NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Self Identity. 2011 ; 10(4): 445–473. doi:10.1080/15298861003794538.

Adolescent Self-Esteem: Differences by Race/Ethnicity, Gender,

and Age
Jerald G. Bachman,
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., P.O. Box 1248, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106-1248, 734-763-5043, 734-936-0043 (fax), jbachman@umich.edu
Patrick M. O’Malley,
University of Michigan
Peter Freedman-Doan,
University of Michigan
Kali H. Trzesniewski, and
The University of Western Ontario
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

M. Brent Donnellan
Michigan State University

Abstract
Large-scale representative surveys of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students in the United States
show high self-esteem scores for all groups. African-American students score highest, Whites
score slightly higher than Hispanics, and Asian Americans score lowest. Males score slightly
higher than females. Multivariate controls for grades and college plans actually heighten these
race/ethnic/gender differences. A truncated scoring method, designed to counter race/ethnic
differences in extreme response style, reduced but did not eliminate the subgroup differences. Age
differences in self-esteem are modest, with 12th graders reporting the highest scores. The findings
are highly consistent across 18 annual surveys from 1991 through 2008, and self-esteem scores
show little overall change during that period.

Keywords
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

self-esteem; adolescence; race/ethnicity; gender differences; age differences; national sample

Global self-esteem, an individual’s overall evaluation of self, is one of the most studied
constructs in the social sciences. A wide and diverse literature that spans disciplines and
theoretical perspectives suggests that high self-esteem is positively, though not necessarily
causally, associated with goals, expectancies, coping mechanisms, and behaviors that
facilitate productive achievement and work experiences; and it is negatively associated with
mental and physical health problems, substance abuse, and antisocial behavior (e.g.,
Bandura, 1982; Brown, 1998; Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005;
DuBois & Tevendale, 1999; Flory, Lynam, Milich, Leukefeld, & Clayton, 2004; Harter,
1998; O’Connor & Vallerand, 1998; Robins, Tracy, & Trzesniewski, 2008; Trzesniewski et
al., 2006; but see Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003, for a more critical
perspective).
 Bachman et al. Page 2

Although self-esteem is a popular research topic, there are important outstanding issues,
including how self-esteem relates to demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity and,
to a lesser extent, gender and age. The goal of this report is to address these issues using
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

large-scale representative surveys of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students in the United
States.

Individual differences in self-esteem can be reliably measured in countries as diverse as

Argentina, Fiji, India, Lebanon, South Korea, and the United States (Schmitt & Allik, 2005).
Accordingly, there has been long-standing interest in racial/ethnic differences in self-esteem
(Bachman & O’Malley, 1984a; Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000; Twenge & Crocker, 2002).
Two meta-analyses concluded that African Americans score higher on measures of self-
esteem than Whites (Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000; Twenge & Crocker, 2002). In addition,
Twenge and Crocker (2002) found that Asians report the lowest level of self-esteem, and
Latinos fall between Whites and Asians. Likewise, Schmitt and Allik (2005) found that
individuals from Japan reported lower self-esteem than individuals from the United States.
Despite the robustness of these effects, explanations for these observed differences are
contentious (e.g., Bachman & O’Malley, 1984a,b; Cai, Brown, Deng, & Oakes, 2007; Gray-
Little & Hafdahl, 2000; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Twenge & Crocker,
2002).

A considerable amount of attention has focused on explaining differences in self-esteem,

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

especially between African Americans and Whites (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989; Gray-
Little & Hafdahl, 2000; Rosenberg, 1979). One of the oldest perspectives on this issue is the
reflected appraisals theory. According to Mead (1934), self-esteem is affected by the
reflected appraisals of generalized others—that is, perceptions of how generalized others
(e.g., majority group members, society) view an individual or group. Thus, the prediction
would be that, because African Americans are a stigmatized group in the United States (see
Crocker & Major, 1989, p. 608), they will have lower self-esteem than members of the
majority culture. It is less clear what the prediction would be for Asians, because some
stereotypes for Asians are positive (i.e., the model minority stereotype). The bigger problem,
however, is that this theory is not supported by existing data—African Americans seem to
consistently report higher levels of self-esteem than Whites, whereas Asian Americans
report the lowest levels.

A second explanation is based on social comparison processes. Like the reflected appraisals
theory, a social comparison approach might be used to generate the prediction that ethnic
minorities (e.g., African Americans) will have lower self-esteem than the ethnic majority
(e.g., Whites) because of cross-group social comparisons (see Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000).
For example, if African Americans, on average, are more disadvantaged and they compare
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

themselves to Whites who, on average, are more advantaged, then African Americans will
report lower levels of self-esteem. As noted above, this prediction is not empirically
supported. An alternative possibility is that social comparisons are made within one’s own
ethnic group (e.g., Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000; Rosenberg, 1979), in which case African
Americans would compare themselves to other African Americans and likely have just as
many opportunities to make downward social comparisons as members of more advantaged
groups.

Indeed, Crocker and Major (1989) suggested that there are several general self processes
that are used to protect self-esteem of stigmatized groups. In addition to within-group social
comparisons, they proposed that individual members of stigmatized groups attribute
negative appraisals from others to prejudice against their group, and likewise individuals in
stigmatized groups may not personally value the attributes that are devalued by the majority
group. This proposal is largely consistent with the classical Jamesian notion that self-esteem

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 3

is a personal judgment of self-worth that is determined by how well individuals evaluate

themselves on dimensions that they personally value. James noted that “our self-feeling in
this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do” (James, 1985, p. 54).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Although the Crocker and Major model can explain why researchers have not found clear
evidence that Blacks score lower than Whites on measures of self-esteem, this approach
does not seem well suited for explaining the differences that have been observed in self-
esteem scores.

A more vexing recent question concerns why Asian Americans have lower self-esteem
scores than Whites or African Americans. To account for this difference, it is relevant to
consider the possibility that different cultural traditions give rise to different default patterns
of behavior (e.g., Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008; cf., Kim & Markus, 1999), and
that these may extend to the expression of self-esteem as measured by pencil and paper
scales. It is traditionally thought that East Asian cultures emphasize the importance of the
group (hence the term “collectivist cultures”; see e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Accordingly, socialization practices in these cultures might not emphasize the expression of
high self-esteem because such expressions could run counter to culturally valued attributes
that promote group harmony, such as modesty, a sense of connectedness, and conformity
(Kim & Markus, 1999). On the other hand, the expression of high self-esteem in more
individualistic cultures might be encouraged given the cultural value placed on freedom and
individual rights (Chao, 1995). Accordingly, we suspect that cultural differences in the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

expression of self-esteem may explain why Asian Americans score lower than Whites or
African Americans on self-report measures. Indeed, existing research has shown that Asian
Americans are more collectivistic than European Americans, whereas there were no
detectable differences between African Americans and European Americans (Oyserman,
Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002, p. 27).

We should briefly address a concern about the cultural construction of self-esteem that is
relevant for the present investigation. Some authors have suggested that “self-esteem, as it is
conventionally researched and understood, may be, in significant ways, a North American
phenomenon” (Heine et al., 1999, p. 768; but see Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003;
Sedikides, Gaertner, & Vevea, 2007). This perspective does not seem easy to reconcile with
evidence that the Rosenberg self-esteem scale has acceptable psychometric properties and
similar relations with Extraversion and Neuroticism in Japan, India, and the United States
(Schmitt & Allik, 2005). Thus, we believe there are compelling reasons to accept the notion
that self-esteem is a relevant individual difference construct in many cultures and contexts.
For the present paper, our point is that there might be differences in the “cultural press for
the expression of high self-esteem” as it relates to responses on paper and pencil measures
both within and across cultures. Indeed, recent work by Cai et al. (2007) suggests that
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Chinese individuals feel positively about themselves but that cultural norms related to
modesty account for observed differences in self-esteem scores between Chinese and
American research participants. Likewise, it appears that implicit measures of self-esteem
are less likely to show differences between those from Asian countries and the United States
(e.g., Yamagishi et al., 2008).

The cultural press explanation for the observed self-esteem difference may also explain why
African Americans report higher levels of self-esteem than White Americans. That is, some
scholars have suggested that African-American families strive to instill self-esteem in youth
so that they will be able to cope with discrimination (reviewed in Hughes et al., 2006).
Likewise, African Americans might emphasize their “desirable distinctiveness” (Gray-Little
& Hafdahl, 2000, p. 26) and therefore report higher levels of self-esteem. In short, there are
compelling reasons to think that a cultural press surrounding the expression of self-esteem
offers a plausible explanation for some of the observed racial/ethnic differences. In line with

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 4

the previous arguments, we hypothesize that some of the group differences in self-esteem
scores can be explained by differences in reporting styles, which may stem from disparate
cultural emphases on expression as it relates to responses to survey instruments. In
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

particular, we propose that African Americans are socialized to communicate pride and
Asians are socialized to communicate humility.

Such culturally informed orientations may affect the way that participants respond to self-
report questionnaires, particularly those that strongly emphasize self-values. This tendency
might be evident as a consistent response style that reflects a reluctance to use the extreme
ends of scales for individuals from collectivist cultures (e.g., Chen, Lee, & Stevenson,
1995). The opposite sort of response style (i.e., a greater willingness to use scale
extremities) has been found among African-American participants; for example, Bachman
and O’Malley examined 130 agree-disagree items from nationally representative surveys of
high school seniors, and found that 63 of these items (48%) “…showed [a] pattern of greater
percentages of blacks than whites at both scale extremes for all three years” (1984b, p. 496).
This highly consistent pattern of greater African-American use of the scale extremes was
evident across five different questionnaire forms covering a wide range of content area;
moreover, these early findings were recently replicated and extended (Bachman, O’Malley,
& Freedman-Doan, 2009). Such response style differences led the same authors in a separate
article (Bachman & O’Malley, 1984a) to question whether the higher self-esteem scores of
African-American students, compared with White students, reflected genuine group
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

differences in self-esteem.

The Bachman and O’Malley (1984a) article used data from Monitoring the Future (MTF)
surveys of high school seniors in 1980-1982 and showed that African-American students
scored higher than White students on measures of self-esteem. That article also
demonstrated that response styles can significantly affect so-called “balanced” index scores;
this is because even though the items may be balanced (the measure of self-esteem used here
consists of four items worded positively and four worded negatively), the responses often
are not balanced. Most respondents choose self-esteem responses that are at least somewhat
positive, whether that calls for agreement or disagreement. For example, Schmitt and Allik
(2005) examined Rosenberg’s measure of self-esteem across 53 nations, and found that all
nations scored above the scale’s midpoint, “…indicating generally positive self-evaluation
may be culturally universal”; but they also noted “…a neutral response bias prevalent in
more collectivist cultures” (p. 623). Likewise, there is agreement that the better-than-
average effect is present in the responding of both Asians and European Americans, even if
researchers debate the interpretation of the phenomenon (Heine, Kitayama, & Hamamura,
2007; Sedikides et al., 2007). Thus, for measures such as self-esteem, differences in a
willingness or inclination to use the extreme responses (unqualified “Agree” or “Disagree,”
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

versus “Mostly Agree” or “Mostly Disagree”) can influence overall scores. The earlier
analyses by Bachman and O’Malley found that, although African-American students scored
significantly higher than White students when the full-scale range was used in computing
self-esteem scores, the “…discrepancy disappears when a truncated scoring method is
employed to control differences in the use of extreme response categories” (Bachman &
O’Malley, 1984a, p. 624). It is an open question as to whether this strategy will affect
comparisons for Asian Americans and White Americans in more recent decades.

The Present Study

We are now able to extend the earlier MTF self-esteem findings along six dimensions: First,
and most important, we enlarge the racial/ethnic comparisons to include Asian Americans
and Hispanics, along with African Americans and Whites. Second, we report findings
separately for males and females, thereby evaluating gender differences as well as gender

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 5

interactions with race/ethnicity. Third, we expand the age coverage by including 8th- and
10th-grade students as well as 12th graders. Fourth, we include more recent data and much
larger samples, examining 18 years of school surveys (1991-2008). Fifth, we consider the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

important question of how racial/ethnic comparisons are affected by controls for three
potentially relevant factors that vary across the subgroups: school grades, college plans, and
parental education. Finally, we revisit the question of how truncating the response scale
affects subgroup differences in self-esteem scores.

Specific Hypotheses
1. Based on the earlier findings summarized above, we expected to find relatively
high self-esteem scores among African Americans and relatively low scores among
Asian Americans, with White Americans and Hispanics in the middle.
2. Based on earlier research (e.g., Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Bachman, O’Malley,
& Johnston, 1978; Donnellan et al., 2005; Trzesniewski et al., 2006; Twenge &
Crocker, 2002), we expected to find self-esteem scores positively correlated with
parental education (a proxy for socioeconomic level), grade point average, and
college plans across the racial/ethnic groups.
3. We expected the observed racial/ethnic differences in self-esteem to persist while
controlling for parental education, grade point average, and college plans.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

4. Again based on earlier research (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999;
O’Malley & Bachman, 1979), we expected males to show self-esteem scores equal
to or higher than those of females. We expected this difference to persist in
analyses controlling for parental education, grade point average, and college plans.
5. Given earlier findings that self-esteem scores increase with age (Bachman et al.,
1978; O’Malley & Bachman, 1983; Twenge & Campbell, 2001), we expected
scores to be highest for 12th-grade respondents and lowest for 8th-grade
respondents.1
6. Based on the previous research about response style differences in self-esteem
(Bachman & O’Malley, 1984a), we expected that a truncated scoring of self-esteem
items (combining Agree and Mostly Agree, and combining Disagree and Mostly
Disagree) would reduce some subgroup differences in self-esteem scores. However,
this approach might not completely remove all group differences (see Chen et al.,
1995).

Methods
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The MTF project is an ongoing study of secondary school students in the 48 contiguous
United States, conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.
The study has been described extensively elsewhere (Bachman, Johnston, O’Malley, &
Schulenberg, 2006; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2008); we provide a
brief summary here.

Samples and Survey Procedures

Independent three-stage national probability samples of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students
are surveyed each year in 120-160 public and private schools, selected to provide

1Any differences across grades would not necessarily be due entirely to age; the 10th-grade and especially the 12th-grade samples fail
to represent the entire age cohort due to dropping out. Because dropouts tend to have lower than average self-esteem scores,
differences across grades could reflect, at least in part, the absence of the dropouts from the older samples.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 6

representative cross-sections of students throughout the coterminous United States. In the

spring of each year, questionnaires are administered by professional interviewers from the
University of Michigan during school hours, usually in regularly scheduled class periods.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The questionnaires are designed for optical scanning, and can be completed by most
respondents within 45 minutes. Usable questionnaires are obtained from about 84% of 12th
graders and about 88% of 8th and 10th graders. Nonparticipation is due primarily to
absenteeism, with only 1-2% refusing. The present report includes surveys from 1991-2008;
analyses are limited to those respondents who were classified into one of the eight race/
ethnicity/gender categories used, and who completed all eight self-esteem items without
showing a straight-line responding pattern.2

Multiple questionnaire forms are used in all three grades; the question items featured in
these analyses were administered to a random portion of each sample. Cases are weighted to
take account of sampling design; weights are normalized so that the actual number of
questionnaires (raw observations) is approximately equal to the weighted number. Weighted
total numbers of cases for the analyses reported here equal or exceed 102,109 for 8th
graders, 107,849 for 10th graders, and 107,421 for 12th graders. Significance tests and
confidence intervals take account of design effects due to the stratified samples clustered in
schools.

Questionnaire Content and Self-Esteem Measure

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The MTF questionnaire content covers a wide range of topics, many of which differ from
one questionnaire form to another. Data obtained from all respondents (across all
questionnaire forms) include demographic information such as gender, race/ethnicity,
parental education, region, and urban density; and educational information such as self-
reported grade point average and college plans. Grade point averages, college plans, and
parental education are included in multivariate analyses reported later.

The measure of race/ethnicity used in these analyses consists of responses to the following
questionnaire item: “How do you describe yourself?” Prior to 2005, there was no explicit
instruction about the number of responses to select; the great majority of respondents
selected only one. Beginning in 2005, respondents were instructed to “select one or more
responses.” (Relatively few selected more than one, and this change did not affect the results
shown here.) The four subgroups used in the present analyses, and the relevant questionnaire
response categories (shown in quotes), are as follows: (1) African American, “Black or
African American”; (2) White, “White (Caucasian)”; (3) Hispanic, those choosing any of the
following: “Mexican American or Chicano,” “Cuban American,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Other
Hispanic or Latino”; (4) Asian American, “Asian American.”
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Our primary focus is on the eight-item MTF measure of global self-esteem; this is a
balanced set, with four items reverse scored. As shown in the appendix, six of the items
were adapted from the Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale; two were adapted from Cobb,
Brooks, Kasl, and Connelly (1966). Although the MTF self-esteem measure overlaps in
content with the Rosenberg scale, we want to stress that scores are not directly comparable,
because the MTF measure uses only six of the ten Rosenberg items (with three small
wording changes), and also because the Rosenberg scale uses a different response scale. All

2Straight-line responding refers to giving exactly the same answer to a set of questions (for which identical answers seem
inappropriate). For example, anyone answering “Agree” to four positively worded self-esteem items as well as four negatively worded
items would be highly inconsistent, and we judged those few respondents to be not responding carefully to the questionnaire at that
point. The same would apply to someone consistently answering “Disagree.” Although answering “Neither” to the eight self-esteem
items would not be logically inconsistent, we still judged those few individuals also to be no longer fully engaged in answering the
questionnaire.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 7

of the MTF items use the following Likert-type response scale: Disagree (1), Mostly
disagree (2), Neither (3), Mostly agree (4), Agree (5); the Rosenberg scale uses a four-point
scale ranging from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. The full MTF item wordings, along
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

with response distributions for total samples and subgroups, are shown in the appendix. Self-
esteem is computed as a mean based on all eight items; scores can range from 1.0 (lowest
possible self-esteem) to 5.0 (highest possible).3 Alpha coefficients for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-
grade samples are .85, .87, and .88, respectively.

A single questionnaire format was used for the self-esteem measure in all of the 8th- and
10th-grade surveys, whereas the 12th-grade self-esteem findings reported here combine the
results from three separate questionnaire forms. In all of these questionnaire forms, the self-
esteem items are mixed in with various other items measuring other constructs (which differ
from form to form).4 In one of the 12th-grade questionnaire forms, the set of items is very
similar to those in the 8th- and 10th-grade questionnaires, whereas in the other two 12th-
grade forms the contexts are different. Nevertheless, when examined separately the 12th-
grade results were found to be virtually identical across the three forms, as are the alpha
coefficients (.89, .87, and .87), leaving us confident that different questionnaire contexts for
the 12th-grade students do not affect our findings.

Results
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

We begin our reporting by noting changes and consistencies in self-esteem responses from
1991 through 2008; based on those findings, we chose to combine data across all years for
subsequent analyses. Next we examine self-esteem response distributions, comparing the
four racial/ethnic subgroups for males and females at each of the three grades. We then
present multivariate analyses showing how subgroup differences in self-esteem are affected
by adjustments for differences in parental education, grade point averages, and college
plans. Finally, we examine subgroup differences in proportions with the highest possible
self-esteem scores, and consider the extent to which subgroup differences change when the
response scale is truncated to reduce the effects of extreme response tendencies.

Preliminary Analysis Evaluating Changes in Self-Esteem Scores from 1991 through 2008
We examined mean self-esteem scores for males and females across the 18 years for which
data are available for all three grades, and found some irregular variation from year to year,
along with some suggestions of very weak trends over time. In order to quantify the total
between-years variance, we treated year of survey as a series of dummy variables predicting
self-esteem. These analyses were conducted separately for males and females at each of the
three grades. The six R-squared values ranged from .0008 to .0025, indicating no more than
one quarter of one percent of variance between years. We also examined year of survey
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

treated as a linear predictor; the largest R-squared value for a linear trend was .0008.

The linear coefficients did, however, show small but statistically significant increases in
self-esteem among females in all three grades; these amounted to about .005 per year among
8th and 10th graders, and about half that much among 12th graders. To put this more
concretely, we averaged self-esteem scores for 1991, 1992, and 1993, and compared them
with averages for 2006, 2007, and 2008.5 Among 8th-grade females, mean self-esteem

3As noted earlier, cases with missing data on any item are excluded.
4This practice of intermixing items from different scales is not at all unusual. On the contrary, as was pointed out in a recent
discussion of questionnaire format issues, “Usually, items belonging to different scales are arranged in random order within a
questionnaire, or the items from one scale are placed with the largest possible distance to each other” in order to make measurement
purposes less transparent and to avoid monotonous item orderings that might reduce respondents’ attention and motivation (Sparfeldt,
Schilling, Rost, & Thiel, 2006, p. 962). In the case of MTF questionnaires, reducing monotony and maintaining respondent motivation
were primary considerations prompting the intermixing of items.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 8

scores rose from 3.88 to 3.96, an increase of 9% of a standard deviation—that is, Cohen’s d
score equals .09 (Cohen, 1988). Among females in higher grades, the increases were from
3.90 to 3.97 for 10th graders (d = .07), and from 4.00 to 4.04 for 12th graders (d = .05).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Among males the linear changes were mixed—a very small and nonsignificant increase
among 8th graders, no clear trend among 10th graders, and a slight (albeit significant)
decrease among 12th graders (from 4.12 to 4.08; d = −.05).

The time trends for 12th-grade males and females, although quite small, do show a
convergence from 1991 through 2008—a narrowing of the gender difference averaging .005
per year on the self-esteem scale. Thus, for example, males averaged about 0.12 higher than
females in 1991-1993 (d = .15), whereas the difference declined to only about 0.04 in
2006-2008 (d = .05). Given that the gender difference in 1991-1993 was only about 15% of
a standard deviation, the convergence, although detectable, could hardly be described as
large. Moreover, an examination of 12th-grade data extending back to 1977 did not reveal
any earlier convergence in male-female self-esteem; instead, in all years prior to 1991 males
scored slightly higher than females, with differences averaging 0.10 (i.e., d scores of about .
13). This is consistent with previous research on gender differences in self-esteem (Kling et
al., 1999; O’Malley & Bachman, 1979).

On balance, we concluded that because 0.25% or less of total variance in self-esteem scores
lies between years (0.08% or less if we focus only on linear trends), there was little to be lost
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

by combining data across all 18 annual surveys for the remainder of our analyses—
especially given that exploratory analyses revealed no important cohort differences in
patterns of findings. In view of the relatively small sizes of some of the racial/ethnic
subgroups in any given year, this combining across years offers great advantages in clarity
and reliability.

Descriptive Comparison: Subgroup Response Distributions

Figure 1 presents response distributions of self-esteem scores, comparing all four race/
ethnicity subgroups separately for males and females in each of the three grades. At first
glance these might appear to be cumulative distributions, because they are such a far cry
from the typical bell-shaped distribution. But these are, in fact, frequency distributions
showing that scores among adolescents in the United States are strongly skewed in the
direction of high self-esteem. Consider these examples from the 12th-grade female (lower
right-hand) portion of the figure: Fully 45% of African-American females are in the top self-
esteem category shown in the figure (i.e., those with the four highest possible self-esteem
index scores—4.625, 4.75, 4.875, or 5.0), whereas fewer than 8% score at the mid-point or
lower (scores of 1.0 to 3.0—the bottom four categories in Figure 1). Even among Asian-
American females, who average lowest in self-esteem index scores, 24% are in the top
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

category and fewer than 14% score at the mid-point or lower.

Clearly in this study, as in most other studies of group differences, the subgroup
distributions are more similar than different. However, the figure also shows certain
subgroup differences that replicate fairly consistently across genders and grades. In
particular, and consistent with Hypothesis 1, African Americans are most likely to score at
the top of the self-esteem scale whereas Asian Americans are least likely to do so (with 8th-
grade males as the sole exception). These differences are highly statistically significant, as
can be seen in the next section when we compare mean scores (including confidence
intervals) across subgroups.

5These are, in effect, moving averages around the years 1992 and 2007 (done in order to reduce random year-to-year fluctuations).
The shifts across this 15-year span are very similar to the linear trend coefficients extrapolated across 15 years.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 9

Finally, Figure 1 shows that the distributions of self-esteem scores, including subgroup
differences, are largely similar from modal age 14 (8th grade) through modal age 18 (12th
grade). Later in the results section we provide further evidence on age-related differences in
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

self-esteem scores, as well as age-related differences in extreme response tendencies.

Multivariate Prediction of Self-Esteem

A series of multiple regression analyses explored whether race/ethnicity and gender
differences in self-esteem were affected by controls for students’ grade point averages
(GPA), college plans, and parents’ education.6 We employed multiple classification analysis
(MCA), a form of dummy variable multiple regression analysis (Andrews, Morgan,
Sonquist, & Klem, 1973). In earlier analyses, Bachman and O’Malley concluded “…we find
no dimensions which would permit us to ‘explain away’ the differences between blacks and
whites” (1984b, p. 504). The same is true now, this time for findings extending to four
different categories of race/ethnicity.

Table 1 presents summary findings from MCA models for each grade. The first model
predicts self-esteem scores from grades and college plans, and the second adds parental
education as a predictor; these models show the extent to which these education-related
variables alone can account for a considerable amount of the variance in self-esteem.7 The
third model adds the eight-category measure of race/ethnicity by gender. We summarize the
education-related findings briefly before examining how mean levels of self-esteem differ
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

by race/ethnicity and gender.

Self-Esteem Linked to Educational Success—First, we note that the relations

between grades, college plans, parental education and self-esteem are all positive, consistent
with Hypothesis 2. Without exception, the eta and beta coefficients are highest for 8th
graders and lowest for 12th graders. Table 1 shows that GPA and college plans are both
relatively strong correlates of adolescent self-esteem; GPA is the stronger correlate in 8th
grade (eta = .29), but grows somewhat weaker by 10th grade (eta = .24) and still weaker by
12th grade (eta = .17). Parental education is a much weaker predictor, and makes only a very
modest additional contribution to variance above and beyond the other two measures (an
increase in R-square of .003 for 8th graders, and only .001 for the older grades).8 So having
good grades, planning for college, and (to a lesser extent) having well-educated parents, all
are positively linked with self-esteem; but examination of the coefficients clearly shows that
those links grow distinctly weaker as adolescents progress from 8th grade to 12th grade.

These covariates do not attenuate race/ethnic differences in self-esteem, consistent with

Hypothesis 3. In fact, the beta coefficients for the race/ethnicity/gender measure are actually
larger than the corresponding (bivariate) eta coefficients. In other words, far from explaining
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

away differences in race/ethnicity and gender, taking account of differences in educational

background and aspirations actually heightens most race/ethnic/gender differences in self-
esteem scores. A comparison of R-squared values in Table 1 indicates that the race/ethnicity/
gender predictor relates to 2.3-2.9% of the variance in self-esteem scores, when added to an

6Initial analyses also controlled region and urban density; however, those dimensions made no appreciable contribution to overall
explained variance, so they are not included here. We also explored controls for self-concepts of intelligence and scholastic ability;
although they are strongly correlated with self-esteem, as was expected, including them as controls did not substantially affect the
race/ethnicity/gender differences.
7Although it is common practice in multivariate analyses to categorize some variables as “predictors” and others as “dependent
variables” or “outcomes,” we have tried to avoid implying causation from these cross-sectional correlational analyses. We add here
explicitly that we do not assume single one-way causal connections between self-esteem on the one hand and measures of academic
success and commitment (GPA and college plans) on the other.
8The eta and beta statistics do not show direction of relationship, so we note here that all three of the control measures are positively
correlated with self-esteem. Moreover, the relationships are almost entirely linear (additional analyses with the three control measures
constrained to be linear yielded R and R-squared values virtually unchanged from those in Table 1).

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 10

equation including GPA, college plans, and parental education. In contrast, when the race/
ethnicity/gender predictor is considered alone, it accounts for only 1.3-1.5% of the total
variance in self-esteem (based on squaring the eta coefficients in Table 1).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

We now turn to a closer examination of specific subgroup differences, shown in the lower
portion of Table 1. It should be noted that the footnote to Table 1 indicates 95% confidence
intervals for all subgroups, so as to permit assessments of the likelihood that any subgroup
difference could be due to chance.

Self-Esteem Differences Linked to Race/Ethnicity/Gender—White students

constitute more than two thirds of the sample at each grade; consequently, mean self-esteem
scores for the White students (both unadjusted and adjusted) lie fairly close to the grand
mean at each grade. At all three grades, White males are slightly above the grand mean for
self-esteem and White females are slightly below. Adjustments for GPA, college plans, and
parental education slightly heighten the male-female discrepancy; this is because GPAs and
college plans are slightly higher among females, which would be expected to produce
slightly higher female self-esteem scores.

Turning next to African-American students, the mean scores in Table 1 are consistent with
the differences suggested by Figure 1—African-American students, both males and females,
average higher than any other subgroup in self-esteem scores. Moreover, the adjustments for
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

GPA, college plans, and parental education heighten this pattern appreciably for males
(roughly 10% of a standard deviation) but scarcely at all for females. At grades 8 and 10 the
unadjusted scores for African-American males and females are nearly identical, whereas the
adjusted scores are higher for males; however, at grade 12 the unadjusted scores are higher
among females, with the adjusted scores nearly identical. It is noteworthy that 12th-grade
African-American students are the only race/ethnicity subgroup in which females average
significantly higher than males in unadjusted self-esteem scores (i.e., their confidence
intervals do not overlap); in every other instance (all subgroups at all grades) males equal or
exceed females in average self-esteem, in spite of males’ slightly lower GPAs and college
plans.

Hispanic students are generally similar to White students in self-esteem scores, although
there are some differences (and, given the large sample sizes, many differences reach
statistical significance; see the small confidence intervals in Table 1 footnote). The findings
for Hispanic students differ somewhat by grade, perhaps influenced by their higher than
average dropout rates between the end of 8th grade and the end of 10th grade. In 8th grade,
Hispanic students average slightly lower than White students in unadjusted self-esteem
scores; however, after adjustments taking account of Hispanic students’ lower GPAs and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

college plans, and substantially lower parental education, the 8th-grade self-esteem
differences disappear. In 10th and 12th grades, Hispanic males average slightly lower than
White males in unadjusted self-esteem scores, but slightly higher after adjustment for GPA,
college plans, and parental education. Among females in 10th and 12th grades, Hispanic
students are just about equivalent to White students in self-esteem scores before adjustment,
but after adjustments the Hispanic females score higher.

Asian-American students report the highest average GPAs, college aspirations, and parental
education. Because these factors all contribute to high self-esteem, one might reasonably
expect that Asian-American students would have relatively high self-esteem scores. In fact,
however, they do not. We saw earlier, in Figure 1, that Asian-American students are the
least likely to have top self-esteem scores—although most Asian-American students score at
least above the midpoint on the self-esteem scale. The mean scores in Table 1 tell a similar
story: Asian-American females have the lowest mean self-esteem scores of any subgroup,

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 11

and Asian-American males generally score lower than other males. These differences grow
larger as students progress from 8th to 10th and then 12th grade. Of course, when GPA,
college plans, and parental education are taken into account, the adjusted self-esteem scores
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

for Asian-Americans are even lower, especially among females.

In sum, the multivariate analyses show that controlling for GPA, college plans, and parental
education enhances rather than eliminates racial/ethnic differences in self-esteem. African-
American self-esteem scores, already highest among the subgroups, are even higher after
controls. Asian-American scores, already lowest, become still lower. Only in comparisons
between Whites and Hispanics does the multivariate adjustment tend to reduce (or reverse)
the initially small differences in self-esteem scores. On the whole, then, these multivariate
findings are consistent with Hypothesis 3. As for gender differences, within all four racial/
ethnic subgroups at all three grades, the females average slightly higher in GPAs and college
expectations compared with males; nevertheless, in nearly all instances the females do not
rate themselves as highly as males in the self-esteem items. So the multivariate analyses
consistently adjust female self-esteem scores downward when compared with males. These
findings on gender differences are all consistent with Hypothesis 4. Finally, it should be kept
in mind that although the race/ethnicity/gender differences are significant and fairly
consistent across grades, an adolescent’s self-esteem appears to be more strongly associated
with GPA and college plans than with race/ethnicity or gender.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Extreme Responding and Self-Esteem Scores

Bachman and O’Malley (1984a) reported that collapsing the response scale for self-esteem
items tended to reduce or eliminate African-American-White differences in self-esteem
scores, because it largely cancelled out racial differences in extreme responding—that is, the
greater willingness of African-American students to use the extreme ends of Likert response
scales. In order to consider that issue again in this expanded analysis of self-esteem, we
recomputed the MCAs summarized in Table 1, this time using a collapsed scoring of the
self-esteem items. Specifically, we combined “Agree” with “Mostly Agree” scores, and also
combined “Disagree” with “Mostly Disagree.” The effect of this scoring is to remove the
distinction between different strengths of agreement or disagreement; it does not, of course,
do anything to take account of possible differences in willingness to use the “Neither”
response, but most adolescents make little use of that alternative in responding to the self-
esteem items. The results of the MCAs predicting to the collapsed scoring of self-esteem can
be noted briefly here (and are available in full detail from the authors on request).

We found that overall patterns of prediction are very similar for the full-scale scoring and
the collapsed scoring versions of self-esteem. The collapsed scoring version is just as
strongly correlated with GPA, college plans, and parental education as is the full-scale
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

version (multiple- R coefficients based on these three predictors are virtually identical across
the two scoring versions). When race/ethnicity/gender is added as a predictor, however, its
beta coefficients and additional contributions to explained variance are consistently lower,
as predicted by Hypothesis 6. This occurs primarily because of reduced differences between
African-American and White students, entirely consistent with the earlier findings on
African-American-White differences (Bachman & O’Malley, 1984a). Among the other
subgroups we found relatively little differential impact of collapsed scoring.

Another approach to self-esteem and extreme responding is to focus on percentages of

students who have the highest possible self-esteem scores. We saw earlier that the
distribution of self-esteem scores is strongly skewed toward the high end of the scale, with
roughly one third of White students, and even more African-American students, in the top
category of Figure 1 (which consisted of the four highest scores: 5.0, 4.875, 4.75, and 4.625
on the full-scale self-esteem measure). Now, in Figure 2, the solid bars show percentages of

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 12

students who had the highest possible self-esteem score (5.0); these are students who
indicated that they agreed (fully, not just “Mostly”) with all four of the positively worded
items and disagreed (fully) with all four of the negatively worded items. The open bars in
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 2 show percentages of students with highest possible self-esteem scores using the
collapsed scoring method—that is, they gave the positive self-esteem answer to all eight
items (with or without using any “Mostly” responses). These two different approaches to
highest possible self-esteem scores provide some interesting contrasts, as well as further
perspective on the findings already shown.

Focusing first on the solid bars, we see that substantial percentages of students show the
highest possible self-esteem scores—most notably about one fifth of African-American
males and females in all three grades. Hispanics are also fairly high—about 14% of males
and 12% of females at all grades. Among White and Asian-American students, the
percentages decline a bit from 8th to 12th grades—from 18% to 14% among White males,
from 14% to 10% among White females, from 14% to 9% among Asian-American males,
and only a nonsignificant shift from 9% to 8% among Asian-American females. So for some
subgroups, at least, the full-scale findings might suggest that the tendency toward very high
self-ratings declines with age— although a broader alternative interpretation could be that
willingness to use the scale extremes declines with age.

The open bars in Figure 2 provide an interesting contrast, and suggest that when differences
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

due to response styles are constrained, self-esteem appears to increase with age (consistent
with Hypothesis 5). Proportions showing highest self-esteem (based on collapsed scoring)
rise from 8th to 10th to 12th grade among African-American and Hispanic students, and
from 10th to 12th grade among White students. Asian-American students are the only ones
not showing increases with age when self-esteem is scored this way.

Discussion
This revisiting of self-esteem provided an opportunity to replicate and extend earlier
findings derived from MTF samples of 12th-grade students in 1980-1982. The present
findings, based on nationally representative samples of adolescents in the United States
extending across 18 years (1991-2008), suggest a number of broad conclusions highlighted
(in italics) in the discussion that follows.

The first broad conclusion is that (a) African-American students again show higher self-
esteem scores than White students, and (b) these differences in self-esteem scores are
diminished when a collapsed scoring method is used. This replicates the earlier findings in
all important respects; moreover, the new findings extend that conclusion to include 8th- and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

10th-grade students.

The present analyses are based on very large samples, thus permitting us to go much further
than simply replicating the earlier comparisons of White and African-American high school
seniors. The inclusion of 8th and 10th graders provides a sampling of adolescents before
most dropping out of high school occurs. We also examined males and females separately
across ages and racial/ethnic subgroups. Most important, we extended the subgroup
coverage to include Hispanics and Asian Americans. The inclusion of these other subgroups
makes possible our second broad conclusion: Hispanic students have slightly lower self-
esteem scores than White students, and Asian-American students have the lowest self-
esteem scores.

The self-esteem findings also include gender differences, and gender interactions with race/
ethnicity. Among White and Asian-American students, and Hispanic students to a lesser
extent, self-esteem scores are lower for females than for males; moreover, adjustments for

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 13

the higher GPAs and college plans of females actually enhance these gender differences.
Among African-American students, the unadjusted scores do not show consistent gender
differences, but here again adjustments for GPA and college plans lower female scores
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

compared with those of males.

What should we make of this self-esteem deficit among White, Hispanic, and Asian-
American females? Could it simply reflect differences in response styles? Our analyses of
collapsed-scale self-esteem scoring suggest not: female scores were still lower than male
scores, and this deficit was enhanced after controls for GPA and college plans. These
findings suggest a third broad conclusion: Among most adolescents in the United States,
with the notable exception of African Americans, females are somewhat less willing than
males to provide highly positive self-evaluations. (Or, if one prefers, male adolescents are
more likely than females to have exalted opinions of themselves!)

In addition to the gender differences in self-evaluation, the findings shown in Figure 2

indicate a fourth broad conclusion: Adolescent self-esteem scores are consistently highest
among African Americans and generally lowest among Asian Americans. This is especially
true in the later grades and after adjustments for differences in GPA and college plans. The
self-esteem comparisons involving Whites and Hispanics are more complicated, and vary
depending on scoring method and whether scores are adjusted for differences in academic
successes and aspirations.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The major differences by race/ethnicity and gender summarized above replicate fairly
closely across time from 1991 to 2008 and across the three grades, representing U.S.
adolescents from modal ages 14 to 18. This consistency across time and age groups gives us
a high degree of confidence in these findings. As for any differences between 8th, 10th, and
12th graders, the self-esteem scores reported here are roughly equal for 8th and 10th graders,
and then increase slightly by 12th grade. The small difference in average self-esteem
between 10th and 12th graders may result, in part, from some respondents dropping out of
high school during that interval; researchers have consistently found global self-esteem to be
somewhat lower than average among adolescents who do poorly in school (e.g.,
Coopersmith, 1967; Gergen, 1971; Rosenberg, 1965), particularly among those who later
drop out (Bachman, Green, & Wirtanen, 1971; Bachman, O’Malley, & Johnston, 1978;
Bachman et al., 2008). Also, self-esteem may increase somewhat during adolescence;
Bachman et al. (2008, p. 41) report increases between modal ages 14 and 18, based on panel
analyses that included high school dropouts, and O’Malley and Bachman (1983) reported
increases in self-esteem from age 13 to 23, based on analyses of six large data sets.
Likewise, a very small age-related increase in Rosenberg scores from junior high to high
school was also evident in the meta-analysis reported by Twenge and Campbell (2001; e.g.,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

d = .05 for mixed-sex samples, p. 333). Nonetheless, grade level (8th, 10th, 12th) was not a
substantial moderator of the findings reported here. Therefore, our fifth broad conclusion is:
On balance, the present findings leave us impressed by the similarities (replication) across
the three grades rather than any age-related differences.

How large and important are the race/ethnicity/gender subgroup differences in self-esteem
reported here? First it must be said that in this study, as in most other studies of differences
among groups, the overlaps among subgroups are far larger than any differences between
them. This is illustrated in Figure 1, and also indicated by the findings in Table 1 (both of
which use the original “full-scale” scoring, not the “collapsed” version). The table shows
that 1.5% or less of the total variance in self-esteem scores is between-group variance across
the eight race/ethnicity/gender categories, but the unique contribution to explained variance
rises to as much as 2.9% (for 10th graders) when differences in grade point averages and
college plans are taken into account. Although these amounts of between-groups variance

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 14

are relatively modest, some differences on specific self-esteem items are not trivial,
especially if reported as percentages endorsing an extreme response category. For example,
one could look at one item and report that 60% of African-American high school seniors
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

(genders combined) “Agree” with the statement “I take a positive attitude toward myself,” in
contrast to only 31% of their White and Asian-American classmates who “Agree” with a
such a statement —a 2 to 1 difference. But one could also report that 88% versus 76% agree
or mostly agree with that statement—still a difference, but not so dramatic. Distinctions
such as these are large enough to suggest a continuing caution against the raw reporting of
subgroup percentage differences, especially in top or bottom categories of Likert-type
questionnaire items.

The differences between subgroups reported here are highly consistent across modal ages
14, 16, and 18, as well as across nearly two decades (1991-2008); given the large sample
sizes, many of the differences are statistically significant. But it is also true that the overlaps
among groups are far larger than the differences. This finding concerning overlaps is
certainly not unique to the present study; indeed, most studies of subgroup differences also
find large overlaps. But the fact that it is ubiquitous does not make it unimportant. So while
researchers often focus on the differences, in our view it is important not to lose sight of the
overlaps— especially when dealing with race/ethnicity matters. Thus our final broad
conclusion is this: Although racial/ethnic subgroups of adolescents in the contemporary
United States show significant systematic and replicable differences in self-esteem, on the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

whole the subgroups are more alike than different.

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgments
Data used in the research presented in this paper were collected under a grant from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (R01 DA 01411). The authors thank Kathryn Johnson for her careful editing and additional help with
manuscript preparation.

References
Andrews, FM.; Morgan, JN.; Sonquist, JA.; Klem, L. Multiple classification analysis: A report on a
computer program for multiple regression using categorical predictors. 2nd ed.. The University of
Michigan; Ann Arbor, MI: 1973.
Bachman, JG.; Green, S.; Wirtanen, ID. Youth in Transition: Volume III, Dropping out: Problem or
symptom?. Institute for Social Research; Ann Arbor, MI: 1971.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Bachman, JG.; Johnston, LD.; O’Malley, PM.; Schulenberg, JE. The Monitoring the Future project
after thirty-two years: Design and procedures (Occasional Paper No. 64). Institute for Social
Research; Ann Arbor, MI: 2006.
Bachman JG, O’Malley PM. Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of
educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1977;
35:365–380. [PubMed: 874740]
Bachman JG, O’Malley PM. Black-white differences in self-esteem: Are they affected by response
styles? American Journal of Sociology. 1984a; 90:624–639.
Bachman JG, O’Malley PM. Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-white differences
in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1984b; 48:491–509.
Bachman, JG.; O’Malley, PM.; Freedman-Doan, P. Response styles revisited: Racial/ethnic and
gender differences in extreme responding (Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 72).
Institute for Social Research; Ann Arbor, MI: 2009.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 15

Bachman, JG.; O’Malley, PM.; Johnston, J. Youth in Transition: Vol. 6. Adolescence to adulthood: A
study of change and stability in the lives of young men. Institute for Social Research; Ann Arbor,
MI: 1978.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Bachman, JG.; O’Malley, PM.; Schulenberg, JE.; Johnston, LD.; Freedman-Doan, P.; Messersmith,
EE. The education-drug use connection: How successes and failures in school relate to adolescent
smoking, drinking, drug use, and delinquency. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis;
New York: 2008.
Bandura, A. The self and mechanisms of agency. In: Suls, J., editor. Psychological perspectives on the
self. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1982.
Baumeister RF, Campbell JD, Krueger JI, Vohs KD. Does high self-esteem cause better performance,
interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public
Interest. 2003; 4(1):1–44.
Brown, JD. The self. McGraw-Hill; New York: 1998.
Cai H, Brown JD, Deng C, Oakes MA. Self-esteem and culture: Differences in cognitive self-
evaluations or affective self-regard? Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2007; 10:162–170.
Chao RK. Chinese and European American cultural models of the self reflected in mothers’
childrearing beliefs. Ethos. 1995; 23:328–354.
Chen C, Lee S, Stevenson HW. Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among
East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science. 1995; 6:170–175.
Cobb S, Brooks GW, Kasl SV, Connelly WE. The health of people changing jobs: A description of a
longitudinal study. American Journal of Public Health. 1966; 56(9):1476–1481. [PubMed:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

5950448]
Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1988.
Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. W. H. Freeman and Company; San Francisco: 1967.
Crocker J, Major B. Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.
Psychological Review. 1989; 96(4):608–630.
Donnellan MB, Trzesniewski KH, Robins RW, Moffitt TE, Caspi A. Low self-esteem is related to
aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency. Psychological Science. 2005; 16(4):328–335.
[PubMed: 15828981]
DuBois DL, Tevendale HD. Self-esteem in childhood and adolescence: Vaccine or epiphenomenon?
Applied & Preventive Psychology. 1999; 8(2):103–117.
Flory K, Lynam D, Milich R, Leukefeld C, Clayton R. Early adolescent through young adult alcohol
and marijuana use trajectories: Early predictors, young adult outcomes, and predictive utility.
Development and Psychopathology. 2004; 16(1):193–213. [PubMed: 15115071]
Gergen, KJ. The concept of self. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; New York: 1971.
Gray-Little B, Hafdahl AR. Factors influencing racial comparisons of self-esteem: A quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin. 2000; 126(1):26–54. [PubMed: 10668349]
Harter, S. The development of self-representations. In: Damon, W.; Eisenberg, N., editors. Handbook
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

of child psychology. Wiley; New York: 1998. p. 553-617.

Heine SJ, Kitayama S, Hamamura T. Inclusion of additional studies yields different conclusions:
Comment on Sedikides, Gaertner, & Vevea (2005), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2007; 10:49–58.
Heine SJ, Lehman DR. The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An examination of group-
serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997; 72(6):1268–1283. [PubMed:
9177019]
Heine SJ, Lehman DR, Markus HR, Kitayama S. Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?
Psychological Review. 1999; 106:766–794. [PubMed: 10560328]
Hughes D, Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, Spicer P. Parents’ ethnic-racial
socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental
Psychology. 2006; 42:747–770. [PubMed: 16953684]
James, W. Psychology: The briefer course. University of Notre Dame Press; Notre Dame, IN: 1985.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 16

Johnston, LD.; O’Malley, PM.; Bachman, JG.; Schulenberg, JE. Monitoring the Future national survey
results on drug use, 1975-2007. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No.
08-6418A). National Institute on Drug Abuse; Bethesda, MD: 2008.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Kim H, Markus HR. Deviance or uniqueness, harmony, or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of
Social and Personality Psychology. 1999; 77:785–800.
Kling KC, Hyde JS, Showers CJ, Buswell BN. Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin. 1999; 125(4):470–500. [PubMed: 10414226]
Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self—Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review. 1991; 98(2):224–253.
Mead, GH. Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago
Press; Chicago: 1934.
O’Connor BP, Vallerand RJ. Psychological adjustment variables as predictors of mortality among
nursing home residents. Psychology and Aging. 1998; 13(3):368–374. [PubMed: 9793113]
O’Malley PM, Bachman JG. Self-esteem and education: Sex and cohort comparisons among high
school seniors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37:1153–1159.
O’Malley PM, Bachman JG. Self-esteem: Change and stability between ages 13 and 23.
Developmental Psychology. 1983; 19:257–268.
Oyserman D, Coon HM, Kemmelmeier M. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of
theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin. 2002; 128:3–72. [PubMed:
11843547]
Robins, RW.; Tracy, JL.; Trzesniewski, KL. Naturalizing the self. In: John, OP.; Robins, RW.; Pervin,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

LA., editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 3rd ed.. Guilford; New York: 2008. p.
421-447.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 1965.
Rosenberg, M. Conceiving the self. Basic Books; New York: 1979.
Schmitt DP, Allik J. 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. 2005; 89(4):623–642. [PubMed: 16287423]
Sedikides C, Gaertner L, Toguchi Y. Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 2003; 84(1):60–79. [PubMed: 12518971]
Sedikides C, Gaertner L, Vevea JL. Inclusion of theory-relevant moderators yield the same
conclusions as Sedikides, Gaertner, and Vevea (2005): A meta-analytical reply to Heine,
Kitayama, and Hamamura (2007). Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2007; 10:59–67.
Sparfeldt JR, Schilling SR, Rost DH, Thiel A. Blocked versus randomized format of questionnaires: A
confirmatory multigroup analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66(6):961–
974.
Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Moffitt TE, Robins RW, Poulton R, Caspi A. Low self-esteem
during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during
adulthood. Developmental Psychology. 2006; 42(2):381–390. [PubMed: 16569175]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Twenge JM, Campbell W. Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross temporal meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2001; 5:321–344.
Twenge JM, Crocker J. Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics,
Asians, and American Indians and comment on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000). Psychological
Bulletin. 2002; 128(3):371–408. [PubMed: 12002695]
Yamagishi T, Hashimoto H, Schug J. Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific
behavior. Psychological Science. 2008; 19:579–584. [PubMed: 18578848]

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 17
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Frequency distributions of self-esteem index scores by race/ethnicity, gender, and grade,
1991-2008.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 Bachman et al. Page 18
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Students with the highest possible self-esteem scores with full-scale scoring and collapsed-
scale scoring by race/ethnicity, gender, and grade, 1991-2008.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Table 1
Self-Esteem Index Scores by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Grade, 1991-2008: Regression (MCA) Coefficients and Means, Unadjusted and Adjusted for
GPA, College Plans, and Parental Education

Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12

wtd. N=102,110 wtd. N=107,849 wtd. N=107,421
Bachman et al.

Beta Beta Beta

Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted
Eta for Factors Eta for Factors Eta for Factors

GPA .290 .231 .239 .181 .167 .115

College Plans .244 .156 .216 .140 .188 .148

R .324 .271 .217

R2 .105 .073 .047
GPA .290 .223 .239 .179 .167 .111
College Plans .244 .146 .216 .137 .188 .146
Parental Education Index .149 .053 .102 .026 .085 .031

R .328 .272 .219

R2 .108 .074 .048
GPA .290 .245 .239 .205 .188 .175
College Plans .244 .157 .216 .148 .167 .115
Parental Education Index .149 .043 .102 .028 .085 .034
Gender/Race/Ethnicity .118 .157 .123 .174 .115 .160

R .362 .321 .269

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

R2 .131 .103 .072

Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Percentage Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Percentage Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Percentage Self-Esteem Self-Esteem
Race/Ethnicity and Gender* of Sample Index Score Index Score of Sample Index Score Index Score of Sample Index Score Index Score

African-American Males 5.58 4.143 4.225 5.03 4.231 4.314 4.83 4.229 4.314
African-American Females 7.37 4.154 4.164 6.44 4.213 4.220 6.80 4.286 4.309
White Males 33.54 4.143 4.166 35.46 4.101 4.127 35.52 4.142 4.159
White Females 37.72 3.976 3.921 38.59 3.934 3.879 38.56 4.020 3.976
Hispanic Males 5.46 3.996 4.148 5.06 4.049 4.184 4.73 4.100 4.202
Page 19
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Percentage Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Percentage Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Percentage Self-Esteem Self-Esteem
Race/Ethnicity and Gender* of Sample Index Score Index Score of Sample Index Score Index Score of Sample Index Score Index Score

Hispanic Females 6.13 3.834 3.925 5.83 3.920 3.990 5.68 4.047 4.094
Asian-American Males 2.07 4.062 3.947 1.75 3.961 3.885 1.91 3.929 3.900
Asian-American Females 2.12 3.802 3.641 1.84 3.823 3.691 1.96 3.847 3.763
Bachman et al.

Total Sample 4.045 4.030 4.092

(Standard Deviation) 100 (0.871) 4.045 100 (0.851) 4.030 100 (0.785) 4.092

*
For all grades and both genders, the 95% confidence intervals around these means are no larger than +/− 0.027 for African-American students, +/− 0.015 for White students, +/− 0.033 for Hispanic
students, and +/− 0.057 for Asian-American students.

Self Identity. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 23.

Page 20