Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)

Abstract

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), originally developed by sociologist Morris Rosenberg in 1965, represents the historical gold standard and the most widely utilized psychometric instrument for assessing global self-esteem in social science, psychological, and psychiatric research worldwide. Operating under the conceptual definition of self-esteem as an individual's overall sense of self-worth and self-acceptance, the instrument captures both positive self-evaluations and self-deprecating affect through a parsimonious set of 10 items. The items are structured on a four-point Likert response scale ranging from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," with half the items formulated positively and the remaining five formulated negatively to suppress acquiescence response bias. Extensive psychometric evaluations spanning six decades demonstrate that the RSES exhibits robust internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically ranging from .77 to .92) and strong test-retest reliability across multiple temporal intervals ($r = .82$ to $.88$). Structural equation modeling, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have sparked a historic methodological debate concerning whether the scale reflects a strictly unidimensional construct or a two-factor structure (positive self-esteem versus self-deprecation); contemporary consensus, particularly informed by Item Response Theory (IRT) and bifactor modeling, indicates that a single primary substantive dimension of global self-worth accounts for the common variance, accompanied by minor method effects stemming from item valencing. The RSES has been translated into over 50 languages and cross-culturally validated in scores of nations, establishing configural and metric measurement invariance across diverse demographics. Its brevity, conceptual clarity, open availability, and exceptional psychometric stability sustain its central role in tracking developmental, educational, epidemiological, and clinical phenomena across the lifespan.

Keywords

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, RSES, Global Self-Esteem, Self-Worth, Psychometrics, Factor Structure, Method Effects, Item Response Theory, Social Psychology, Cross-Cultural Invariance

Authors

The instrument was conceived, formulated, and empirically validated by Morris Rosenberg (1922–1992), an eminent American sociologist and social psychologist who served as a Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, and held prior substantive appointments at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and Cornell University. Rosenberg earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University in 1953 under the mentorship of foundational figures in quantitative social research, including Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton.

Rosenberg devoted the preponderance of his academic career to the sociology of mental health, adolescent socialization, child development, and the structural determinants of the self-concept. His seminal 1965 monograph, Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, published by Princeton University Press, formally introduced the 10-item Guttman-scaled instrument that subsequently evolved into the contemporary Likert-scaled RSES. Throughout his tenure at the University of Maryland and his service as Chair of the Department of Sociology, Rosenberg conducted extensive research examining how socioeconomic status, racial segregation, family disruption, religious affiliation, and perceived institutional contexts influence the maturation of the ego and the subjective evaluation of personal worth.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is to yield a continuous, quantitatively rigorous, and theoretically grounded measurement of an individual's global self-esteem. Historically, psychological research before the mid-1960s was constrained by psychometric instruments that were exceedingly lengthy, excessively focused on domain-specific competencies (such as athletic prowess, intellectual performance, or physical attractiveness), or hopelessly conflated with clinical psychopathology, neurosis, and socially desirable responding. Rosenberg sought to create an economical, psychometrically sound instrument capable of measuring the phenomenological gestalt of self-evaluation—how an individual views themselves comprehensively as an object of evaluation—without requiring respondents to navigate exhaustive self-inventories.

In contemporary research and applied clinical practice, the RSES fulfills several critical diagnostic and investigative objectives:

• Epidemiological and Population Health Research: Serving as a primary indicator of subjective psychological well-being, resilience, and identity integration in large-scale social, educational, and public health surveys across diverse demographic cohorts.
• Clinical Assessment and Psychopathology Monitoring: Operating as a sensitive screening adjunct in evaluating affective disorders. Pervasively low self-esteem constitutes an essential diagnostic feature or vulnerability marker for major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, eating disorders (such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa), and chronic suicidality.
• Intervention Efficacy and Outcome Tracking: Providing pre- and post-intervention benchmarking in psychotherapy (notably cognitive-behavioral therapy and acceptance-based modalities), personal counseling, educational enrichment programs, and psychiatric rehabilitation.
• Social and Personality Psychology Inquiries: Enabling the empirical testing of theoretical models surrounding identity threat, interpersonal rejection, stereotyping, social comparison mechanisms, occupational performance, leadership self-efficacy, and the demarcation between authentic, secure self-esteem and maladaptive forms of grandiosity or narcissism.

The scale was deliberately designed to reflect an overarching construct that transcends isolated situational proficiencies. A person may readily acknowledge that they lack artistic talent, struggle with athletic tasks, or experience occupational setbacks, yet maintain high global self-esteem by asserting that they are fundamentally a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. Conversely, high performance across discrete external domains does not preclude profound global self-derogation. The RSES was formulated precisely to isolate this ultimate, subjective phenomenological judgment of fundamental self-worth.

Psychological Construct

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale measures global self-esteem, defined within classical social psychology as the totality of an individual's thoughts and feelings with reference to themselves as a distinct entity. Rather than tapping specific behavioral domains, competencies, or momentary emotional states, global self-esteem represents an enduring, evaluative disposition toward the self. Rosenberg formulated the construct along a continuum ranging from high self-esteem—characterized by self-respect, a sense of personal worth, and basic self-acceptance—to low self-esteem, characterized by self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, and pervasive self-derogation.

The Facets of Global Self-Esteem

Although the RSES is conceptualized as an overarching unidimensional construct, its structural content operationalizes self-evaluation through two complementary psychological manifestations:

• Positive Self-Esteem (Self-Acceptance and Competence): This dimension is manifested in beliefs of fundamental personal capability, possessing worthwhile qualities, and experiencing a generalized satisfaction with one's existence. Items embodying this facet—such as "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself" (Item 1) and "I feel that I have a number of good qualities" (Item 3)—assess an individual's willingness to acknowledge their intrinsic value without succumbing to unwarranted arrogance or feelings of superiority over others. Crucially, as Rosenberg explicitly posited, healthy high self-esteem does not signify viewing oneself as superior, brilliant, or infallible; rather, it indicates an attitude of self-respect and basic adequacy.
• Negative Self-Esteem (Self-Derogation and Perceived Deficiency): This dimension involves the internalized tendency to disparage one's character, view oneself as an inherent failure, or experience self-contempt. Captured by items such as "At times I think I am no good at all" (Item 2) and "All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure" (Item 9), this facet taps into feelings of uselessness and shame. Low self-esteem, in this framework, represents an active, distressing psychological state wherein the individual feels fundamentally flawed and wishes for an identity other than their own.

Construct Demarcation

To accurately understand the psychological construct measured by the RSES, it must be differentiated from adjacent psychological constructs:

• Global vs. Domain-Specific Self-Esteem: Unlike multidimensional self-concept models (such as those developed by Susan Harter or Herbert W. Marsh), which measure discrete self-evaluations in domains like physical appearance, academic performance, or peer acceptance, the RSES treats self-esteem as a superordinate, integrative evaluation. While domain-specific evaluations serve as the cognitive building blocks of identity, global self-esteem is the psychological baseline that reflects how individuals weight and synthesize these domains into a coherent affective appraisal.
• Self-Esteem vs. Narcissism: Global self-esteem as tapped by the RSES represents an egalitarian, non-defensive acceptance of the self (e.g., Item 7: "I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others"). In stark contrast, narcissism entails feelings of grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and an urgent psychological need to feel superior to peers. Psychometric studies consistently demonstrate that while high RSES scores correlate with psychological well-being and prosocial behavior, pathological narcissism is characterized by brittle, defensive self-evaluations prone to hostility upon exposure to ego threat.
• Trait vs. State Self-Esteem: Although self-esteem can experience brief fluctuations in response to immediate social feedback (state self-esteem), the RSES is structured to assess the stable, trait-like core of self-evaluation, which remains remarkably consistent across weeks, months, and even decades.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework undergirding the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale synthesizes classical symbolic interactionism, sociological theories of social stratification, and phenomenological psychology. Morris Rosenberg approached the study of the self not as an isolated intrapsychic phenomenon, but as a dynamic construct emerging at the intersection of individual cognitive appraisal and broader social structures.

Foundational Theoretical Roots

Three primary theoretical streams converge within Rosenberg's conceptualization:

• The Looking-Glass Self: Rooted in the foundational sociological theories of Charles Horton Cooley (1902) and George Herbert Mead (1934), symbolic interactionism posits that an individual's self-concept is fundamentally shaped by reflected appraisals—how one perceives others to perceive them. Rosenberg integrated this insight by hypothesizing that an individual's self-worth reflects the internalized judgments of significant others (parents, teachers, peers) communicated through daily social interaction.
• Social Comparison Theory: Formulated by Leon Festinger (1954), this theory asserts that humans possess an innate drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities through comparison with others. Rosenberg operationalized this reality directly in items like Item 4 ("I am able to do things as well as most other people") and Item 7 ("I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others"), emphasizing that self-evaluation is fundamentally contextualized by an individual's subjective standing relative to their peer reference group.
• Phenomenological Self Theory: Drawing from the clinical and personality psychology of Carl Rogers and William James, Rosenberg recognized that self-esteem is determined by the ratio of one's actual achievements to their perceived potential or "pretensions" ($Self\text{-}Esteem = \frac{Successes}{Pretensions}$). In this view, high self-esteem does not necessitate perfection; rather, it reflects a state of congruence between one's real self and one's ideal self, fostering unconditional self-acceptance.

Rosenberg's Sociological Innovations

In his 1965 investigation of 5,022 high school juniors and seniors from 10 randomly selected high schools in New York State, Rosenberg utilized the RSES to interrogate the sociological determinants of the adolescent self-image. Contrary to intuitive sociological assumptions of the era, Rosenberg revealed that broad macrosocial statuses—such as social class origin, ethnic background, and religious affiliation—exerted surprisingly weak direct effects on global self-esteem. Instead, he demonstrated that self-esteem is mediated by microsocial environments: the immediate family climate, interpersonal validation, contextual dissonance (e.g., being a religious or racial minority within an unsupportive local community), and the psychological defense mechanisms adolescents deploy to protect their ego.

Rosenberg introduced the principle of psychological selectivity, explaining that individuals actively protect their self-esteem by valuing domains in which they excel and devaluing domains in which they falter. However, when self-derogation penetrates the global level, these defensive buffers fail, leading to pervasive feelings of failure, worthlessness, and depressive affect. The RSES was explicitly designed to measure the final, cumulative result of this self-evaluative process.

Validity

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale has undergone some of the most thorough validity investigations recorded in the annals of psychometrics. Its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities have been confirmed across thousands of independent studies spanning multiple continents, cultural settings, and clinical cohorts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by consistent empirical verification of hypotheses derived from self-esteem theories. Early validation studies conducted by Rosenberg (1965) confirmed that RSES scores were significantly associated with peer nominations of depressive affect, observational ratings of psychosomatic symptoms, leadership behaviors in school settings, and participation in extracurricular activities. Later studies utilizing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) have consistently documented that the scale functions as expected across varied sociodemographic groups, capturing the core psychological variance of self-evaluative identity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is documented via robust correlations between the RSES and other standardized self-evaluative and psychological well-being instruments:

• Alternative Self-Esteem Measures: Demonstrates high positive correlations ($r = .72$ to $.83$) with the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI), the Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
• Subjective Well-Being: Positively correlates with Diener's Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; $r = .55$ to $.65$), positive affect schedules ($r = .50$ to $.60$), and optimism as measured by the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; $r = .50$ to $.62$).
• Emotional Stability: Substantially correlates with the Neuroticism/Emotional Stability dimension of the Big Five Personality Traits ($r = -.50$ to $-.68$), reflecting the affective stability intrinsic to secure self-worth.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been rigorously demonstrated by differentiating global self-esteem from conceptually distinct yet superficially related constructs:

• Depression and Anxiety: Exhibits strong, theoretically expected negative correlations with standardized depression inventories, including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) ($r = -.56$ to $-.70$) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; $r = -.52$ to $-.65$). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of pooled RSES and depression items repeatedly confirm that self-esteem items load onto distinct factors rather than merging into an undifferentiated negative affect factor.
• Narcissistic Grandiosity: Scores on the RSES demonstrate low to moderate correlations ($r = .20$ to $.35$) with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). Critically, whereas narcissism correlates strongly with hubris, interpersonal exploitation, and aggression following ego threat, RSES scores predict prosocial behavior, psychological security, and empathic concern.
• Social Desirability: Correlations between the RSES and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale typically hover between $r = .15$ and $.30$, indicating that self-esteem scores are largely independent of the conscious motivation to portray oneself in a socially favorable manner.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The RSES displays exceptional predictive utility across diverse developmental and longitudinal settings. Longitudinal research demonstrates that baseline RSES scores predict:

• Subsequent onset of depressive episodes during adolescence and adulthood, with low self-esteem acting as a prospective vulnerability factor rather than merely a symptom of depression.
• Academic achievement, occupational attainment, and job satisfaction over decades-long follow-ups, even when controlling for baseline cognitive ability and socioeconomic background.
• Interpersonal relationship stability, marital satisfaction, and social support network density.
• Coping behaviors under high stress, wherein individuals with elevated self-esteem deploy adaptive, problem-focused strategies rather than avoidant or substance-abusing behaviors.

Reliability

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability, consistently meeting or exceeding conventional standards for both research ($> .70$) and individual clinical assessment ($> .80$) across numerous populations and administrative formats.

Internal Consistency

Estimates of internal consistency via Cronbach's alpha across normative samples systematically range between $.77$ and $.92$. In the landmark cross-national validation study conducted by Schmitt and Allik (2005), which administered the RSES to 16,998 participants across 53 nations, the mean internal consistency was documented at $\alpha = .81$. Notably, alpha coefficients remained robust across geographic regions: North America (mean $\alpha = .87$), Western Europe (mean $\alpha = .86$), South America (mean $\alpha = .80$), and East Asia (mean $\alpha = .77$).

Contemporary psychometric evaluations utilizing composite reliability and McDonald's omega hierarchical ($\omega_h$) and omega total ($\omega_t$) further confirm the scale's internal consistency. Omega total coefficients frequently exceed $.88$, establishing that the 10 items possess high common variance attributable to a primary self-worth construct.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because global self-esteem is theoretical conceived as an enduring trait, temporal stability represents a critical psychometric benchmark. The RSES displays remarkable stability across diverse intervals:

• Short-Term Stability (1 to 4 weeks): Early test-retest investigations by Silber and Tippett (1965) yielded a stability coefficient of $r = .85$ over a two-week interval among college students. Subsequent studies have confirmed test-retest reliability ranging from $r = .82$ to $.88$ across two-to-four-week windows.
• Medium-Term Stability (several months to 1 year): Longitudinal investigations report test-retest correlations between $r = .63$ and $.75$ over six-month to one-year intervals, confirming that while the instrument is sensitive to meaningful life events and therapeutic interventions, it remains anchored to a stable individual trait.
• Long-Term Stability (multi-year cohorts): Multi-wave longitudinal tracking spanning five to ten years reveals standardized autoregressive stability paths exceeding $.50$, highlighting the persistent, trait-like nature of the construct across the adult lifespan.

Standard Error of Measurement

The Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for the RSES is typically calculated between $1.8$ and $2.4$ scale points (on the continuous 10–40 metric). This small error band provides confidence in interpreting meaningful intra-individual change in longitudinal monitoring or clinical therapeutic evaluations.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale has served as the focus of one of the longest-running and most nuanced debates in psychometrics. Although Morris Rosenberg initially constructed the scale as a unidimensional Guttman instrument, subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses frequently yielded evidence suggesting a multidimensional structure.

The Two-Factor Dilemma: Substantive Dimensions vs. Method Effects

When researchers submit the 10 RSES items to unconstrained exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or basic two-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the items reliably divide into two correlated factors:

• Factor 1: Positive Self-Esteem (Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 10), consisting entirely of positively worded statements.
• Factor 2: Self-Deprecation / Negative Self-Esteem (Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9), consisting entirely of negatively phrased, reverse-scored statements.

Historically, substantive theorists interpreted this empirical divergence as evidence of two distinct, biologically or psychologically autonomous dimensions of personality: a striving toward self-enhancement versus an avoidance of self-derogation. However, psychometricians led by Herbert W. Marsh (1996), Tomás and Oliver (1999), and Greenberger et al. (2003) demonstrated that this apparent multidimensionality is an artifactual consequence of method effects associated with item wording valence.

Structural Equation Modeling and Bifactor Analyses

To systematically evaluate the dimensionality debate, contemporary psychometricians test four competing structural models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

1. Strict Unidimensional Model: All 10 items load onto a single global self-esteem factor. While parsimonious, this model typically demonstrates poor fit indices (e.g., $\chi^2/df > 5.0$, $\text{CFI} < .88$, $\text{RMSEA} > .09$) because it fails to account for residual covariance among similarly worded items.
2. Two Uncorrelated/Correlated Substantive Factors Model: Separates positive and negative items into distinct latent traits. While model fit improves substantially ($\text{CFI} > .94$, $\text{RMSEA} < .06$), the two factors typically correlate so highly ($r = -.75$ to $-.90$) that they demonstrate an absence of discriminant validity.
3. Correlated Traits-Correlated Methods (CTCM) / Method Effect CFA Models: A single global self-esteem factor accounts for the substantive variance of all 10 items, while orthogonal method factors (either a negative method factor, a positive method factor, or both) capture the residual covariance induced by acquiescence, cognitive processing demands, or response styles. These models routinely yield superior fit indices ($\text{CFI} > .97$, $\text{TLI} > .96$, $\text{RMSEA} < .04$, $\text{SRMR} < .03$).
4. Bifactor Model: Incorporates a single general factor ($\text{G}$) capturing global self-esteem across all 10 items, alongside two independent specific group factors ($S_1$ and $S_2$) reflecting the positive and negative phrasing method variance. Bifactor modeling systematically shows that the general factor explains over 75% to 85% of the common variance (Explained Common Variance; $\text{ECV} > .80$), supporting the conclusion that the RSES is fundamentally essentially unidimensional.

Item Response Theory (IRT) Evidence

Item Response Theory analyses, most notably the polytomous graded response model (GRM) conducted by Gray-Little, Williams, and Hancock (1997), provide deep insights into item performance:

• All 10 items display high discrimination parameters ($a$), ranging from $1.2$ to $2.6$, confirming that every item effectively discriminates between individuals with high versus low latent self-esteem ($\theta$).
• Items 1 ("On the whole, I am satisfied with myself") and 10 ("I take a positive attitude toward myself") consistently display the highest discrimination parameters ($a > 2.2$).
• Item 8 ("I wish I could have more respect for myself") displays the lowest discrimination parameter and unique threshold characteristics ($b$), often behaving anomalously because wishing for more self-respect is endorsed not only by individuals with low self-esteem, but also by perfectionistic individuals who possess moderate to high self-worth.
• The Test Information Function (TIF) reveals that the RSES provides maximum psychometric precision and lowest measurement error at the lower end of the self-esteem continuum ($\theta$ between $-2.5$ and $0.0$). Thus, the scale is exceptionally well-suited for screening individuals at risk for depressive and self-derogating psychopathology, though it exhibits slight ceiling effects among exceptionally high-functioning cohorts.

Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance

Large-scale cross-cultural studies (e.g., Schmitt & Allik, 2005) utilizing multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) have demonstrated configural invariance (identical factor structure) and metric invariance (equal factor loadings) across dozens of linguistic and cultural contexts. While scalar invariance (equal item intercepts) is occasionally compromised across cultures due to varying cultural norms surrounding modesty, humility, and self-enhancement (particularly in East Asian collectivist societies versus Western individualist societies), the underlying construct of global self-worth remains universally identifiable and psychometrically comparable.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational features and structural parameters of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale are summarized below:

• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Questionnaire / Psychological Rating Scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 12 and older) and adults across the entire lifespan. Adaptations have been successfully applied to older child populations.
• Format: Pen-and-paper, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or mobile/web-based automated administration.
• Item Count: 10 declarative statements.
• Item Structure:
  • 5 Positively Worded Items: Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 10.
  • 5 Negatively Worded Items: Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9.
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert scale:
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 5 minutes to complete.
• Scoring System (Continuous 10–40 Scoring Metric):
  • Direct Scoring (Positively Worded Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 10):
    • Strongly Disagree = 1 point
    • Disagree = 2 points
    • Agree = 3 points
    • Strongly Agree = 4 points
  • Reverse Scoring (Negatively Worded Items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9):
    • Strongly Agree = 1 point
    • Agree = 2 points
    • Disagree = 3 points
    • Strongly Disagree = 4 points
  • Total Score Calculation: Sum the assigned points across all 10 items. Total scale scores range continuously from 10 to 40.
  • Alternative Historical Scoring (0–30 metric): Some literature assigns points from 0 to 3 (resulting in a total range of 0 to 30), or utilizes Rosenberg's original 1965 6-point Guttman scale scores (0 to 6). The 10–40 continuous sum score represents the contemporary standard.
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Scores are maintained on a continuous scale; higher numerical scores indicate higher levels of global self-esteem and self-acceptance.
  • Scores Below 25: Typically indicate significantly low global self-esteem, marked by pronounced self-derogation, perceived inadequacy, and heightened vulnerability to affective disturbances.
  • Scores Between 25 and 35: Represent the typical/healthy normative range reflecting balanced self-appraisal, self-respect, and awareness of both personal strengths and limitations.
  • Scores Above 35: Reflect exceptionally high global self-esteem, associated with strong self-confidence, robust resilience, and high self-regard.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was formally developed and published in 1965 in Morris Rosenberg's text, Society and the Adolescent Self-Image (Princeton University Press).

Licensing and Fee Structure: In accordance with the explicit wishes of the late Dr. Morris Rosenberg and the formal policies maintained by the Department of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is in the public domain. It is completely free of charge and may be utilized for academic research, educational instruction, and professional clinical assessment without securing written copyright permission or paying licensing fees.

Citation and Ethical Obligations: Although explicit permission is not required, professional, ethical, and academic standards necessitate that researchers properly cite Morris Rosenberg's original 1965 monograph and relevant psychometric validation studies in any published works, presentations, or software implementations utilizing the instrument.

References

Crandal, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes (pp. 80–82). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653

Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297235001

Greenberger, E., Chen, C., Dmitrieva, J., & Farruggia, S. P. (2003). Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Do they matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1241–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00331-8

Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623

Shapurian, R., Hojat, M., & Nayerahmadi, H. (1987). Psychometric characteristics and dimensionality of a Persian version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1987.65.1.27

Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 16(3_suppl), 1017–1071. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965.16.3c.1017

Tomás, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg's self-esteem scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540120

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)