem vary
across a wide range of potentially relevant
dimensions. One importantdimension is the
degree of specificity. Thus, although aca-
demic self-esteem is more specific than over-
all self-esteem, it is less specific than math-
ematical self-esteem. As we have seen, a
general tenet of many research findings on
attitudes is that the more specific the attitude,
the more powerful a predictor it is of the re-
lated specific behavior (e.g., Fishbein and
Azjen 1975). Given that self-esteem is an at-
titude, the more specific the self-esteem is,
the more accurately it should predict relevant
behavior. As our own findings indicate, spe-
cific academic self-esteem has a greater ef-
fect on school marks than does global self-
esteem.
Despite these limitations, we believe that
our findings are important:
(1) We have documented the obvious but
frequently overlooked fact that global and
specific self-esteem are neither equivalent
nor interchangeable, and that one cannot au-
tomatically serve as a surrogatefor the other.
(2) Focusing on academic self-esteem as
an example of specific self-esteem, we have
demonstrated that global and specific self-
esteem have decidedly different correlates.
Global self-esteem appears to be heavily af-
fective in nature and tends to be associated
with overall psychological well-being. Spe-
cific self-esteem, in contrast, being more
judgmental and evaluative, appears to have a
(Piers and Harris 1964) have consistently re-
vealed six interpretable factors, including popu-
larity and social behavior, although no general
factor has emerged (Burns 1979). Regardless of
whether each of these scales contains specific
components not covered by the Rosenberg scale,
the Rosenberg scale would seem to be a more di-
rect measure of global self-esteem; the self-evalu-
ation of various aspects of functioning covered by
the Coopersmith, Fitts, and Piers-Harris scales
being conceptually akin to more specific forms of
self-esteem, such as educational self-esteem,
whose relationship to global self-esteem is a fo-
cus of the present paper.
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
153
more cognitive component and tends to be
more strongly associated with behavior or
behavioral outcomes.
(3) We have suggested that global and spe-
cific self-esteem may each mediate the effect
of the other. It was not possible to test
whether the relationship between specific
self-esteem and psychological well-being
was mediated by global self-esteem because
the original relationshipwas so weak, but our
data are consistent with the view that the ef-
fect of global self-esteem on behavioral out-
come is mediated by its effect on academic
self-esteem.
(4) We have considered the reciprocal ef-
fects of global and specific self-esteem on
one another.We pointed out that specific fac-
ets of the self may vary in level of abstrac-
tion. Our empirical findings suggest that
more specific forms of self-esteem, such as
academic self-esteem or self-assessment of
intelligence, tend to have greater effects on
more global forms of self-esteem than more
global forms of self-esteem have on more
specific ones.
(5) We have found that, at least among the
variables we investigated, the effect of spe-
cific self-esteem on global self-esteem is af-
fected by the degree to which the relevant
role or behavior is personally valued. Our
analyses demonstratedthat the effect of spe-
cific academic self-esteem on global self-es-
teem is a function of how highly academic
performance is valued. Furthermore, the
value placed on academic performanceis not
a function of either academic or global self-
esteem.
(6) We also considered the reciprocal ef-
fects of self-esteem and school marks, an im-
portant behavioral outcome among school
populations. The data show that the nature
and direction of these effects depends on
whether global or specific self-esteem is con-
sidered. School marks, we find, do produce
an effect on self-esteem, whether we con-
sider academic self-esteem, global self-es-
teem, or self-confidence. However, global
self-esteem has very little effect on marks,
whereas specific self-esteem (academic self-
esteem) has a strong effect on school perfor-
mance. Self-esteem, it appears, does affect
school performance, but it must be the right
kind of self-esteem, namely, specific self-es-
teem. This last finding is particularly ironic,
154 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

as educators and policymakers almost invari- REFERENCES

ably focus on precisely the wrong type of
self-esteem-global self-esteem-when they Abramson, Lyn, Martin Seligman, and John D.
introduce interventions to improve students' Teasdale. 1978. "Learned Helplessness in Hu-
mans: Critique and Reformulation."Journal of
performance in school. Understanding the
Abnormal Psychology. 87:49-74.
nature and interrelationships of global and Bachman, Jerald G. 1970. Youth in Transition.
specific self-esteem would, thus, seem more Vol. 2. The Impact of Family Background and
than a mere academic exercise. Heeding the Intelligence on Tenth-GradeBoys. Ann Arbor,
distinction might actually increase the effec- MI: Institute for Social Research.
tiveness of future educational interventions. . 1975. Youth in Transition. Documenta-
tion Manual. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute
Morris Rosenbergwas the central sociological for Social Research.
researcherand theoriston self-esteemand con- Bandura, Albert. 1982. "The Self and Mecha-
ceptionsof the self andprobablyone of the lead- nisms of Agency." Pp. 3-39 in Psychological
ing expertson these issues in any discipline.He Perspectives on the Self, vol. 1, edited by J.
was a Professorof Sociologyat the Universityof Suls. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marylandand at varioustimeswas a memberof Baumeister, Roy F. 1982. "A Self-Presentational
theLaboratoryof Socio-Environmental Studiesof View of Social Phenomena." Psychological
the NationalInstituteof MentalHealth.He was Bulletin 91:3-26.
Vice Presidentof the AmericanSociologicalAs- Beck, Aaron T., A. John Rush, Brian F. Shaw,
sociationand the winnerof manyawardsinclud- and G. Emery. 1979. Cognitive Therapy of De-
ing the AAASSociopsychologicalPrize, the ASA pression. New York: Guilford.
Social PsychologySection CooleyMeadAward, Berger, Joseph and Thomas L. Conner. 1969.
and theASADistinguishedContribution to Schol- "Performance Expectations and Behavior in
arshipAward.MannyRosenbergdied on Febru- Small Groups."Acta Sociologica 12:186-98.
ary 14, 1992. Burns, Robert B. 1979. The Self Concept. New
Carmi Schooler is Acting Chief of the Labora- York: Longman Group Limited.
tory of Socio-Environmental Studiesof the Na- California Legislature. 1986. Assembly Bill No.
tional Instituteof MentalHealth.His sociologi- 3659, chap. 1065. A Bill to Establish Califor-
cal researchfocuses on the social structuraland nia Commission to Promote Self-Esteem and
culturaldeterminantsof psychologicalfunction- Personal and Social Responsibility.
ing throughthe life span.He is presentlyinvolved Coopersmith, Stanley. 1967. The Antecedents of
in a follow-upstudyof respondentsoriginallyin- Self-Esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
terviewedin 1964 and 1974for a studyhe con- Covington, Martin. 1984. "The Motive for Self-
ducted with Melvin Kohnon the Psychological Worth." In Research on Motivation in Educa-
effectsof occupationalconditions. tion, vol. 1: Student Motivation, edited by R.
Ames and C. Ames. New York: Academic
Carrie Schoenbach is former ResearchAssoci- Press.
ate, now guest worker, in the Laboratoryof Crocker, Jennifer and Brenda Major. 1989. "So-
Socio-Environmental Studiesof the NationalIn- cial Stigma: The Affective Consequences of
stituteof MentalHealth.She has beena collabo- Attributional Ambiguity." Journal of Person-
rator with CarmiSchoolerand MelvinKohnin ality and Social Psychology 60:218-28.
analyzingthe effectsof social-structuraland cul- Cross, William E. 1985. "Black Identity: Redis-
turalconditions-particularlytheeffectsof occu- covering the Distinction Between Personal
pational conditions,social stratificationand so- Identity and Reference Group Orientation." In
cial class positions-on valuesandpsychological Beginnings: The Social and Affective Develop-
functioning. ment of Black Children, edited by M. B. Spen-
FlorenceRosenberghas beena SeniorResearch cer, G. K. Brookins, and W. R. Allen.
Associatein the Departmentof MilitaryPsychia- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
try, WalterReedArmyInstituteof Researchand Diggory, James C. 1966. Self-Evaluation: Con-
the Departmentof Psychiatry, UniformedSer- cepts and Studies. New York: Wiley.
vices Universityof theHealthSciences.Hermain Edgar, Patricia, R. J. Powell, D. Watkins, R. J.
researchinteresthas beenon stress, coping,and Moore, and Olive Zakharov. 1974. An Analy-
mental health amongArmywives and families, sis of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory."
focusing on the perceptualfactors that contrib- Australian Psychology 9:52-63.
ute to satisfactionwithlife.Atpresent,as a Guest Faunce, William A. 1982. "The Relation of Sta-
Scientistat the WalterReedArmyInstitute,she is tus to Self-Esteem: Chain Saw Sociology at the
continuingresearch on this subject with other Cutting Edge." Sociological Focus 15:163-78.
populations. Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief,

This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GLOBAL SELF-ESTEEM AND SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM
Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fitts, William H. 1965. Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings
and Tests.
Gecas, Viktor and Michael Schwalbe. 1983. "Be-
yond the Looking-Glass Self: Social Structure
and Efficacy Based Self-Esteem." Social Psy-
chology Quarterly 46:77-88.
Gecas, Viktor and Monica A. Seff. 1990. "Social
Class and Self-Esteem: Psychological Central-
ity, Compensation, and the Relative Effects of
Work and Home." Social Psychology Quar-
terly 53:165-73.
Greenwald, Anthony G. 1980. "The Totalitarian
Ego: Fabricationand Revision of Personal His-
tory." American Psychologist 35:603-18.
Harter, Susan. 1985. "Competence as a Dimen-
sion of Self-Evaluation: Toward a Comprehen-
sive Model of Self-Worth." Pp. 55-121 in The
Development of the Self, edited by R. L Leahy.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hoelter, Jon. 1986. "The Relationship Between
Specific and Global Evaluations of the Self: A
Comparison of Several Models." Social Psy-
chology Quarterly 49:129-41.
Hoge, Dean R. and John D. McCarthy. 1984. "In-
fluence of Individual and Group Identity Sa-
lience in the Global Self-Esteem of Youth."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
47:403-14.
James, William. [1890] 1950. The Principles of
Psychology. New York: Dover.
Jones, Stephen C. 1973. "Self and Interpersonal
Evaluations: Esteem Theories Versus Consis-
tency Theories." Psychological Bulletin 79:
185-99.
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. 1976. "Sta-
tistical Models and Methods for Analysis of
Longitudinal Data." Pp. 285-325 in Latent
Variables in Socioeconomic Models, edited by
D. J. Aigner and A. S. Goldberger. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: North Holland.
Kaplan, Howard B. 1975. Self-Attitudes and De-
viant Behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Good-
year.
Kaplan, Howard B. and Alex D. Pokorny. 1969.
"Self-Derogation and Psychosocial Adjust-
ment." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
149:421-34.
Kitano, Harry H. 1989. "Alcohol and Drug Use
and Self-Esteem: A Sociocultural Perspective."
Pp. 294-326 in The Social Importance of Self-
Esteem, edited by A. Mecca, N. Smelser, and
J. Vasconcellos. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler. 1969.
"Class, Occupation and Orientation."American
Sociological Review 34:659-78.
. 1983. Workand Personality: An Inquiry
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
155
into the Impact of Social Stratification.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Luck, Patrick and Jerold Heiss. 1972. "Social De-
terminantsof Self-Esteem in Adult Males." So-
ciology and Social Research 57:69-84.
Major, Brenda, Anne Marie Sciacchitano, and
Jennifer Crocker. 1993. "In-Group vs. Out-
Group Comparisons and Self-Esteem." Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19:711-
21.
Markus, Hazel. 1977. "Self-Schemata and Pro-
cessing Informationabout the Self." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 35:63-78.
Marsh, Herbert W. 1986. "Global Self-Esteem:
Its Relation to Specific Facets of Self-Concept
and Their Importance."Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 51:1224-236.
. 1990. "Influences of Internal and Exter-
nal Frames of Reference on the Formation of
Math and English Self-Concepts." Journal of
Educational Psychology 82:107-16.
Marsh, Herbert W. and Richard J. Shavelson.
1985. "Self-Concept: Its Multifaceted, Hierar-
chical Structure." Educational Psychologist
20:107-25.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1970. Motivation and Per-
sonality. Rev. ed. New York: Harper.
McCarthy,John D. and William L. Yancey. 1971.
"Uncle Tom and Mr. Charlie: Metaphysical
Pathos in the Study of Racism and Personal
Disorganization."American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 76:648-72.
Menaghan, Elizabeth and Toby L. Parcel. 1990.
"Determining Children's Home Environments:
The Impact of Maternal Characteristics and
CurrentOccupational and Family Conditions."
Department of Sociology, Ohio State Univer-
sity, Columbus. OH. Unpublished manuscript.
Owens, Timothy J. 1993. "Accentuate the Posi-
tive-and the Negative: Rethinking the Use of
Self-Esteem, Self-Deprecation and Self-Confi-
dence." Social Psychology Quarterly 56:288-
99.
Pearlin, Leonard I. and Morton A. Lieberman.
1979. "Social Sources of Emotional Distress."
Pp. 217-48 in Research in Community and
Mental Health, vol. 1, edited by R. G.
Simmons. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978.
"The Structure of Coping." Journal of Health
and Behavior 19:2-21.
Piers, Ellen V. and Dale B. Harris. 1964. "Age
and Other Correlates of Self-Concept in Chil-
dren. Journal of Educational Psychology
55:91-95.
Porter, Judith R. and Robert E. Washington.
1989. "Developments in Research on Black
Identity and Self-Esteem: 1979-1988." Revue
Internationale de Psychologie Sociale T2:339-
53.
156
Purkey, William W. 1970. Self-Concept and
School Achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Rosenberg, Morris. 1979. Conceiving the Self.
Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.
. 1985. "Self-Concept and Psychological
Well-Being in Adolescence." Pp. 205-46 in
The Development of the Self, edited by R. L.
Leahy. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
. 1989. Society and the Adolescent Self-Im-
age. Rev. ed. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan Uni-
versity Press.
Rosenberg, Morris and Leonard I. Pearlin. 1978.
"Social Class and Self-Esteem among Children
and Adults." American Journal of Sociology
84:53-77.
Rosenberg, Morris, Carmi Schooler, and Carrie
Schoenbach. 1989. "Self-Esteem and Adoles-
cent Problems: Modeling Reciprocal Effects."
American Sociological Review 54:1004-18.
Rosenberg, Morris and Roberta G. Simmons.
1972. Black and White Self-Esteem. Washing-
ton, DC: American Sociological Association.
Scheff, Thomas, Suzanne M. Retzinger, and
Michael T. Ryan. 1989. "Crime, Violence, and
Self-Esteem: Review and Proposals." Pp. 165-
99 in The Social Importance of Self-Esteem,
edited by A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser, and J.
Vasconcellos. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
This content downloaded from 61.129.42.30 on Fri, 08 May 2015 08:44:25 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Scheirer, Mary A. and Robert E. Kraut. 1979. "In-
creasing Educational Achievement Via Self-
Concept Change." Review of Educational Re-
search 49:131-49.
Shrauger, Sidney J. 1972. "Self-Esteem and Re-
actions to Being Observed by Others."Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 23:193-
200.
Swann, William. 1987. "Identity Negotiation:
Where Two Roads Meet." Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 53:1038-51.
Swann, William, Alan Stein-Seroussi and R.
Brian Giesler. 1992. "Why People Self-
Verify." Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology. 62:392-401.
Tesser, Abraham and Jennifer Campbell. 1983.
"Self-Definition and Self-Evaluation Mainte-
nance." Pp. 1-31 in Psychological Perspectives
on the Self, vol. 2, edited by J. Suls and A. G.
Greenwald. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, Michael. 1989. Zentralitat und Selbst-
konzept (Centrality and Self-Concept). Bern,
Switzerland: Hans Huber.
Weick, Karl E. 1964. "Reduction of Cognitive
Dissonance throughTask Enhancementand Ef-
fort Expenditure." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 68:533-39.
Wylie, Ruth C. 1979. The Self-Concept. Vol. 2:
Theory and Research on Selected Topics. Rev.
ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.