Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale

1. Abstract

The Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS) is a 35-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by Jennifer Crocker, Riia K. Luhtanen, M. Lynne Cooper, and Alke Bouvrette (2003) to evaluate the specific domains upon which individuals stake their global self-esteem. Departing from traditional unidimensional trait approaches that measure solely the overall level (high versus low) of self-worth, the CSWS operationalizes the psychological premise that self-esteem is dynamic, volatile, and contingent upon perceived successes and failures in domains deemed personally significant. The instrument evaluates seven distinct, theoretically established dimensions: Others’ Approval, Physical Appearance, Outdoing Others in Competition, Academic Competence, Family Love and Support, Being a Virtuous or Moral Person, and God’s Love.

Each subscale contains five items scored along an authentic 7-point Likert scale spanning from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Psychometric evaluations through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrate that the proposed seven-factor oblique structure provides a significantly superior fit compared to single-factor or two-factor models. The scale demonstrates high internal consistency across subscales (Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging from .82 to .96) and robust test-retest reliability across multiple temporal intervals. Construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validities have been confirmed across diverse collegiate and adult populations. Research underscores that staking self-worth on external contingencies (such as appearance, others’ approval, and social competition) strongly predicts vulnerability to depressive symptoms, heightened neuroticism, disordered eating, and interpersonal distress, whereas internal contingencies (such as moral virtue) or transcendent sources (such as divine acceptance) exhibit neutral or buffering associations with psychological well-being. The CSWS has emerged as a cornerstone measure in personality psychology, social psychology, and clinical assessment for untangling the motivational vulnerabilities linked to ego-involvement and contingent self-evaluation.

2. Keywords

Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale, CSWS, self-esteem, contingent self-worth, ego-involvement, Jennifer Crocker, internal contingencies, external contingencies, academic competence, psychological well-being

3. Authors

The Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale was authored and psychometrically validated by a collaborative research team led by Dr. Jennifer Crocker:

• Jennifer Crocker, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology and Ohio Eminent Scholar in Social Psychology at The Ohio State University; formerly at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Crocker is a leading social psychologist renowned for her foundational theoretical models concerning self-esteem, social stigma, interpersonal goals (ecosystem vs. egosystem motivation), and the emotional costs of pursuing self-worth.
• Riia K. Luhtanen, Ph.D.: Research Associate and Methodologist, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Co-developer of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) and frequent collaborator on social identity and self-concept research.
• M. Lynne Cooper, Ph.D.: Curators’ Distinguished Professor Emerita of Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri. Expert in personality processes, longitudinal structural equation modeling, emotional regulation, and motivational risk mechanisms.
• Alke Bouvrette, M.A.: Psychometrician and researcher who contributed to initial item scaling, exploratory factor analytic iterations, and cross-sample validity assessments at the University of Michigan.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale is to shift the scientific paradigm of self-concept research from asking “How much self-esteem does an individual possess?” to “On what specific domains does an individual’s self-esteem depend?” For decades, mainstream personality and clinical psychological literature operated under the foundational assumption that high self-esteem was uniformly adaptive and that psychological dysfunction was primarily an artifact of deficient self-esteem levels. However, empirical discrepancies—such as the weak associations between high global self-esteem and objective academic or career success, alongside the paradox of aggressive, defensive, or fragile high self-esteem—demanded a more nuanced conceptual framework.

Theoretical Rationale

The CSWS operationalizes the theoretical premise formulated by Crocker and Wolfe (2001), which posits that self-esteem exhibits both trait-like stability and state-like fluctuations. Everyday events do not impact an individual’s self-evaluation uniformly. Instead, daily successes and failures cause dramatic shifts in self-worth only when they occur within domains to which an individual’s identity and psychological value are explicitly pegged. For instance, receiving an unfavorable grade on an examination will precipitate acute drops in state self-esteem, sharp elevations in depressive affect, and intensified cortisol reactivity for a student whose self-esteem is contingent on Academic Competence. Conversely, an identical objective failure produces minimal affective or physiological disturbance in an individual whose self-esteem is staked primarily on Family Support or God’s Love.

Research Applications

In empirical research, the CSWS serves as a continuous, multidimensional assessment instrument across diverse domains of psychology:

• Health and Clinical Psychology: Tracking how external contingencies (particularly Physical Appearance and Others’ Approval) mediate vulnerability to body dissatisfaction, restrictive eating pathology, compulsive exercise, dysmorphic concerns, and chronic depression.
• Educational Psychology and Academic Motivation: Explaining why academically contingent students often exhibit maladaptive achievement patterns, such as choosing easier tasks to protect self-esteem, experiencing debilitating test anxiety, procrastinating, or suffering dramatic self-worth deflation upon encountering academic rejection or critical feedback.
• Social and Interpersonal Dynamics: Investigating relational conflict, defensive self-presentation, and ego-protective aggression. Highly contingent individuals often prioritize validating their self-worth over authentic responsiveness to relationship partners, leading to cyclical interpersonal friction.
• Behavioral Resource Allocation: Predicting how individuals spend their discretionary time and psychological energy. Empirical studies demonstrate that higher scores on specific contingencies prospectively predict behavioral investment, such as hours spent studying, grooming, attending religious services, or competing in extracurricular contexts.

Clinical Applications

In psychotherapeutic settings—particularly within Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Schema Therapy—the CSWS provides clinicians with a diagnostic blueprint of a patient’s core psychological vulnerabilities. Rather than attempting the clinically dubious goal of simply “boosting” self-esteem, therapists use the CSWS to identify maladaptive “if-then” rules (e.g., “I am only worthwhile if I outperform my peers” or “I am only acceptable if everyone approves of me”). Identifying these contingencies facilitates cognitive restructuring, reduces compulsive ego-defense mechanisms, and fosters unconditional, stable self-acceptance.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct of contingent self-worth refers to the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral framework wherein feelings of self-regard, personal adequacy, and existential significance are conditioned upon achieving specific standards, satisfying interpersonal expectations, or manifesting particular attributes. The CSWS delineates this construct across seven distinct, empirically derived subscales, which are theoretically situated along a continuum ranging from highly external (interpersonally or socially determined) to internal (internally referenced or transcendent) orientations.

1. Others’ Approval

The Others’ Approval contingency reflects the degree to which an individual’s self-esteem relies upon perceived social acceptance, positive regard, public validation, and favorable opinions from peers, acquaintances, or society at large. Individuals scoring high on this dimension experience extreme state self-esteem volatility based on real or imagined social evaluation. Social rejection, interpersonal disapproval, or neutral feedback is interpreted as a catastrophic condemnation of their core worth. Consequently, these individuals often engage in chronic impression management, people-pleasing behaviors, self-monitoring, and social anxiety-driven compliance.

2. Physical Appearance

The Physical Appearance contingency measures the extent to which self-worth is staked on aesthetic attractiveness, body shape, weight, facial features, and perceived desirability. Because physical appearance is publicly visible, subject to shifting societal beauty ideals, and vulnerable to involuntary biological processes (such as aging or physical illness), individuals with high scores in this domain reside in an ongoing state of ego threat. This subscale is strongly and uniquely predictive of body dysmorphia, restrictive and bulimic eating pathologies, excessive expenditure on cosmetic products and apparel, and compulsive grooming behaviors.

3. Outdoing Others in Competition

The Outdoing Others in Competition contingency captures the degree to which an individual requires comparative superiority, dominance, and winning across evaluative situations to feel worthwhile. Unlike autonomous mastery or intrinsic task orientation, competitive contingency requires someone else to lose or perform inferiorly for the individual to experience personal validation. High scores correlate positively with overt and covert narcissism, defensive hostility following failure, zero-sum interpersonal perceptions, and an inability to experience genuine cooperative satisfaction.

4. Academic Competence

The Academic Competence contingency operationalizes self-esteem that is pegged directly to academic performance, grades, scholastic honors, cognitive mastery, and intellectual prestige. In educational contexts, high academic contingency represents a double-edged sword: while it predicts dedicated study hours and high achievement motivation, it concurrently fosters severe performance anxiety, intellectual paralysis, imposter phenomenon, and steep drops in global self-esteem following poor examination scores or academic setbacks.

5. Family Love and Support

The Family Love and Support contingency assesses the reliance of self-worth on the emotional warmth, approval, pride, and psychological backing provided by one’s family of origin or primary familial network. While familial connection is inherently relational, it occupies an intermediate position along the internal-external continuum because healthy families often provide unconditional positive regard. However, when familial love is perceived as conditional upon high achievement or conformity to family mandates, this contingency can precipitate severe affective despair whenever familial strain, interpersonal estrangement, or perceived family disappointment occurs.

6. Being a Virtuous or Moral Person

The Virtue contingency measures the extent to which an individual’s self-respect is rooted in adherence to personal moral codes, ethical integrity, justice, altruism, and virtuous conduct. Classified theoretically as an internal contingency, self-evaluations within this domain depend primarily on self-monitoring and fidelity to one’s conscience rather than external recognition. Although high virtue contingency generally correlates with prosocial behavior and lower rates of substance abuse, extreme moral contingency can lead to rigid moral perfectionism, scrupulosity, guilt, and harsh self-condemnation following ethical lapses.

7. God’s Love

The God’s Love contingency captures the degree to which self-esteem is grounded in the belief that one is unconditionally loved, valued, and accepted by a divine or transcendent entity. Because divine love within major theological frameworks is conceptualized as enduring, non-meritocratic, and omnipotent, staking self-worth on God’s love serves as an anchor that shields individuals from the shifting sands of human social rejection, career setbacks, or aesthetic decline. Consequently, empirical research repeatedly identifies this subscale as an internal/transcendent buffer characterized by negative or non-significant correlations with neuroticism, body dissatisfaction, and social anxiety.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale trace back to the pioneering insights of early functionalist psychology and intersect directly with modern humanistic, organismic, and cognitive-behavioral paradigms.

The Jamesian Foundation: Success Divided by Pretensions

The earliest formal conceptualization of contingent self-esteem was posited by William James in The Principles of Psychology (1890). James famously proposed the mathematical-metaphorical formula:

Self-Esteem = Success / Pretensions

James observed that an individual’s global sense of worth does not reflect an aggregate average of all possible human competencies. Rather, our self-feeling in this world is entirely determined by what we back ourselves to be and do. A person who stakes their identity on being an elite linguist will experience deep humiliation upon failing to master a second language, whereas a world-class boxer feels zero personal inadequacy regarding their inability to speak foreign languages. The CSWS directly operationalizes Jamesian “pretensions” across modern social domains, quantifying the explicit weight granted to specific arenas of human functioning.

Self-Determination Theory and Introjected Regulation

The CSWS integrates deeply with Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. SDT distinguishes between true, autonomous self-esteem and contingent, introjected self-esteem. According to Deci and Ryan (1995), contingent self-worth is a product of introjection—the internal assimilation of external contingencies of reinforcement and conditional regard. When individuals are reared in environments where love, affection, and respect are provided conditionally (e.g., predicated on being thin, scoring straight A’s, or outshining siblings), they adopt internal disciplinary mechanisms. They only grant themselves self-worth when meeting these externally imposed conditions.

Consequently, pursuing self-worth in highly contingent domains represents an ego-involved state that undermines intrinsic motivation, fosters self-alienation, and shifts the locus of causality outside the core authentic self. The CSWS provides empirical operationalization for these theoretical dynamics, allowing researchers to study how conditional regard leads to chronic ego-defense and psychological strain.

Crocker and Wolfe’s Model of Contingent Self-Worth

In their seminal synthesis, Crocker and Wolfe (2001) established a dynamic model integrating bottom-up and top-down self-evaluative processes. The model posits three core postulates:

1. Domain Specificity: Global self-esteem fluctuates around a baseline trait level in response to positive and negative events, but the magnitude of these state fluctuations is moderated by the personal relevance of the domain in which the event occurs.
2. Motivational Driver: Once an individual stakes self-worth on a contingency, that contingency functions as a powerful self-regulatory motivator. Individuals proactively organize their lives, dedicate resources, and expend psychological energy to maximize successes and avoid failures in contingent domains.
3. Psychological Costs: The relentless pursuit of self-worth carries profound personal costs. When individuals prioritize validating their worth over basic psychological needs (such as autonomy, competence, and genuine relatedness), they experience compromised learning (adopting performance rather than mastery goals), heightened vulnerability to mental distress, stress-induced physiological reactivity, and damaged interpersonal relationships.

7. Validity

The Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale has undergone rigorous psychometric evaluation across multiple collegiate, community, and cross-cultural cohorts, demonstrating exceptional construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the primary validation studies by Crocker et al. (2003) involving over 1,400 undergraduate participants, convergent validity was established by correlating the CSWS subscales with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), the Big Five personality traits, and indices of psychological distress:

• External Contingencies and Distress: The Others’ Approval and Appearance subscales exhibited strong, positive correlations with Neuroticism ($r = .35$ to $.48, p < .001$) and depressive symptoms measured by the CES-D, as well as significant negative correlations with global self-esteem ($r = -.20$ to $-.32, p < .01$).
• Competition and Narcissism: The Competition contingency correlated positively with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; $r = .31, p < .001$), reflecting an ego-defensive, aggrandizing self-concept, and correlated negatively with Agreeableness.
• Virtue and Prosocial Functioning: The Virtue subscale demonstrated positive correlations with Agreeableness ($r = .34, p < .001$) and Conscientiousness ($r = .29, p < .001$), while showing nonsignificant or negative associations with Neuroticism.
• God’s Love: The God’s Love contingency demonstrated independence from most personality pathologies, showing zero correlation with Neuroticism or Narcissism, and positive correlations with intrinsic religiosity ($r > .80$).

Predictive and Criterion Validity: Longitudinal and Laboratory Studies

The definitive strength of the CSWS lies in its prospective, criterion-related validity, demonstrating that subscales predict emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions above and beyond baseline global self-esteem:

• The Graduate School Admissions Study: Crocker, Sommers, and Luhtanen (2002) tracked college seniors applying to graduate programs using daily diary logs. On days when students received acceptance letters, state self-esteem increased; on days when they received rejections, state self-esteem plummeted. Crucially, the magnitude of these daily emotional swings was directly moderated by the student’s score on the CSWS Academic Competence subscale ($p < .001$), whereas global baseline self-esteem failed to buffer or moderate this vulnerability.
• Academic Stress and Disengagement: Crocker and Luhtanen (2003) followed college freshmen across their introductory semester. High baseline scores on the Academic Competence subscale prospectively predicted elevated levels of academic distress, acute feelings of time pressure, higher rates of interpersonal conflict with professors, and an increased desire to drop courses following poor performance, even after controlling for objective SAT/ACT scores and high school grade point averages.
• Disordered Eating and Appearance Concerns: In prospective analyses examining college females, Crocker et al. (2003) demonstrated that staking self-esteem on Physical Appearance prospectively predicted symptoms of eating disorders, body dissatisfaction, and unhealthy weight management behaviors over a 12-month interval, whereas self-esteem staked on virtue or God’s love exhibited protective, non-significant associations.
• Behavioral Allocation of Time: As reported by Crocker et al. (2003), subscales predicted self-reported weekly time allocation: the Academic contingency predicted hours spent studying ($r = .28, p < .001$); Appearance predicted hours spent exercising, grooming, and clothes shopping ($r = .33, p < .001$); and God’s Love predicted time spent in religious activities ($r = .52, p < .001$).

8. Reliability

The CSWS exhibits excellent internal consistency and temporal stability across a broad spectrum of empirical studies.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across the normative validation cohorts reported by Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, and Bouvrette (2003) ($N = 1,418$), internal consistency estimates for the seven 5-item subscales demonstrated high reliability across both male and female subsamples:

• God’s Love: $\alpha = .94$ to $.96$ (consistently the highest internal consistency due to item homogeneity).
• Physical Appearance: $\alpha = .80$ to $.82$.
• Outdoing Others in Competition: $\alpha = .85$ to $.89$.
• Academic Competence: $\alpha = .78$ to $.82$.
• Family Love and Support: $\alpha = .82$ to $.85$.
• Being a Virtuous or Moral Person: $\alpha = .73$ to $.76$.
• Others’ Approval: $\alpha = .81$ to $.84$.

Subsequent independent replications spanning diverse adult, clinical, and international samples (e.g., European, East Asian, and Latin American cohorts) have corroborated these coefficients, with subscale alphas routinely exceeding the recommended psychometric threshold of $.80$.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

The temporal stability of the CSWS was examined across several longitudinal retest intervals:

• Short-Term Stability (2 to 4 Weeks): Test-retest reliability coefficients across the seven subscales range from $r = .81$ to $r = .92$, indicating that while state self-esteem fluctuates from hour to hour, the underlying contingencies upon which self-worth is staked remain stable cognitive-motivational structures.
• Long-Term Stability (1 to 2 Semesters): Longitudinal assessments conducted across the freshman year of college revealed test-retest correlations between $r = .56$ and $r = .78$ across an 8-month period. These findings illustrate that although contingencies possess trait-like persistence, they are capable of gradual developmental adaptation and ecological recalibration in response to major life transitions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the CSWS was established through sequential iterations of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and validated via rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling software.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, initial pools of over 100 potential contingency items were administered to undergraduate samples. Maximum likelihood factor analyses with oblique (Promax) rotation consistently extracted seven distinct factors possessing eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, accounting for over 50% of the total item variance. Items demonstrating cross-loadings greater than $.30$ on secondary factors or primary loadings lower than $.45$ were systematically eliminated. This iterative reduction yielded the final, balanced 35-item scale composed of five items per factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

To verify the construct validity of the seven-domain framework, Crocker et al. (2003) tested several competing theoretical models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis on an independent validation sample ($N = 698$):

• One-Factor Model: Posited that all 35 items loaded onto a single, overarching “General Contingency” latent construct. This model exhibited an unacceptable fit to the data: $\chi^2(560) = 5,821.43, p < .001; \text{CFI} = .48; \text{RMSEA} = .142; \text{SRMR} = .128$.
• Two-Factor Model: Grouped items into broad “Internal Contingencies” (Virtue, God’s Love, Family) versus “External Contingencies” (Appearance, Others’ Approval, Competition, Academics). This model likewise demonstrated poor fit: $\chi^2(559) = 4,412.11, p < .001; \text{CFI} = .61; \text{RMSEA} = .118$.
• Seven-Factor Oblique Model (Target Model): Allowed the seven hypothesized latent factors to correlate freely while specifying that each item loaded exclusively onto its designated domain. This model demonstrated good fit to empirical data: $\chi^2(539) = 1,432.88, p < .001; \text{CFI} = .91; \text{TLI} = .90; \text{RMSEA} = .051 \text{ (90% CI: .048 – .054)}; \text{SRMR} = .054$.

Standardized factor loadings across all 35 items in the seven-factor model were robust, ranging from $lambda = .55$ to $lambda = .94$, confirming that each subscale is characterized by distinct, coherent item indicators.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Formal Tool Name: Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS)
• Measurement Paradigm: Multidimensional Self-Report Questionnaire
• Administration Format: Standard Paper-and-Pencil Questionnaire, Computerized Survey, or Interactive Digital Assessment
• Total Item Count: 35 items
• Factor Structure / Subscales (5 items each):
  • Others’ Approval: Items 1, 8, 15, 22, 29
  • Physical Appearance: Items 2, 9, 16, 23, 30
  • Outdoing Others in Competition: Items 3, 10, 17, 24, 31
  • Academic Competence: Items 4, 11, 18, 25, 32
  • Family Love and Support: Items 5, 12, 19, 26, 33
  • Being a Virtuous or Moral Person: Items 6, 13, 20, 27, 34
  • God’s Love: Items 7, 14, 21, 28, 35
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Disagree somewhat
  • 4 = Neutral
  • 5 = Agree somewhat
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Reverse-Scoring Protocol:
  • Exactly seven items are negatively keyed and must be reversed prior to subscale score calculation: Items 9, 15, 18, 19, 27, 31, and 35.
  • Reverse scoring mathematical formula: $$\text{Recoded Score} = 8 – \text{Raw Response}$$
  • Example: A raw response of 1 becomes 7; 2 becomes 6; 3 becomes 5; 4 remains 4; 5 becomes 3; 6 becomes 2; 7 becomes 1.
• Scoring and Index Calculation:
  • A discrete mean score is calculated for each of the seven subscales by summing the five items belonging to that domain (after accounting for reverse scoring) and dividing by 5: $$\text{Subscale Mean} = \frac{\sum \text{Item Scores}}{5}$$
  • Possible subscale mean scores range from 1.00 to 7.00. Higher scores indicate a greater degree of self-worth contingency staked in that respective domain.
  • Composite / Global Index: Authors explicitly recommend against aggregating all 35 items into a single total score, as doing so obscures critical domain-specific differences along the internal-external continuum. The profile of domain scores constitutes the primary clinical and empirical interpretive metric.
• Average Completion Time: Approximately 7 to 10 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 2003 (with theoretical framework formulated in 2001).
• Copyright Holder: Dr. Jennifer Crocker and the American Psychological Association (APA).
• Academic and Non-Commercial Usage Permissions: The Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale is widely available for non-commercial academic, psychological, educational, and scientific research. Dr. Jennifer Crocker and her research laboratory maintain an open science policy for non-profit scholarly investigations, permitting administration and data collection without licensing fees, provided that formal academic attribution is preserved and primary validation manuscripts are cited.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial use, organizational consulting integration, or proprietary clinical digital redistribution requires formal permission and licensing authorization through the original authors and the American Psychological Association.
• Official Contact and Lab Webpage: Inquiries regarding research permissions, translations, and scoring procedures can be directed to the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University (Dr. Jennifer Crocker’s Self and Social Motivation Laboratory).

12. References

Below are primary academic references documenting the theoretical model, psychometric development, and clinical-empirical validity of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale in APA 7th edition format:

• Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2003). Level of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth in the first year of college: Predicting academic stress, depression, and social issues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 909–923. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.909
• Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894
• Crocker, J., Sommers, S. R., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2002). Hopes dashed and dreams fulfilled: Contingencies of self-worth and graduate school admissions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.878
• Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1280-0_3
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10538-000
• Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

13. Items of the Scale