A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
The Link Between Self-Esteem and Social Relationships:
A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies
Michelle A. Harris
The University of Texas at Austin
Ulrich Orth
University of Bern
Theorists have long assumed that people’s self-esteem and social relationships influence each other.
However, the empirical evidence has been inconsistent, creating substantial uncertainty about
whether relationships are in fact an influential factor in self-esteem development and vice versa. This
meta-analysis synthesizes the available longitudinal data on the prospective effect of social rela-
tionships on self-esteem (48 samples including 46,231 participants) and the prospective effect of
self-esteem on social relationships (35 samples including 21,995 participants). All effects controlled
for prior levels of the outcomes. Results showed that relationships and self-esteem reciprocally
predict each other over time with similar effect sizes (⫽.08 in both directions). Moderator
analyses suggested that the effects held across sample characteristics such as mean age, gender,
ethnicity, and time lag between assessments, except for the self-esteem effect on relationships,
which was moderated by type of relationship partner (stronger for general relationships than for
specific partners) and relationship reporter (stronger for self-reported than for informant-reported
relationship characteristics). The findings support assumptions of classic and contemporary theories
on the influence of social relationships on self-esteem and on the consequences of self-esteem for
the relationship domain. In sum, the findings suggest that the link between people’s social
relationships and their level of self-esteem is truly reciprocal in all developmental stages across the
life span, reflecting a positive feedback loop between the constructs.
Keywords: longitudinal studies, meta-analysis, prospective effects, self-esteem, social relationships
A longstanding assumption in psychology is that social rela-
tionships play a key role in shaping individuals’ self-esteem
(e.g., Leary, 2012), or the subjective evaluation of their overall
worthiness as a person (e.g., see Robins, Tracy, & Trzesni-
ewski, 2008;Rosenberg, 1965). Although there is abundant
empirical support for the concurrent association between vari-
ous relationship characteristics and self-esteem (e.g., Cameron
& Granger, 2019;McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, & Hall, 2007;
Murberg, 2010;Neff & Geers, 2013;Poulsen, Ziviani, &
Cuskelly, 2006;Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2011;Schuen-
gel et al., 2006), longitudinal research has produced mixed
findings, with some studies finding evidence for longitudinal
effects of social acceptance on self-esteem (e.g., Wagner,
Lüdtke, Robitzsch, Göllner, & Trautwein, 2018) but other stud-
ies finding no support for the effect of close relationships on
self-esteem development (e.g., Harris et al., 2015). Adding to
the complexity of this empirical association, when individuals
are asked to explain the sources of their self-esteem, social
relationships are mentioned infrequently, compared with other
sources (e.g., achievements, personality traits; Harris, Donnel-
lan, Beer, & Trzesniewski, 2019). As it stands, the inconsis-
tency of the current state of knowledge creates substantial
uncertainty about whether social relationships in fact are an
influential factor in self-esteem development.
A related question is whether self-esteem has an influence on
characteristics of social relationships (e.g., see Murray, Hol-
mes, & Collins, 2006;Srivastava & Beer, 2005;Swann & Read,
1981). According to dynamic interactionism (Asendorpf & Wil-
pers, 1998;Magnusson, 1990), there are likely to be reciprocal
effects between individuals’ self-esteem and quality of social
relationships. Previous research has found a small meta-analytic
effect of self-esteem on social relationships, based on longitu-
dinal studies examining self-esteem at one time point and social
relationships at a later time point (Cameron & Granger, 2019).
However, the effects included in the Cameron and Granger
Editor’s Note. Kate C. McLean served as the handling editor for this
article.—MLC
This article was published Online First September 26, 2019.
XMichelle A. Harris, Department of Psychology, The University of
Texas at Austin; Ulrich Orth, Department of Psychology, University of
Bern.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant 1650042. Any
opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the National Science Foundation. Data and code are available at https://
osf.io/xt3u6/.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle
A. Harris, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin,
108 Dean Keeton Street, Stop A8000, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail:
michelleaharris@utexas.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:
Personality Processes and Individual Differences
© 2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 119, No. 6, 1459–1477
ISSN: 0022-3514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000265
1459
(2019) meta-analysis were not controlled for prior assessments
of social relationships, and thus they do not provide much
stronger insights than cross-sectional correlations, as the ob-
served effects could simply be carried forward by the stability
of the outcomes (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Furthermore, longi-
tudinal research that has controlled for prior assessments of
social relationships has produced mixed findings regarding the
effect of self-esteem on later social relationships (e.g., see
Brummelman et al., 2015 for support and Klima & Repetti,
2008 for no support). Thus, it is unclear based on the current
state of research whether individuals’ self-esteem influences
characteristics of their social relationships over time.
In the present research, we meta-analytically synthesized the
evidence from longitudinal studies to estimate the reciprocal
effects between social relationships and self-esteem and tested
for moderators of each effect. It should be noted that the two
directions of effects are not mutually exclusive and that both
processes could operate simultaneously. In addition, we include
a broad range of relationship characteristics to maximize sta-
tistical power and to test the broad research question of whether
there are robust, prospective associations between social rela-
tionships and self-esteem. Finally, because the significance of
specific relationship partners may vary across age (i.e., begin-
ning with great importance on relationships with parents in
childhood, transitioning to the need for peer approval in ado-
lescence, and seeking high regard from romantic partners in
adulthood; e.g., Bornstein, Jager, & Steinberg, 2012), we orga-
nize our review of existing empirical research below based on
ages across the life span.
Effect of Social Relationships on Self-Esteem
Theoretical Perspectives
Several theorists have posited that significant relationships in-
fluence self-esteem (e.g., Bowlby, 1973;Cooley, 1902;Leary &
Baumeister, 2000;Mead, 1934). For example, sociometer theory
states that the sole purpose of self-esteem is to function as a system
for monitoring others’ reactions to the self (Leary, 2000,2004,
2006,2012;Leary & Baumeister, 2000), which suggests that
self-esteem fluctuates along with the level of approval from others.
A second major framework, reflected appraisals theory, empha-
sizes the role of perceived appraisals from others for shaping the
way individuals come to view themselves (see Cooley, 1902;
Harter, 1999;Mead, 1934;Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). This
theory suggests that the self is exclusively experienced indirectly,
through the eyes of significant others as well as generalized society
(e.g., Yeung & Martin, 2003). Attachment theory (see Ainsworth,
1973;Bowlby, 1973,1980,1982,1988;Sroufe, 2002;Thompson,
2006) is a third established perspective that has at the core of its
tenets the idea that relationship bonds are directly related to
self-esteem. That is, the relationship security with the primary
caregiver in infancy is thought to be internalized and impact later
relationship experiences with peers and romantic partners (Feeney,
Cassidy, & Ramos-Marcuse, 2008;Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Thus,
bonds with all close others presumably signal to the self a gener-
alized notion of one’s worth as a person—that you are either
valued for who you are from these stable, important people in your
life, or you are not considered important from these people and are
therefore an unworthy person. The common thread across the
major theoretical frameworks presented here is that social relation-
ships matter for self-esteem over time (even though nuances such
as the type of relationship or process by which they matter may
differ across the theories).
Cross-sectional research finds robust support for the concurrent
association between self-esteem and the quality of individuals’
social relationships, often at about small to medium effect size
(e.g., McArdle et al., 2007;Murberg, 2010;Neff & Geers, 2013;
Poulsen et al., 2006;Schuengel et al., 2006). However, cross-
sectional findings cannot inform theories proposing an effect of
relationships on self-esteem or theories proposing an effect of
self-esteem on relationships. Longitudinal designs allow research-
ers to come closer to understanding causality (though still do not
completely speak to causal relations between variables). However,
the available evidence from longitudinal studies on self-esteem
and relationships is inconsistent, with some studies reporting effect
sizes that are close to zero or nonsignificant and other studies
finding substantive and significant effect sizes. In the section
below, we review the existing longitudinal research. Special focus
is given to the age periods, statistical approaches, and relationship
characteristics assessed, as these factors varied considerably across
studies.
Longitudinal Evidence
Regarding childhood, recent longitudinal studies support the
notion that the degree of parental warmth and support received
predicts children’s self-esteem not only when assessed later in
childhood but even when assessed many years later in adolescence
and young adulthood (Harris et al., 2017;Orth, 2018). However, it
should be noted that not all studies consistently confirmed this
effect. For example, although Brummelman and colleagues (2015)
found consistent support for the influence of child-reported paren-
tal warmth on children’s later self-esteem, there was no influence
of parent-reported parental warmth on children’s self-esteem (con-
trasting significant effects of parent reports found in Harris et al.,
2017 and Orth, 2018). As for peer relationships, some studies
suggest that self- and teacher-reported peer acceptance predict
increases in self-esteem in middle and late childhood (Klima &
Repetti, 2008;Wagner et al., 2018). However, when Wagner and
colleagues (2018) used liking ratings averaged across multiple
classmates, this indicator of peer acceptance was not related to
change in self-esteem.
In adolescence, one study testing a range of different longi-
tudinal models suggested that relationship quality with parents
does not influence self-esteem development (Harris et al.,
2015). Also, in a study that followed adolescents from age 13 to
17 years, perceived social support and the size of adolescents’
support network did not predict changes in self-esteem (Mar-
shall, Parker, Ciarrochi, & Heaven, 2014). In contrast, other
evidence suggests that both self- and peer-reported social ac-
ceptance are related to increases in self-esteem over time
(Gruenenfelder-Steiger, Harris, & Fend, 2016), particularly
when considering social bonds within one’s cultural group
(Reitz, Motti-Stefanidi, & Asendorpf, 2016).
With regard to adulthood, research indicates that transitions
in romantic relationships during adolescence and young adult-
hood, as well as the quality of new relationships, influence
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1460 HARRIS AND ORTH
self-esteem development (Luciano & Orth, 2017;Wagner,
Becker, Lüdtke, & Trautwein, 2015). In addition, a study using
dyadic data from romantic couples found that partner-reported
relationship satisfaction predicted change in self-esteem two
years later, but self-reported relationship satisfaction did not
have an effect on self-esteem development (Schaffhuser, Wag-
ner, Lüdtke, & Allemand, 2014). This finding is consistent with
results from other studies that tested for prospective effects of
self-reported relationship satisfaction on self-esteem and did
not find supporting evidence (Mund, Finn, Hagemeyer, Zim-
mermann, & Neyer, 2015;Orth, Robins, & Widaman, 2012).
Finally, research on the life span trajectory of self-esteem
suggests that people’s satisfaction with their relationships, but
not their relationship status (i.e., having a partner vs. being
single), is related to individual differences in the self-esteem
trajectory (Orth, Maes, & Schmitt, 2015). In sum, with regard to
all developmental periods reviewed above— childhood, adoles-
cence, and adulthood—there is inconsistent longitudinal evi-
dence on the question of whether the quality of an individual’s
social relationships influence his or her self-esteem.
Effect of Self-Esteem on Social Relationships
Theoretical Perspectives
A number of major frameworks provide support for the reverse
causal direction, that is, for the hypothesis that people’s self-
esteem shapes the characteristics of their social relationships (e.g.,
Erol & Orth, 2013;Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000;Murray et
al., 2006;Srivastava & Beer, 2005). The risk regulation model
(Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996,2000;Murray et al., 2006)
proposes that self-esteem may impact the perception one has of his
or her relationship partner because internal beliefs about worthi-
ness of love are projected onto beliefs about the relationship. Low
perceived regard in turn would lead individuals to distance them-
selves from their partners with the goal of being less vulnerable in
case of rejection. Therefore, by the means of perceived regard of
a relationship partner, self-evaluations can impact relationship
outcomes such as satisfaction, trust, and intimacy. Self-verification
theory supports the notion that perceived regard plays a role in the
association between self-esteem and relationship factors. Specifi-
cally, Swann and Read (1981) proposed that individuals would
disengage from relationship partners who maintain reflected ap-
praisals that are inconsistent with targets’ self-evaluations. So,
individuals with low self-esteem would withdraw from relation-
ship partners who view them more positively than how they see
themselves. A third line of reasoning is provided by the self-
broadcasting perspective (see Srivastava & Beer, 2005;Yeung &
Martin, 2003;Zeigler-Hill, Besser, Myers, Southard, & Malkin,
2013), which suggests that individuals display observable cues that
“broadcast” their internal self-evaluations to others, which in turn
shape the functioning of social relationships. For example, if
individuals perceive themselves as having low competence, these
beliefs may be expressed through consistent avoidance of relevant
tasks and delegation to others (Taylor & Brown, 1988). In addi-
tion, others may infer the individual’s level of self-esteem through
behavioral displays of confidence, curiosity, initiative, and inde-
pendence as well as adaptive reactions to stress or change (Harter,
2006). Upon noticing self-esteem cues, a relationship partner can
then presumably deliberate as to whether they want to become
close with a person with low self-esteem, for example, or they may
begin to form expectations for what that relationship may be like
if they choose to pursue the connection. In these ways, people’s
self-esteem may influence whether they are successful in initiating
and maintaining relationships with romantic partners, friends, and
coworkers, and whether they have a strong or weak social support
network.
Finally, a specific relationship behaviors perspective suggests
that self-esteem impacts particular behaviors (more specific than
disengagement and withdrawal) that have broader implications for
the functioning of social relationships. Sociometer theory contends
that when the interpersonal monitor of social acceptance detects
cues from relationship partners signaling threat or potential rejec-
tion, the resulting negative affect motivates individuals to engage
in behaviors that resolve relationship conflicts and reduce the
development of dysfunctional relationship patterns or disapprov-
ing relationship partners (Leary, 2005). Cues regarding particu-
larly relevant behaviors can be found in research on interpersonal
conflict. That is, self-evaluations tend to be associated with the
frequency of reported conflicts among dating or married partners
(Murray et al., 2000) as well as individual differences associated
with strategies individuals take to either resolve, or disengage
from, interpersonal conflicts (Diamond, Fagundes, & Butterworth,
2010). For example, individuals low in neuroticism and high in
agreeableness—two personality traits that are closely related to
self-esteem—are more likely to display: positive affect during
relationship conflicts, accommodating and constructive responses
to partner transgressions, affectionate expression, and additional
positive behaviors that prevent escalation of negative events and
constructive resolution of negative encounters (see Diamond et al.,
2010). Finally, there is evidence that attachment-related anxiety
and avoidance in a romantic relationship mediate the impact of
trait self-esteem on relationship satisfaction (Erol & Orth, 2013);
thus, relationship behaviors associated with attachment styles (e.g.,
proximity and support seeking, responsiveness, effectiveness of
support) may be important catalysts through which self-esteem
shapes relationships (also see Erol & Orth, 2016). In sum, there are
many specific relationship behaviors that may be facilitated by
self-evaluations, thus reinforcing the expectation for a link be-
tween self-esteem and relationships.
Longitudinal Evidence
In childhood, there is tentative evidence that self-esteem influ-
ences parental warmth (Brummelman et al., 2015), but there are
few additional studies to draw from regarding the impact of
self-esteem on relationships with parents. As for peer relation-
ships, there is one study showing no effect of self-esteem on
changes in peer acceptance (Klima & Repetti, 2008).
In adolescence, the majority of relevant studies have not
supported the notion that self-esteem influences the quality of
social relationships when assessed by peer- rather than self-
report (Gruenenfelder-Steiger et al., 2016;Reitz et al., 2016).
Gruenenfelder-Steiger and colleagues (2016) and Marshall and
colleagues (2014) have confirmed effects of adolescent self-
esteem on later self-reported relationship quality with peers and
the broader social support network. As for relationships with
parents, one study has examined the longitudinal impact of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1461
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
self-esteem and has not confirmed robust effects on reports by
target adolescents, parents, or observers (Harris et al., 2015).
Research on adulthood has mostly examined the impact of
self-esteem on romantic relationships. Some evidence suggests
that self-esteem has significant prospective effects on relationship
satisfaction (Orth et al., 2012;Schaffhuser et al., 2014). However,
Mund et al. (2015) did not confirm this link, and Schaffhuser and
colleagues (2014) similarly did not support this association when
using an actor-partner model that tests each partner’s level of
satisfaction individually. Others examining relationship transitions
have found prospective effects from self-esteem on starting a
long-term romantic relationship (predicted by high self-esteem)
and separating from a long-term partner (predicted by low self-
esteem), but these effects did not hold for short-term relationships
(Luciano & Orth, 2017). Thus, as with the literature on prospective
effects of relationships on self-esteem, longitudinal evidence for
the reverse causal direction is mixed.
The Present Research
A central conclusion from theory and research reviewed above
is that the question of whether and to what extent social relation-
ships are associated with self-esteem is a fundamental issue in the
field of self-esteem. Although many empirical studies have exam-
ined the longitudinal links between the constructs, the available
research has not yet led to any agreement about the direction and
strength of effects. In the present meta-analysis, we therefore
synthesize the available longitudinal data on prospective effects
between social relationships and self-esteem (see Figure 1 for a
conceptual model of the coefficients meta-analyzed). The meta-
analytic method has the advantage of estimating effects with more
statistical power than individual studies have on their own and, by
aggregating the data across a heterogeneous set of studies, reduces
concerns about bias attributable to idiosyncrasies of the primary
studies. Moreover, the heterogeneity of study characteristics in a
meta-analytic dataset (e.g., mean sample age, type of relationship
partner, time interval between assessments) allows for tests of
study characteristics that moderate the effect under question (Bo-
renstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009;Lipsey & Wilson,
2001) and thus can yield insights that can hardly be provided by
any single study. We test for moderation of both prospective
effects by demographic variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity), study
characteristics (e.g., year of data collection, self-esteem measure),
and substantive variables that show variation in the literature (e.g.,
age, relationship partner).
Method
The present meta-analysis used anonymous data and therefore
was exempt from approval by the Ethics Committee of The Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin.
Selection of Studies
We conducted a PsycINFO search in the Fall of 2016 for
abstracts of English-language journal articles, books, book chap-
ters, and dissertations. We limited the search to articles published
in 1990 or later because longitudinal analyses on self-esteem were
rare before 1990 (see other meta-analyses of longitudinal studies
by Huang, 2010;Sowislo & Orth, 2013;Trzesniewski, Donnellan,
& Robins, 2003). We restricted the search to empirical studies,
systematic reviews, or quantitative studies, and longitudinal or
prospective designs, by using the corresponding limitation options
in PsycINFO. We used the following search terms: self-esteem,
self-worth, self-liking, self-view
ⴱ
, self-concept, self-respect, self-
regard, self-opinion
ⴱ
, self-perception
ⴱ
, parent
ⴱ
, friend
ⴱ
, sibling
ⴱ
,
boyfriend, girlfriend, partner, spouse, wife, husband, mentor
ⴱ
,
teacher
ⴱ
, classmate
ⴱ
, coworker
ⴱ
, colleague
ⴱ
, relation
ⴱ
, social sup-
port, quality, satisfaction, warmth, accept
ⴱ
,and reject
ⴱ
. The aster-
isk allowed for terms to be included with alternate endings (e.g.,
parent
ⴱ
would include parents, parenting, etc.). The search re-
sulted in 1,095 journal articles, 105 dissertations, and 20 book
chapters. In addition, we coded four relevant articles that had been
published recently and did not appear in the search. Thus, we
examined a total of 1,224 articles.
Inclusion criteria in the meta-analysis were as follows: (a)
includes assessments of self-esteem and at least one relation-
ship characteristic; (b) the study was longitudinal and at least
one of the constructs (i.e., self-esteem or a relationship char-
acteristic) was assessed at two occasions in the same sample; (c)
includes a continuous, self-report measure of global, trait self-
esteem (i.e., measures of state self-esteem as in Denissen,
Penke, Schmitt, and van Aken (2008), Study 1a were excluded);
(d) includes a continuous measure of social relationships from
the following list: warmth, closeness, intimacy, support, accep-
tance, rejection, relationship satisfaction, relationship quality,
popularity, being liked, involvement, time spent with partner(s),
conflict, transgressions, problems, synchrony, relatedness, at-
tachment security/avoidance/anxiety, negative social relation-
ships, reciprocity, sociometric nominations, network size, inte-
gration, transitivity, density, centrality, homophily/mutuality;
these measures could be reported or rated by self, informant, or
observer; (e) reports sufficient effect size information to calcu-
Figure 1. Conceptual model of coefficients meta-analyzed in the present
research. Specifically, the present research examined the prospective effect
of social relationships (Time 1) on subsequent self-esteem (Time 2) after
controlling for previous levels of self-esteem (Time 1); the prospective
effect of self-esteem (Time 1) on social relationships (Time 2) after
controlling for previous characteristics of social relationships (Time 1);
stability effects within the two constructs (e.g., the prospective effect of
self-esteem at Time 1 on self-esteem at Time 2); and the concurrent
correlation between social relationships and self-esteem at Time 1.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1462 HARRIS AND ORTH
late the longitudinal effects; (f) effect size information is not
inconsistent across abstract, text, tables, and figures; (g) sample
is not part of an intervention (although results for control
groups of intervention studies were included); and (h) model
with relevant effect size information does not include modera-
tors or mediators. We included samples of all age and ethnic
groups. If two or more studies used the same sample (e.g., the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health),
the study with the largest sample size was retained.
The two most common reasons for exclusion were that studies
did not include a relevant measure of either self-esteem or social
relationships (53%) and that they were not longitudinal (28%; e.g.,
Denissen et al., 2008, Studies 1b and 2). Fourteen percent of
studies did not report sufficient information to calculate the lon-
gitudinal effect size (e.g., frequently, authors would include a
separate correlation table for variables assessed at each time point
but would not report longitudinal effects). The rest of the exclusion
criteria were relevant for 2% or less of the original sample of
studies.
These criteria left 42 studies eligible for inclusion in the meta-
analysis. Of these, 11 studies provided effect size information on
two samples each. Thus, the overall number of samples included in
the meta-analysis was 53. If studies provided two or more effect
sizes for the same sample (e.g., based on different measures of the
same construct), these were averaged within studies to ensure there
would be no statistical dependencies between effect sizes, as
recommended by Lipsey and Wilson (2001). Of the samples, 48
provided information on the cross-lagged effect of social relation-
ships on self-esteem, and 35 on the cross-lagged effect of self-
esteem on social relationships.
Coding of Studies
We coded the following characteristics for each sample:
mean age of sample at Time 1, proportion of female partici-
pants, ethnicity (i.e., greater than 60% White, African Ameri-
can/African, Hispanic/Latino/a, other ethnicity, mixed/none
more than 60%, or unknown), sample size at Time 1, year of
data collection at Time 1, time lag between Time 1 and Time 2
assessments, presence of control variables in model reporting
effect sizes of interest, type of publication (i.e., journal article
or dissertation), type of sample (i.e., nationally representative
for the age group under investigation or nonrepresentative),
procedure used to assess the relationship variable (i.e., self-,
informant, or observer report), self-esteem measure, relation-
ship partner, and effect sizes.
Some authors did not report explicit information on ethnicity,
but we coded the samples’ ethnicity based on the country in
which data were collected (e.g., if a study reported on a repre-
sentative sample from Germany, we coded ethnicity as “greater
than 60% White”). Some authors did not report the exact age of
the sample or the year of data collection. If age was not reported
but the sample was sufficiently labeled, we estimated the mean
age based on the following guidelines: kindergarten ⫽age 5,
1st grade ⫽age 6, increasing age by one year for each subse-
quent grade until high school/adolescence, which was assigned
age 15.5 (average of ages 14 –17), college ⫽age 19.5 (average
of ages 18 –21), emerging adulthood ⫽age 23.5 (average of
ages 22–25), early adulthood ⫽age 30.5 (average of ages
26 –35), adults/middle adulthood ⫽age 50 (average of ages
36 – 64), and older adulthood ⫽age 82.5 (average of ages
65–100). Age was used as a continuous variable in all analyses.
If the sample size at Time 1 was not reported, we coded the
overall sample size. If the year at Time 1 was not reported, we
first searched for this information in associated studies or
websites. If there were no other resources specifying the year of
data collection, we estimated the year by subtracting the time
lag between the first and the last assessment and three years (an
approximation of the lag between completion of data collection
and publication) from the publication year.
To code effect sizes, we directly recorded standardized regres-
sion coefficients that controlled for the previous assessments of the
constructs (e.g., the effect of the Time 1 relationship variable on
Time 2 self-esteem, controlling for Time 1 self-esteem). However,
in most studies, regression coefficients were not available, and
only zero-order correlations among the Time 1 and Time 2 assess-
ments of self-esteem and relationship variables were reported. In
these cases, we calculated the effect sizes using the following
formula for two independent variables from Cohen, Cohen, West,
and Aiken (2003):
ϒ1.2 ⫽rϒ1⫺rϒ2ⴱr12
1⫺r12
2
where ϒ1.2 is the standardized regression coefficient of a relation-
ship characteristic predicting self-esteem change over time, rϒ2is
the stability correlation for self-esteem, rϒ1is the correlation across
time between the relationship characteristic at Time 1 and self-
esteem at Time 2, and r12 is the concurrent correlation at Time 1
between self-esteem and the relationship characteristic. The stan-
dardized regression coefficients of self-esteem predicting a rela-
tionship characteristic over time (i.e., the effect in the reverse
causal direction) were calculated correspondingly. If a study re-
ported both regression and correlation coefficients, we coded and
used the correlation coefficients to compute the effect sizes be-
cause we were also interested in the concurrent correlation be-
tween the constructs at Time 1.
The first author assessed all studies in full text to determine
inclusion in the meta-analysis. Halfway through this coding
process for inclusion, a reliability check was conducted to
ensure the inclusion criteria specified in the codebook were
clear and objective. The second author rated a random sample
of 10 studies (14 samples) determined by the first author to be
eligible for inclusion. Scores were compared, consensus was
reached on discrepant ratings, and adjustments were made to the
codebook. The first author coded the remaining eligible studies
for inclusion and then coded the study characteristics of all
eligible studies. To conduct a formal interrater reliability test,
the second author coded the study characteristics of a random
selection of 25 studies (32 samples) eligible for inclusion.
Reliability was acceptable for continuous (rⱖ.77; range:
.77–1.00) and categorical variables (ⱖ.81; range: .81–.86).
Consensus was reached on all discrepant ratings. There was one
variable that originally had poor reliability: the type of sample
(i.e., representative vs. nonrepresentative). The definition in the
codebook was adjusted, and then both authors coded the vari-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1463
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
able again for the full set of eligible studies and reached
consensus on any discrepant ratings.
1
Meta-Analytic Procedure
For all computations, we used Fisher’s zrtransformations and
study weights of n– 3 as recommended by Lipsey and Wilson
(2001). We used SPSS and the SPSS macros by David Wilson (see
Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, Appendix D; Wilson, 2010).
We tested for the presence of statistical outliers for each meta-
analytic effect size by (a) comparing the observed mean scores with
the trimmed mean scores after eliminating the 5% highest and lowest
scores and (b) examining boxplots of each effect size (Hodge &
Austin, 2004;Sim, Gan, & Chang, 2005). Next, we used two methods
to examine publication bias, which would indicate that studies with
nonsignificant or small effect sizes would be less likely to be pub-
lished or reported. We did not expect to find publication bias for any
of the effect sizes because many studies included in this meta-analysis
were not originally intended to study the associations that were of
interest to us (frequently, the relevant effect size information was
reported along with intercorrelations of other measures). First, we
calculated Egger’s linear regression (Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider,
& Minder, 1997) as a test of funnel plot asymmetry. We expected the
regressions to be nonsignificant, which would speak against the like-
lihood of bias due to small-study effects (Sterne & Egger, 2006).
Then, we created funnel graphs to examine the association between
the sample size and effect size for each tested effect (Sterne, Becker,
& Egger, 2005;Sutton, 2009). We expected the graphs to show the
symmetric shape of a funnel, with more variance in effect sizes
among smaller samples and less variance among larger samples. This
would indicate that smaller samples are well-represented in the meta-
analysis and thus speak against publication bias.
For all computations, we used random-effects models (Borenstein
et al., 2009;Raudenbush, 2009) because we expected the effects to
vary across our proposed moderators (i.e., we did not assume there
would be only one true effect size across all studies, as in a fixed-
effects model). The first step of our analysis was to reverse-score
effect sizes for variables with negative valence (e.g., relationship
conflicts). Next, we computed weighted mean effect sizes. In the
moderator analyses, we used mixed-effects metaregression models for
dichotomous and continuous variables (e.g., type of sample, age) and
mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) for categorical moder-
ators (e.g., type of relationship partner).
Results
Description of Studies
The meta-analytic dataset consisted of 53 samples, including 52
samples from journal articles and one sample from a dissertation
(books and book chapters did not provide relevant data). The studies
were published between 1993 and 2016 (Mdn ⫽2012), and data were
collected between 1979 and 2011 (Mdn ⫽2003). Sample sizes ranged
from 33 to 13,401 (M⫽899.6, SD ⫽1,836.9, Mdn ⫽478). The
mean age was 21.0 years (SD ⫽15.3; range ⫽4.1–76.6). In sum, the
studies included data from 47,676 participants. The mean time lag
between the first and second assessments was 2.3 years (SD ⫽2.5;
Mdn ⫽1.0; range ⫽0.08 –11.0). On average, the samples included
54% female participants (SD ⫽31%; range ⫽0 –100%). Regarding
ethnicity, 60% of the samples were predominantly White, 2% were
predominantly Hispanic/Latino/a, 12% were predominantly of an-
other ethnicity, and 19% were of mixed ethnicities; for 8% of the
samples, information on ethnicity was not available. Thirty samples
were from the United States, four from Switzerland, three from
Germany, and two each from China, Korea, and the Netherlands.
There was one sample from each of the following countries: Australia,
Belgium, Canada, Finland, Greece, Russia, and Sweden. Three of the
53 samples were nationally representative.
Forty-three studies used self-report measures of social relation-
ships; the remaining 10 studies used informant-report, observer-
report, or a combination of reporters. The relationship partner was
parents in 16 studies, peers in 10 studies, romantic partners in five
studies, general others (e.g., “there is someone who helps me,” sense
of community) in 13 studies, and either a different partner (e.g.,
coworkers) or a combination of two or more partners in nine studies.
Thirty-four studies used the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg,
1965), 10 studies used one of the Harter Self-Perception Profiles (e.g.,
Harter, 2012), three studies used one of the Marsh Self-Description
Questionnaires (e.g., Marsh, 1990), and the remaining six studies used
other measures of self-esteem. Social relationships were assessed
using established questionnaires (e.g., Social Support Questionnaire;
Sarason, Sarason, & Shearin, 1986) and ad hoc measures of perceived
social acceptance, support, and closeness. Table 1 provides detailed
information on the relationship measures for each study included in
the meta-analysis as well as descriptive statistics and effect sizes.
Preliminary Analyses
Boxplots revealed three outliers for the cross-lagged effect of
social relationships on self-esteem and four outliers for the effect
of self-esteem on social relationships. However, the trimmed
means did not differ by more than 0.10 units from the observed
means, suggesting that the data points were not separate from the
main cluster (Hodge & Austin, 2004). Therefore, no studies were
eliminated based on outlier analyses.
For four of the five effect sizes, Egger’s regression tests were
nonsignificant, whereas the test was significant for the stability
effect of self-esteem (z⫽2.77, p⬍.001). This indicates that the
meta-analytic effect of self-esteem stability may be biased by
studies containing smaller samples sizes. However, we believe that
the evidence for publication bias in the stability effect of self-esteem is not
strong because there was no a priori reason to expect publication bias in
this effect. As noted above, frequently the relevant effect size information
was reported simply as part of a correlation table, but not relevant to the
research questions of the primary studies. In addition, the funnel graphs
were roughly symmetrical for all five effect sizes, including self-esteem
stability, and did not suggest that effect sizes around zero were underrep-
resented among studies with small sample sizes (see Figure 2). In any
case, with regard to the cross-lagged effects—which are the key effect
sizes in the present research—there was no evidence for presence of
publication bias.
1
The first author had a Bachelor’s degree in psychology and was a
doctoral candidate in the final year of a human development PhD program,
and the second author had a Ph.D. in psychology.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1464 HARRIS AND ORTH
Table 1
Sample Characteristics and Effect Sizes for Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Study
Sample characteristics Effect sizes
N
Proportion
female
Mean age
(years)
Time lag
(years)
Relationship
partner
Relationship
reporter
Measure of
self-esteem
Measure of relationship
characteristic r
REL,SE1
r
REL,SE2

REL¡SE

SE¡REL

SE¡SE

REL¡REL
Berenson, Crawford, Cohen, and
Brook (2005), males 353 .00 16.2 6.0 Parent Informant Other Acceptance .21 .06 .38
Berenson et al. (2005), females 361 1.00 16.2 6.0 Parent Informant Other Acceptance .20 .06 .31
Borelli & Prinstein (2006) 478 .51 12.7 .9 Peer Multiple Harter Low criticism & preference
averaged
.17 .03 .48
Boutelle, Eisenberg, Gregory,
and Neumark-Sztainer (2009),
males 1,130 .00 14.3 5.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Connectedness .05 .07
Boutelle et al. (2009), females 1,386 1.00 14.3 5.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Connectedness .07 .05
Brummelman et al. (2015),
fathers 565 .54 9.6 .6 Parent Self Harter Warmth .08 .11
Brummelman et al. (2015),
mothers 565 .54 9.6 .6 Parent Self Harter Warmth .06 .06
Chen, He, and Li (2004) 506 .51 12.4 2.0 Peer Informant Harter Preference .19 .20 .03 .11 .34 .50
Doyle and Markiewicz (2005) 175 .63 13 2.0 Parent Self Marsh Warmth, low anxiety, & low
avoidance averaged
.34 .18
Fincham and Bradbury (1993),
wives
130 1.00 32.0 1.0 Romantic
partner
Self Rosenberg Relationship satisfaction .22
Fincham and Bradbury (1993),
husbands
130 .00 34 1.0 Romantic
partner
Self Rosenberg Relationship satisfaction .31
Foynes, Smith, and Shipherd
(2015), males 1,624 .52 20.3 11.0 General others Self Rosenberg Support .44 .03 .30
Foynes et al. (2015), females 1,624 .52 20.3 11.0 General others Self Rosenberg Support .41 ⫺.04 .18
Gest, Domitrovich, and Welsh
(2005) 400 .44 9 .6 Peer Self Harter Social self-concept .52 .54 .17 .18 .56 .59
Goodvin, Meyer, Thompson,
and Hayes (2008) 33 .48 4.1 1.0 Parent Observer Other Attachment .06 .30 .52
Gupta et al. (2013), Americans 446 .00 11.4 1.0 Peer Self Rosenberg Support .19 .31 .16 .05 .57 .44
Gupta et al. (2013), Chinese 368 .00 12.2 1.0 Peer Self Rosenberg Support .21 .23 .08 .06 .51 .34
Harris et al. (2015), Americans 451 13 1.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Closeness .30 .30 .07 .05 .57 .66
Harris et al. (2015), Germans ⫹
Gruenenfelder-Steiger, Harris,
and Fend (2016)
2,054 12 1.0 Parent Multiple Rosenberg Parent closeness, subjective,
and objective peer
acceptance (averaged)
.33 .31 .08 .10 .57 .59
Hutteman, Nestler, Wagner,
Egloff, and Back (2015) 876 .77 16.0 .1 General others Self Other Social inclusion .25 .28 .10 ⫺.01 .70 .77
Johnson (2013) 13,401 .49 21.8 6.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Closeness .19
Juang, Syed, and Cookston
(2012) 276 .57 14.6 1.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Low conflict .06 .26 .08 .15 .46 .39
Kakihara, Tilton-Weaver, Kerr,
and Stattin (2010) 1,022 .47 14.3 1.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Connectedness .40 .07 .63
Kinnunen, Feldt, Kinnunen, and
Pulkkinen (2008) 213 .53 36.0 6.0 General others Self Rosenberg Support .14 .27 .21 .10 .60 .56
Kipp and Weiss (2015) 174 1.00 13.5 .6 Other Self Harter Coach & teammate
relatedness (averaged)
.07 .11 .51 .53
Kistner, David, and Repper
(2007)
670 .55 9.4 .5 Peer Informant Harter Liking, low disliking, and
acceptance (averaged)
.14 .10 .02 .06 .40 .73
Klima and Repetti (2008) 247 .47 9.5 2.0 Other Multiple Harter Classmate acceptance &
friend support (averaged)
.35 .31 ⫺.01 .11 .55 .46
Krause (2009) 1,024 .63 76.6 3.0 Other Self Rosenberg Church members & secular
support (averaged)
.06
Kuster, Orth, and Meier (2013),
dataset 2
600 .50 34.6 1.0 Other Self Rosenberg Coworkers & supervisor
support (averaged)
.22 .10 ⫺.02 .74 .42
(table continues)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1465
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Table 1 (continued)
Study
Sample characteristics Effect sizes
N
Proportion
female
Mean age
(years)
Time lag
(years)
Relationship
partner
Relationship
reporter
Measure of
self-esteem
Measure of relationship
characteristic r
REL,SE1
r
REL,SE2

REL¡SE

SE¡REL

SE¡SE

REL¡REL
Laursen, Furman, and Mooney
(2006)
199 .50 15.3 2.0 Other Self Harter Mother, close friend, romantic
partner support & social
acceptance (averaged)
.26 .35 .10 .10 .60 .58
Lee, Dickson, Conley, and
Holmbeck (2014) 1,126 .72 18.5 .3 General others Self Rosenberg Support .64 .66 .22 .09 .71 .67
Lemay and Ashmore (2006) 172 .53 19.5 .2 Peer Self Rosenberg Social inclusion & time spent
socializing (averaged)
.21 .12 .82 .73
Lönnqvist, Leikas, Mähönen,
and Jasinskaja-Lahti (2015) 225 .72 45.5 .6 General others Self Rosenberg Support .35 .34 .13 .05 .54 .38
Marks, Lambert, Jun, and Song
(2008), males 446 .00 45.0 6.0 General others Self Rosenberg Relationship quality .05 .10 .34
Marks et al. (2008), females 614 1.00 45.0 6.0 General others Self Rosenberg Relationship quality .04 ⫺.04 .37
Marshall, Parker, Ciarrochi, and
Heaven (2014) 793 .49 13.4 1.0 General others Self Rosenberg Support quality .13 .01
Moreira and Telzer (2015) 338 .64 18.4 .3 Other Self Rosenberg Family cohesion .39 .40 .11 .00 .74 .77
Oliver et al. (2011) 106 .46 12.0 2.0 Other Self Marsh Quality of family life .53 .56 .08 .13 .73 .63
Orth, Robins, and Widaman
(2012)
1,448 .57 49.3 3.0 Romantic
partner
Self Rosenberg Relationship satisfaction .05 .01
Orth, Robins, Widaman, and
Conger (2014) 674 .50 10.4 2.0 General others Self Marsh Support .41 .21
Park and Epstein (2013), males 1,584 .00 12.0 1.0 Parent Self Other Relationship quality .03
Park and Epstein (2013),
females 1,582 1.00 12.0 1.0 Parent Self Other Relationship quality .07
Pinquart and Fröhlich (2009) 353 .43 54.0 .8 General others Self Rosenberg Availability of social support .52 .32 .53
Reitz, Motti-Stefanidi, and
Asendorpf (2016)
1,057 .47 12.7 1.0 Peer Multiple Rosenberg Perceived, in-group, and out-
group popularity (averaged)
.14 .09 .07 .01 .50 .32
Reynolds (2010), Study 2 912 1.00 11.5 1.0 Peer Informant Harter Popularity .08 ⫺.01 .54
Schaffhuser, Wagner, Lüdtke,
and Allemand (2014), males
141 .00 50.0 2.0 Romantic
partner
Self Rosenberg Relationship satisfaction .29 .35 .01 .13 .63 .79
Schaffhuser et al. (2014),
females
141 1.00 50.0 2.0 Romantic
partner
Self Rosenberg Relationship satisfaction .17 .27 .09 .08 .76 .83
Schindler (2010) 538 1.00 5.0 Other Self Rosenberg Engagement with child & low
disagreement with child’s
mother (averaged)
.20 .18 .08 .10 .61 .49
Schmidt, Blum, Valkanover, and
Conzelmann (2015), males 230 .00 11.9 .2 General others Self Rosenberg Acceptance .11 .27 .10 .13 .64 .67
Schmidt et al. (2015), females 198 1.00 11.8 .2 General others Self Rosenberg Acceptance .11 .27 .10 .12 .64 .67
Smokowski, Bacallao, Cotter,
and Evans (2015)
2,617 .54 12.7 1.0 Parent Self Rosenberg Low conflict & support
(averaged)
.38 .36 .06 .10 .39 .48
Vanhalst, Luyckx, Scholte,
Engels, and Goossens (2013) 526 .63 15.0 1.0 Peer Self Rosenberg Acceptance .53 .54 .08 .04 .68 .64
Yeh and Lempers (2004) 374 .50 12.4 1.0 Other Self Rosenberg Sibling & best friend positive
relationships (averaged)
.33 .32 .05 .04 .71 .67
Note.N⫽sample size, r⫽Pearson’s correlation; ⫽standardized regression coefficient; REL ⫽relationship; SE ⫽self-esteem; r
REL, SE1
⫽concurrent correlation between social relationships
and self-esteem at Time 1; r
REL, SE2
⫽concurrent correlation between social relationships and self-esteem at Time 2. Other relationship partners include any partner different from parents, peers,
romantic partners, or general others as well as a combination of two or more partners.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1466 HARRIS AND ORTH
Effect Size Analyses
We computed weighted mean effect sizes for the concurrent (at
Time 1) and cross-lagged associations between self-esteem and social
relationships as well as for the stability coefficients for each variable
(see Table 2). Both cross-lagged effects were in the expected direc-
tion, of small magnitude, and differed significantly from zero. The
cross-lagged effects were of similar size (both were .08). Because the
samples on which these two effects were based overlapped partially,
no formal test of the difference between the effects is available (see
Cohen et al., 2003). However, the 95% confidence intervals of the
weighted mean effect sizes overlapped strongly, clearly indicating that the
two effects did not differ significantly. Thus, the findings suggest that
self-esteem and social relationships have reciprocal prospective effects on
each other and that the effects are of similar size. Stability coefficients for
both variables were large (.57 for self-esteem and .60 for social relation-
ships), also with overlapping confidence intervals, and the concurrent
correlation was of about medium size (.28).
Table 2 also displays the heterogeneity statistic Qfor each of the effect
sizes. Significant Qvalues indicate that the variability in the distribution
of the effect size is greater than that which could be attributed to chance
alone. The analyses revealed that all meta-analytic effect sizes were
heterogeneous (also see Figure 3A and 3B for the distributions of both
prospective effects), suggesting that moderating factors account for sys-
tematic between-study differences in effect sizes.
Moderator Analyses
For both cross-lagged effects, we tested the same set of moderators
(see Table 3 for intercorrelations among moderator variables). We
computed both zero-order correlations and mixed-effects metaregres-
sion analyses (to control for multicollinearity among the moderators)
between the cross-lagged effect sizes and the moderator variables.
2
Ethnicity (White vs. all others), self-esteem measure (Rosenberg vs.
all others), presence of control variables, year at Time 1, age at Time
1, time lag between assessments, and gender were not related to either
cross-lagged effect (see Table 4). We graphed the associations be-
tween the prospective effects and mean age of the samples to illustrate
2
We could not test sample type or publication type as moderators
because of low variance in these variables.
Figure 2. Funnel graphs showing the relation between sample size and observed effect sizes. Effect sizes are in the metric
of Fisher’s zvalues. Dotted lines indicate weighted mean effect sizes. For C, we omitted a data point with the sample size
of 13,401 for easier comparison with B. The effect size for this study was .19 and was included in all analyses.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1467
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
that the reciprocal effects between self-esteem and social relationships
held across the observed age range (see Figures 3A and 3B).
The variables relationship partner (general) and reporter (self vs.
other) significantly moderated the effect of self-esteem on social
relationships (see Table 4). To further understand the moderating
effect of relationship partner, we conducted mixed-effects ANO-
VAs for both cross-lagged effects (for completeness) using the full
set of relationship partner categories. The effect of self-esteem on
social relationships was significantly stronger for general others
(.14) than for any other relationship partner, but the other relation-
ship partners did not significantly differ from each other (i.e., they
displayed overlapping confidence intervals ranging from .05 to
.08; see Table 5). This finding suggests that individuals’ general-
ized perceptions of all of their social relationships are more
strongly influenced by their self-esteem than are characteristics of
specific relationships, such as relationships with parents, peers,
and romantic partners. There was also significant moderation of
the self-esteem effect on social relationships by relationship re-
porter such that the effect was significantly stronger for self-
reports than for informant-reports (see Table 6), but there were no
effects of any of the other moderators on the prospective effect of
self-esteem on social relationships (see Table 4).
With regard to the prospective effect of social relationships on
self-esteem, there was no significant moderation by any moderator
variable tested (see Table 4). Specifically, the effects of all types
of relationship partners ranged from .05 to .09 (see Table 5), with
the strongest effect being for parents (.09). All confidence intervals
overlapped strongly, suggesting that the categories did not differ
significantly from each other. Furthermore, Table 6 indicates that
the effect of social relationships on later self-esteem was similar in
size for both self- and informant-reported social relationships.
In sum, the moderator analyses suggest that the prospective
effect of social relationships on self-esteem is robust and holds
across samples that differ with regard to ethnicity, assessment of
self-esteem, control variables, year of assessment, age, prospective
time interval, gender, and type and assessment of social relation-
ships. In contrast, relationship partner and relationship reporter
significantly predicted variability in the self-esteem effect on so-
cial relationships, but none of the other moderators were related to
the prospective effect of self-esteem on social relationships.
Discussion
The goal of the current study was to comprehensively meta-
analyze the available longitudinal data on prospective effects be-
tween social relationships and self-esteem. For the social relation-
ships effect on self-esteem, the analyses were based on 48 samples
with 46,231 participants, and analyses for the self-esteem effect on
relationships were based on 35 samples with 21,995 participants.
The samples comprised individuals from a variety of countries
Table 2
Summary of Effect Sizes for Concurrent and Longitudinal Associations Between Social
Relationships and Self-Esteem
Effect kN
Weighted mean
effect size 95% CI
Heterogeneity
Q
2
I
2
r
REL,SE
43 24,198 .28
ⴱ
[.23, .33] 716.68
ⴱ
.029 94.1
Prospective effects
REL¡SE 48 46,231 .08
ⴱ
[.05, .10] 257.04
ⴱ
.005 81.7
SE¡REL 35 21,995 .08
ⴱ
[.06, .10] 74.26
ⴱ
.002 54.2
Stability effects
SE 37 22,578 .57
ⴱ
[.51, .61] 1,112.67
ⴱ
.050 96.8
REL 30 15,780 .60
ⴱ
[.54, .64] 637.60
ⴱ
.042 95.5
Note. Computations were made with random-effects models. r
REL,SE
⫽concurrent correlation between social
relationships (REL) and self-esteem (SE) at Time 1. k⫽number of samples. N⫽total number of participants
in the ksamples. CI ⫽confidence interval; Q⫽statistic used in heterogeneity test;
2
⫽estimated amount of
total heterogeneity; I
2
⫽ratio of total heterogeneity by total variability (given in percent).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
Figure 3. Scatterplots of the associations between prospective effect sizes and mean age of samples. Dotted
lines indicate weighted mean effect sizes.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1468 HARRIS AND ORTH
around the world representing major ethnic groups. Samples also
varied considerably in age, ranging from early childhood (age 4
years) to late adulthood (age 76 years). The meta-analytic results
supported the assumptions of prominent theories regarding the role
of social relationships in the development of self-esteem. More
precisely, social relationships had a significant prospective effect
on self-esteem that held across all sample characteristics examined
(e.g., mean age at Time 1, gender). In addition, there was a
significant prospective effect in the reverse direction—that is, from
self-esteem to social relationships. This effect was robust across
most sample characteristics examined (i.e., we tested the same set
of moderators for both directions of effects), with the exception of
type of relationship partner (i.e., the effect was stronger for general
assessments of all relationships compared to assessments of spe-
cific relationships) and type of relationship reporter (i.e., the effect
was stronger for self-reported compared to informant-reported
relationship characteristics).
Implications of the Findings
Effect of social relationships on self-esteem. The meta-
analytic finding that social relationships have a prospective
effect on self-esteem provides support for central theories in the
field of self-esteem, such as sociometer theory (Leary, 2004,
2012;Leary & Baumeister, 2000), reflected appraisals theory
(Cooley, 1902;Mead, 1934), and attachment theory (Bowlby,
1973,1982,1988). As outlined in the introduction, all of these
theories highlight the key role of positive social relationships,
social support, and social acceptance in shaping the develop-
ment of self-esteem in all phases of the human life span. The
present finding is important because previous research had
yielded an inconsistent pattern of results. Whereas some pri-
mary studies reported supporting evidence, for example with
regard to parent and peer relationships in childhood (Harris et
al., 2017;Orth, 2018), peer relationships in adolescence
(Gruenenfelder-Steiger et al., 2016;Reitz et al., 2016), and
romantic relationships in adulthood (Luciano & Orth, 2017;
Orth et al., 2015;Wagner et al., 2015), other studies had failed
to find a prospective effect of social relationships on self-
esteem (Harris et al., 2015;Marshall et al., 2014;Mund et al.,
2015;Orth et al., 2012). Of note, the present meta-analytic
estimate is based on longitudinal data from a large set of studies
(specifically, 48 studies with more than 46,000 participants),
Table 3
Intercorrelations Among Moderators
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Mean age (years) — .21 .03 .22 .30
ⴱ
⫺.05 .46
ⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.12
2. Time lag (years) — ⫺.01 .28
ⴱ
.02 ⫺.03 .17 .36
ⴱ
⫺.50
ⴱ
3. Proportion female — .03 ⫺.03 .05 ⫺.09 .06 .08
4. Relationship partner — .28
ⴱ
.02 .24 .03 .00
5. Relationship reporter — ⫺.10 .44
ⴱ
.30
ⴱ
.23
6. Ethnicity — ⫺.06 .30
ⴱ
⫺.07
7. Measure of self-esteem — .12 ⫺.09
8. Presence of control variables — .06
9. Year at Time 1 — —
Note. The intercorrelations are based on k⫽53 samples.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
Table 4
Simple Correlations and Mixed-Effects Meta-Regression Coefficients for Moderators Predicting
Prospective Effects Between Social Relationships and Self-Esteem
Moderator
Prospective effect of social
relationships on self-esteem
(k⫽48, N⫽46,231)
Prospective effect of self-esteem
on social relationships
(k⫽35, N⫽21,995)
rppr pp
Ethnicity (White) .05 .77 .12 .50 ⫺.09 .62 ⫺.11 .58
Self-esteem measure (Rosenberg) ⫺.21 .15 ⫺.09 .64 .02 .93 .09 .65
Presence of control variables ⫺.05 .76 ⫺.02 .93 .05 .78 ⫺.16 .47
Year at Time 1 .12 .41 .09 .68 .06 .72 ⫺.10 .65
Age at Time 1 ⫺.20 .20 ⫺.10 .60 ⫺.06 .76 ⫺.20 .39
Time lag ⫺.24 .10 ⫺.07 .80 .03 .89 ⫺.02 .93
Gender (% female) ⫺.12 .43 ⫺.13 .44 .02 .89 ⫺.02 .88
Relationship partner
a
⫺.17 .24 ⫺.21 .29 .37
ⴱ
.03 .43
ⴱ
.01
Relationship reporter
b
.05 .74 .16 .43 .17 .32 .41
ⴱ
.03
Note. For prospective effect of social relationships on self-esteem, R
2
⫽.27, Q
model
⫽3.83 (df ⫽5, p⫽.57),
Q
residual
⫽39.89 (df ⫽39, p⫽.43). For prospective effect of self-esteem on social relationships, R
2
⫽.50,
Q
model
⫽15.07 (df ⫽5, p⫽.01), Q
residual
⫽27.15 (df ⫽26, p⫽.40). k⫽number of samples. Q⫽statistic
used in heterogeneity test.
a
1⫽general,0⫽other.
b
1⫽self,0⫽other.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1469
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
which ensured high precision of the estimate. Moreover, the
fact that the effect did not differ significantly between studies
with different sample characteristics further strengthens confi-
dence in the robustness and generalizability of the relationship
effect on self-esteem.
There is currently no integrated theory outlining which social
relationships might be most impactful for self-esteem and at which
ages. The present findings offer no evidence that relationships
become less important for self-esteem as people age (see Figure 3).
Although a common assumption is that the significance of specific
relationship partners shifts across the life span (i.e., beginning with
parents in childhood, transitioning to seeking peer approval in
adolescence, and shifting to valuing high regard by romantic
partners in adulthood; e.g., Bornstein et al., 2012), it is also
possible that past significant relationships do not decline in im-
portance as individuals go through life and that experiences in
relationships accumulate to have enduring effects across one’s life
(e.g., Fraley, Roisman, & Haltigan, 2013;Roberts & Bengtson,
1993). For example, a break-up with a long-term romantic partner
continues to predict self-esteem up to one year after the relation-
ship has ended (Luciano & Orth, 2017). Although some research-
ers have begun to test the differential importance of certain rela-
tionship partners within developmental periods (e.g., Birkeland,
Breivik, & Wold, 2014), the field is in need of more empirical
work on age-related changes in the influence of specific relation-
ships.
Effect of self-esteem on social relationships. In terms of the
prospective effect of self-esteem on social relationships, the pres-
ent research supports the assumptions of Murray and colleagues’
(2000) risk regulation model, the self-broadcasting perspective
(Srivastava & Beer, 2005;Zeigler-Hill et al., 2013), and the
relationship behaviors perspective. As described in the Introduc-
tion, all of these theoretical perspectives suggest that people’s
levels of self-esteem have consequences for their social relation-
ships. Again, this meta-analytic result is important because prior
research had yielded inconsistent findings. Whereas some primary
Table 5
Analysis of Variance of Both Prospective Effects by Relationship Partner
Relationship partner kN
Weighted mean
effect size 95% CI Heterogeneity (Q)
Prospective effect of social relationships
on self-esteem (k⫽48)
Parent 15 27,522 .09
ⴱ
[.06, .12] 9.45
Peer 9 5,057 .07
ⴱ
[.03, .11] 5.72
Romantic 3 1,730 .05 [⫺.04, .13] 1.34
General 12 8,322 .07
ⴱ
[.03, .10] 24.57
ⴱ
Combination 9 3,600 .06
ⴱ
[.01, .11] 4.13
Prospective effect of self-esteem on
social relationships (k⫽35)
Parent 9 9,077 .07
ⴱ
[.04, .10] 2.20
Peer 8 4,451 .07
ⴱ
[.03, .10] 9.11
Romantic 3 1,730 .05 [⫺.02, .12] .39
General 8 4,335 .14
ⴱ
[.10, .18] 17.18
ⴱ
Combination 7 2,402 .08
ⴱ
[.03, .12] 2.21
Note. For the prospective effect of social relationships on self-esteem: Q
model
⫽45.21 (df ⫽43, p⫽.38);
Q
residual
⫽2.27 (df ⫽4, p⫽.69). For the prospective effect of self-esteem on social relationships: Q
model
⫽
31.09 (df ⫽30, p⫽.41); Q
residual
⫽10.23
ⴱ
(df ⫽4, p⫽.04). k⫽number of samples. N⫽total number of
participants in the ksamples. CI ⫽confidence interval.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
Table 6
Analysis of Variance of Both Prospective Effects by Relationship Reporter
Relationship reporter kN
Weighted mean
effect size 95% CI Heterogeneity (Q)
Prospective effect of social relationships
on self-esteem (k⫽48)
Self 40 40,071 .08
ⴱ
[.06, .10] 2.79
Other 8 6,160 .07
ⴱ
[.02, .11] 41.01
Prospective effect of self-esteem on
social relationships (k⫽35)
Self 28 16,950 .10
ⴱ
[.07, .12] 26.21
Other 7 5,045 .04 [⫺.01, .08] 3.85
Note. For the prospective effect of social relationships on self-esteem: Q
model
⫽43.79 (df ⫽46, p⫽.57);
Q
residual
⫽.09 (df ⫽1, p⫽.77). For the prospective effect of self-esteem on social relationships: Q
model
⫽30.06
(df ⫽33, p⫽.61); Q
residual
⫽5.30
ⴱ
(df ⫽1, p⫽.02). k⫽number of samples. N⫽total number of participants
in the ksamples. CI ⫽confidence interval.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1470 HARRIS AND ORTH
studies suggested that self-esteem leads to positive change in
relationships with parents (Brummelman et al., 2015), peers (Mar-
shall et al., 2014), and romantic partners (Luciano & Orth, 2017;
Orth et al., 2012), other studies did not find evidence of a self-
esteem effect on relationships (Harris et al., 2015;Klima &
Repetti, 2008;Mund et al., 2015). In addition, we extended the
findings of Cameron and Granger (2019) by examining prospec-
tive effects that were controlled for prior levels of the outcomes.
Again, the meta-analytic estimate found in the present study was
based on a large number of studies (specifically, 35 studies with
almost 22,000 participants), allowing for high precision of the
estimate.
Yet, it is important to note that the effect of self-esteem on
relationships was moderated by the type of relationship reporter
(i.e., self vs. informant). Whereas the self-esteem effect was .10
when relationships were reported by target participants, the effect
was smaller (.04) and nonsignificant in the group of studies that
used informant-reports (e.g., observers or the relationship partner)
to assess relationships. One possible interpretation is that the effect
is nonexistent when relationships are assessed by third-party re-
ports, which might provide for less subjective, and potentially
more valid, information on the quality of relationships. However,
we caution against this interpretation for several reasons. First, the
pvalue for the effect of self-esteem on informant-rated relation-
ships was marginally significant (p⫽.097). Considering this
along with the relatively low number of studies (k⫽7), it is
possible that the effect would be significant if data from a larger
number of studies were available. Second, although a prospective
effect of .04 can be considered a small effect, it was not zero and
was still in the expected direction. Third, six of the seven studies
that used informant ratings relied on classmates’ sociometric rat-
ings of the target’s popularity or acceptance. Thus, it is possible
that the smaller effect size in this group of studies resulted from
particularities of the specific method of assessment (i.e., sociomet-
ric ratings) and does not reflect the general size of the self-esteem
effect when assessed with other types of informant ratings, peer
report, or objective measures of relationship quality. Fourth, it is
important to emphasize that the significant effect of self-esteem on
later self-reported social relationships cannot simply be attributed
to shared method variance because this is already controlled for in
the autoregressive effect (more precisely, most of the self-report
bias in the Time 2 relationship variable is controlled for by the
self-report bias included in the Time 1 relationship variable). In
sum, the current meta-analysis suggests that self-esteem influences
targets’ ratings of social relationships over time, but more longi-
tudinal studies are needed to understand whether the effect holds
across partners’ ratings of social relationships.
In the Introduction, we described a relationship behaviors per-
spective proposing that people’s concrete actions might explain
how high versus low self-esteem might lead to positive versus
negative changes in people’s relationships. For example, using
accommodating and constructive strategies in resolving interper-
sonal conflicts, showing physical affection, and exerting other
positive behaviors are associated with self-esteem (Diamond et al.,
2010), and they also predict changes in both relationship satisfac-
tion (Johnson et al., 2005) and self-esteem (Roberts & Bengtson,
1993). Although it was not the goal of the current meta-analysis to
identify mediating mechanisms of the prospective effects (and,
moreover, the primary studies included in the meta-analysis would
not have typically provided data related to potential mediators), we
believe that this is an important direction for future research. In
addition to testing for mediation of the effect of self-esteem on
social relationships by accommodating, constructive, and affec-
tionate relationship behaviors, we encourage researchers to explore
specific cues broadcast by individuals with high (or low) self-
esteem that impact the functioning of close relationships. Some
possibilities include direct eye contact (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2013),
speaking confidently (Harter, 2006), attentive listening, and sup-
portive elaboration upon feelings shared or memories recalled by
relationship partners (Fivush, Haden, & Reese, 2006).
Reciprocity of the link between social relationships and
self-esteem. The average size of both prospective effects—that
is, the relationship effect on self-esteem and the self-esteem effect
on relationships—was not large, but estimated at .08. However, it
is important to note that the effect size conventions by Cohen
(1992), such as those for correlation coefficients (e.g., with .10
indicating a small effect), do not apply to prospective regression
coefficients that control for the stability of the outcome variables
(Adachi & Willoughby, 2015). Rather, effect sizes of .08 may be
practically meaningful when considering the context of the re-
search, as recommended by Fritz, Morris, and Richler (2012).
Importantly, the stabilities of both constructs were quite substantial
(i.e., .57 for self-esteem and .60 for social relationships), and
previous levels of psychological outcomes are often the strongest
predictors of later assessments of the same constructs (Adachi &
Willoughby, 2015). Also, outcomes such as self-esteem and rela-
tionship characteristics are influenced by a multitude of factors
(e.g., genetics, economic factors, physical health, other personality
characteristics; see Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000;Donnel-
lan, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2011); thus, it is not surprising that
the prospective effects were not large. Moreover, it is useful to
note that the magnitude of the present effect sizes is similar to
effect sizes determined in meta-analyses of prospective effects in
other fields such as positive emotionality and depression (Khaza-
nov & Ruscio, 2016), peer victimization and internalizing prob-
lems (Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010), and self-
esteem, depression, and anxiety (Sowislo & Orth, 2013). Finally,
the reciprocity of the prospective effects between self-esteem and
social relationships potentiates the occurrence of repetitive, cumu-
lative effects between the two constructs. Thus, even small effects
can result in a larger impact over the life course. Taking all of this
into account, we argue that the prospective effects between social
relationships and self-esteem are larger than the “small” effects
discussed by Cohen (1992) and that they have practical signifi-
cance.
The prospective effects between social relationships and self-
esteem both had a positive sign, indicating a positive feedback
loop between the constructs. We believe that this pattern of results
has two important implications. First, the meta-analytic estimates
of the effect sizes take on even more practical significance, be-
cause the positive feedback loop implies that relationship effects
and self-esteem effects accumulate over time. Given that the
effects did not become smaller with increasing age, the findings
suggest that the aggregated effects could ultimately be substantial
as people go through life. Specifically, positive relationships with
parents may strengthen self-esteem among children, which leads to
more positive peer relationships in adolescence, which may further
strengthen the self-esteem of the emerging adult, and so on.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1471
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Second, the positive feedback loop is theoretically important be-
cause it supports the corresponsive principle of personality devel-
opment (Roberts, Wood, & Caspi, 2008). According to this
principle, life experiences often deepen those personality char-
acteristics that lead individuals to these experiences in the first
place, a pattern that has been observed with regard to Big Five
traits and social relationships (Mund & Neyer, 2014), work expe-
riences (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003) and life events (Lüdtke,
Roberts, Trautwein, & Nagy, 2011), for example. It should also be
noted that the positive feedback loop between relationships and
self-esteem also implies that there may be a vicious cycle for those
children, adolescents, and adults who develop low self-esteem or
poor social relationships. For example, children and adolescents
with low self-esteem are likely to experience less social support
and more negative relationship experiences over time, which in
turn may compromise their self-esteem even further. This possi-
bility emphasizes the importance of clinical interventions that can
offset the feedback loop for individuals in either of these groups.
Fortunately, most individuals gradually improve their self-esteem
as they grow up and become adults (Orth, Erol, & Luciano, 2018),
so this normative upward trend in self-esteem from childhood to
adulthood may also be beneficial for mean-level trends in the
quality of people’s social relationships.
Even though the prospective effects were of the same mag-
nitude in both directions (i.e., from relationships to self-esteem,
and vice versa), a model-based meta-analytic approach (e.g.,
see Becker, 2009) would have permitted a more formal com-
parison of the effect sizes through the use of path constraints. In
addition, the mediating mechanisms explaining the two effects
could be completely different. Therefore, two directions for
future research will be to use structural equation modeling in
the estimation of meta-analytic effects between self-esteem and
relationships and to identify specific actions people may take
that foster the self-esteem of their partners, children, friends,
coworkers, and other relationship partners. Referring back to
prominent theories on self-esteem development, it is likely that
actions that signal approval (vs. disapproval), availability for
support provision, or ability to be a secure base are important
for fostering self-esteem in interaction partners. Note that such
behaviors likely have nuanced associations with psychological
outcomes. For example, self-esteem is not necessarily raised by
direct, positive feedback, as suggested by the finding that praise
is related to lower self-esteem when it is exaggerated (Brum-
melman, Nelemans, Thomaes, & Orobio de Castro, 2017).
Similarly, emotional support is most effective at reducing anx-
iety when unnoticed by the recipient (Bolger, Zuckerman, &
Kessler, 2000). Rather, indirect feedback such as making time
for one’s spouse, offering validating comments through verbal
and nonverbal confirmations of experiences shared by one’s
friend, and showing interest in and excitement for the activities
of one’s child, are likely to bolster targets’ self-esteem (also see
Brummelman et al., 2017 for similar arguments). Therefore, we
recommend careful hypothesis-formation and creative designs
of both observational and experimental studies to form a po-
tentially rich database of behavioral mechanisms by which
relationship partners influence an individual’s self-esteem de-
velopment.
Limitations
Even though the meta-analysis was based on longitudinal data,
one limitation is that the analyses do not allow for strong causal
conclusions about the link between social relationships and self-
esteem. The reason is that the prospective effects between the
constructs could be confounded by third variables that were not
controlled for (Finkel, 1995;Little, Preacher, Selig, & Card, 2007).
For example, stressful life experiences such as unemployment and
chronic diseases could influence both people’s self-esteem (Orth &
Luciano, 2015;Tetzner, Becker, & Baumert, 2016) and the quality
of their relationships (Bradbury et al., 2000) and possibly account
for the link between the constructs. Nevertheless, longitudinal
analyses are useful because they can provide information about
whether the data are consistent with a causal model by ruling out
some (but not all) competing hypotheses. Moreover, it is worth
emphasizing that all prospective effects examined in this research
controlled for previous levels of the outcomes, which substantially
improved the validity of the conclusions.
Although this meta-analysis was based on data from more than
50 studies, ideally more studies would have been available that
focused on self-esteem in adult romantic relationships. Also, there
is virtually no research on self-esteem in the context of parent and
peer relationships in adulthood. Moreover, relatively few studies
used measures other than self-report to assess relationships char-
acteristics. Thus, it would be desirable if future research in this
field would utilize informant reports (e.g., peer and partner rat-
ings), behavioral observation, and objective measures to collect
information about the quality of social relationships. Also, future
research on the link between self-esteem and relationships should
more often focus on adult samples. For example, researchers could
examine whether friendships can buffer the decline of self-esteem
in old age and whether low self-esteem has detrimental conse-
quences for social inclusion and social support in old age (see Orth
et al., 2018).
It is possible that more studies would have been included in the
present meta-analysis if efforts had been made to collect unpub-
lished data from sources other than dissertations (e.g., publishing
announcements on relevant listservs or websites, contacting au-
thors in the field for their unpublished data). However, these steps
were not taken, and attempts to collect unpublished data were
limited to the search for dissertations. Thus, generalizability of the
results may be restricted to published studies on the associations of
interest rather than the associations themselves, despite the non-
significant tests for publication bias.
A strength of the meta-analytic method is the aggregation of
data across a heterogeneous set of studies, yielding robust esti-
mates of the effects of interest as a result of the peculiarities of
individual studies cancelling each other out. However, critics have
argued that aggregation across a mix of individual studies can also
be a weakness if individual study findings are incomparable (see
Borenstein et al., 2009;Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). In the present
meta-analysis, the individual studies measured a range of relation-
ship characteristics (e.g., support, closeness, satisfaction). The
decision to include this set of relationship variables was based on
the assumption that all of these variables are indicators of the same
broad construct, that is, quality of social relationships. Researchers
have proposed that one central principle organizes many concepts
studied in relationship science (e.g., trust, acceptance, support,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1472 HARRIS AND ORTH
perceived regard; Reis, 2007). Furthermore, even when different
relationship indicators (e.g., social acceptance, relationship qual-
ity) are examined individually, they show similar concurrent as-
sociations with self-esteem as an aggregate score of multiple
relationship indicators (Cameron & Granger, 2019). Still, different
relationship characteristics could have different effects on self-
esteem over time. For example, satisfaction with a relationship
may have a different meaning than perceived support from a
partner and, consequently, the prospective effect sizes could differ
between the two relationship characteristics. Testing for modera-
tion by relationship characteristic was not possible in the present
meta-analysis because of insufficient power (we coded 15 different
types of relationship characteristics). However, differential effects
of social relationship variables on self-esteem is a possibility that
should be explored by future research and further emphasizes the
need for integrative theoretical frameworks in both the self-esteem
and relationship literatures (also see Reis, 2007;Reis, Collins, &
Berscheid, 2000;Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005).
Conclusion
This meta-analysis provides the first synthesis of research find-
ings on a key question in the field of self-esteem research—that is,
whether and to what extent a person’s social relationships influ-
ence his or her self-esteem. Although many classic and contem-
porary theoretical perspectives have discussed the effect of close
relationships on the development of self-esteem, and although
assumptions about the effect are widespread in the lay public, no
systematic review or meta-analytic synthesis was available that
provides firm knowledge on whether social relationships actually
influence self-esteem, how strong the effect is, and whether the
effect is moderated by characteristics such as age, gender, and type
of relationship. Consequently, the meta-analytic findings advance
the field, by providing robust support for this central claim of
theories on self-esteem.
Moreover, the present meta-analysis provides robust evidence
with regard to questions about the reverse direction of the link
between social relationships and self-esteem—that is, whether and
to what extent people’s levels of self-esteem influence the quality
of their social relationships. The present findings suggest that high
self-esteem does lead to improvements in a person’s social rela-
tionships. Moreover, the weighted mean effects were of similar
size in both directions, suggesting that the link between social
relationships and self-esteem is truly reciprocal in all developmen-
tal stages across the life span, reflecting a positive feedback loop
between the constructs.
References
ⴱ
Asterisks indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when con-
trolling for stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Im-
plications for psychological science. European Journal of Developmen-
tal Psychology, 12, 116 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014
.963549
Ainsworth, M. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B.
Caldwell & H. Ricciati (Eds.), Review of child development research
(3rd ed., pp. 1–94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–
1544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1531
Becker, B. (2009). Model-based meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, &
J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-
analysis (pp. 377–396). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ⴱ
Berenson, K. R., Crawford, T. N., Cohen, P., & Brook, J. (2005). Impli-
cations of identification with parents and parents’ acceptance for ado-
lescent and young adult self-esteem. Self and Identity, 4, 289 –301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000272
Birkeland, M. S., Breivik, K., & Wold, B. (2014). Peer acceptance protects
global self-esteem from negative effects of low closeness to parents
during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 43, 70 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9929-1
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and
adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
953–961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953
ⴱ
Borelli, J. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2006). Reciprocal, longitudinal associ-
ations among adolescents’ negative feedback-seeking, depressive symp-
toms, and peer relations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34,
154 –169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-9010-y
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduc-
tion to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
9780470743386
Bornstein, M., Jager, J., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Adolescents, parents,
friends/peers: A relationships model (with commentary and illustra-
tions). In I. Weiner, R. Lerner, M. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6.Developmental psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 393– 433). New York, NY: Wiley.
ⴱ
Boutelle, K., Eisenberg, M. E., Gregory, M. L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D.
(2009). The reciprocal relationship between parent-child connectedness
and adolescent emotional functioning over 5 years. Journal of Psycho-
somatic Research, 66, 309 –316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores
.2008.10.019
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2.Separation. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3.Loss, sadness, and de-
pression. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1.Attachment. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy
human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on
the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964 –980. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x
Brummelman, E., Nelemans, S. A., Thomaes, S., & Orobio de Castro, B.
(2017). When parents’ praise inflates, children’s self-esteem deflates.
Child Development, 88, 1799 –1809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev
.12936
ⴱ
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S. A., Orobio de Castro, B.,
Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Origins of narcissism in
children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 112, 3659 –3662.
Cameron, J. J., & Granger, S. (2019). Does self-esteem have an interper-
sonal imprint beyond self-reports? A meta-analysis of self-esteem and
objective interpersonal indicators. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 23, 73–102.
ⴱ
Chen, X., He, Y., & Li, D. (2004). Self-perceptions of social competence
and self-worth in Chinese children: Relations with social and school
performance. Social Development, 13, 570 –589. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00284.x
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1473
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with
longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558 –577. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
Cooley, C. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY:
Schocken Books.
Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2008).
Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer
mechanisms across days, people, and nations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 181–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.95.1.181
Diamond, L. M., Fagundes, C. P., & Butterworth, M. R. (2010). Intimate
relationships across the life span. In M. E. Lamb & A. M. Freund (Eds.),
The handbook of life-span development (Vol. 2): Social and emotional
development (pp. 379 –433). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/9780470880166.hlsd002011
Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2011). Self-
esteem: Enduring issues and controversies. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S.
von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of
individual differences (pp. 718 –746). London, UK: Blackwell.
ⴱ
Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2005). Parenting, marital conflict and
adjustment from early- to mid-adolescence: Mediated by adolescent
attachment style? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 97–110. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-3209-7
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in
meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical
Journal, 315, 629 – 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2013). Actor and partner effects of self-esteem on
relationship satisfaction and the mediating role of secure attachment
between the partners. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 26 –35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.11.003
Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2016). Self-esteem and the quality of romantic
relationships. European Psychologist, 21, 274 –283. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1027/1016-9040/a000259
Feeney, B. C., Cassidy, J., & Ramos-Marcuse, F. (2008). The generaliza-
tion of attachment representations to new social situations: Predicting
behavior during initial interactions with strangers. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 95, 1481–1498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0012635
ⴱ
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1993). Marital satisfaction, depres-
sion, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 442– 452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.64.3.442
Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983594
Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Reese, E. (2006). Elaborating on elaborations:
Role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive and socioemotional
development. Child Development, 77, 1568 –1588. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00960.x
ⴱ
Foynes, M. M., Smith, B. N., & Shipherd, J. C. (2015). Associations
between race-based and sex-based discrimination, health, and function-
ing: A longitudinal study of marines. Medical Care, 53, S128 –S135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000300
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., & Haltigan, J. D. (2013). The legacy of early
experiences in development: Formalizing alternative models of how
early experiences are carried forward over time. Developmental Psy-
chology, 49, 109 –126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027852
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates:
Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 141, 2–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
ⴱ
Gest, S. D., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. (2005). Peer academic
reputation in elementary school: Associations with changes in self-
concept and academic skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,
337–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.337
ⴱ
Goodvin, R., Meyer, S., Thompson, R. A., & Hayes, R. (2008). Self-
understanding in early childhood: Associations with child attachment
security and maternal negative affect. Attachment & Human Develop-
ment, 10, 433– 450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730802461466
ⴱ
Gruenenfelder-Steiger, A. E., Harris, M. A., & Fend, H. A. (2016).
Subjective and objective peer approval evaluations and self-esteem
development: A test of reciprocal, prospective, and long-term effects.
Developmental Psychology, 52, 1563–1577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000147
ⴱ
Gupta, T., Way, N., McGill, R. K., Hughes, D., Santos, C., Jia, Y.,...
Deng, H. (2013). Gender-typed behaviors in friendships and well-being:
A cross-cultural study of Chinese and American boys. Journal of Re-
search on Adolescence, 23, 57– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2012.00824.x
Harris, M., Donnellan, M., Beer, J., & Trzesniewski, K. (2019). Why
people like (or dislike) themselves: A descriptive analysis of sources of
self-esteem across the lifespan. Manuscript Submitted for publication.
Harris, M. A., Donnellan, M. B., Guo, J., McAdams, D. P., Garnier-
Villarreal, M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2017). Parental co-construction of
5- to 13-year-olds’ global self-esteem through reminiscing about past
events. Child Development, 88, 1810 –1822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.12944
ⴱ
Harris, M. A., Gruenenfelder-Steiger, A. E., Ferrer, E., Donnellan, M. B.,
Allemand, M., Fend, H.,...Trzesniewski, K. H. (2015). Do parents
foster self-esteem? Testing the prospective impact of parent closeness on
adolescent self-esteem. Child Development, 86, 995–1013. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/cdev.12356
Harter, S. (1999). Symbolic interactionism revisited: Potential liabilities
for the self constructed in the crucible of interpersonal relationships.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 677–703.
Harter, S. (2006). The self. In N. Eisenberg, R. A. Fabes, & T. L. Spinrad
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 505–570). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Harter, S. (2012). Self-Perception Profile for Children: Manual and ques-
tionnaires. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5,
1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1
Hodge, V. J., & Austin, J. (2004). A survey of outlier detection method-
ologies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22, 85–126. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1023/B:AIRE.0000045502.10941.a9
Huang, C. (2010). Mean-level change in self-esteem from childhood
through adulthood: Meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Review of
General Psychology, 14, 251–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020543
ⴱ
Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Wagner, J., Egloff, B., & Back, M. D. (2015).
Wherever I may roam: Processes of self-esteem development from
adolescence to emerging adulthood in the context of international stu-
dent exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108,
767–783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000015
ⴱ
Johnson, M. K. (2013). Parental financial assistance and young adults’
relationships with parents and well-being. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 75, 713–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12029
Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence, E., Rogge, R. D.,
Karney, B. R.,...Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Problem-solving skills and
affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 15–27. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.15
ⴱ
Juang, L. P., Syed, M., & Cookston, J. T. (2012). Acculturation-based and
everyday parent-adolescent conflict among Chinese American adoles-
cents: Longitudinal trajectories and implications for mental health. Jour-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1474 HARRIS AND ORTH
nal of Family Psychology, 26, 916 –926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0030057
ⴱ
Kakihara, F., Tilton-Weaver, L., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2010). The
relationship of parental control to youth adjustment: Do youths’ feelings
about their parents play a role? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39,
1442–1456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9479-8
Khazanov, G. K., & Ruscio, A. M. (2016). Is low positive emotionality a
specific risk factor for depression? A meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 991–1015. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/bul0000059
ⴱ
Kinnunen, M.-L., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2008). Self-
esteem: An antecedent or a consequence of social support and psycho-
somatic symptoms? Cross-lagged associations in adulthood. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 333–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp
.2007.06.004
ⴱ
Kipp, L. E., & Weiss, M. R. (2015). Social predictors of psychological
need satisfaction and well-being among female adolescent gymnasts: A
longitudinal analysis. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4,
153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spy0000033
ⴱ
Kistner, J., David, C., & Repper, K. (2007). Self-enhancement of peer
acceptance: Implications for children’s self-worth and interpersonal
functioning. Social Development, 16, 24 – 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2007.00370.x
ⴱ
Klima, T., & Repetti, R. L. (2008). Children’s peer relations and their
psychological adjustment: Differences between close friendships and the
larger peer group. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 151–178. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1353/mpq.2008.0016
ⴱ
Krause, N. (2009). Church-based social relationships and change in self-
esteem over time. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48,
756 –773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01477.x
ⴱ
Kuster, F., Orth, U., & Meier, L. L. (2013). High self-esteem prospec-
tively predicts better work conditions and outcomes. Social Psycholog-
ical and Personality Science, 4, 668 – 675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1948550613479806
ⴱ
Laursen, B., Furman, W., & Mooney, K. S. (2006). Predicting interper-
sonal competence and self-worth from adolescent relationships and
relationship networks: Variable-centered and person-centered perspec-
tives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 572– 600. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1353/mpq.2006.0030
Leary, M. (2000). Interpersonal cognition inside the sociometer. In M.
Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 85–102). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Leary, M. (2004). The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of
interpersonal behavior. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 373–391). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value:
Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychol-
ogy, 16, 75–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280540000007
Leary, M. (2006). To what extent is self-esteem influenced by interpersonal
as compared with intrapersonal processes? What are these processes? In
M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of
current perspectives (pp. 195–200). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Leary, M. (2012). Sociometer theory. In L. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, &
E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 141–159). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781446249222.n33
Leary, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). The nature and function of self-
esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1– 62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9
ⴱ
Lee, C., Dickson, D. A., Conley, C. S., & Holmbeck, G. N. (2014). A
closer look at self-esteem, perceived social support, and coping strategy:
A prospective study of depressive symptomatology across the transition
to college. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33, 560 –585.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.6.560
ⴱ
Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Ashmore, R. D. (2006). The relationship of social
approval contingency to trait self-esteem: Cause, consequence, or mod-
erator? Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 121–139. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.012
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. (2007). New
developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 357–365. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077757
ⴱ
Lönnqvist, J., Leikas, S., Mähönen, T. A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2015).
The mixed blessings of migration: Life satisfaction and self-esteem over
the course of migration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45,
496 –514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2105
Luciano, E. C., & Orth, U. (2017). Transitions in romantic relationships
and development of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 112, 307–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000109
Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Trautwein, U., & Nagy, G. (2011). A random
walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality
trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101, 620 – 637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023743
Magnusson, D. (1990). Personality development from an interactional
perspective. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 193–222). New York, NY: New York: Guilford Press.
ⴱ
Marks, N. F., Lambert, J. D., Jun, H., & Song, J. (2008). Psychosocial
moderators of the effects of transitioning into filial caregiving on mental
and physical health. Research on Aging, 30, 358 –389. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0164027507312998
Marsh, H. (1990). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II: Manual. New
South Wales, Australia: Campbelltown.
ⴱ
Marshall, S. L., Parker, P. D., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2014). Is
self-esteem a cause or consequence of social support? A 4-year longi-
tudinal study. Child Development, 85, 1275–1291. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/cdev.12176
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (Tim). (2007).
Employability during unemployment: Adaptability, career identity and
human and social capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 247–264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.003
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social
behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
ⴱ
Moreira, J. F., & Telzer, E. H. (2015). Changes in family cohesion and
links to depression during the college transition. Journal of Adolescence,
43, 72– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.012
Mund, M., Finn, C., Hagemeyer, B., Zimmermann, J., & Neyer, F. J.
(2015). The dynamics of self-esteem in partner relationships. European
Journal of Personality, 29, 235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1984
Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). Treating personality-relationship trans-
actions with respect: Narrow facets, advanced models, and extended
time frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 352–
368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036719
Murberg, T. A. (2010). The role of personal attributes and social support
factors on passive behaviour in classroom among secondary school
students: A prospective study. Social Psychology of Education, 13,
511–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9123-1
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assur-
ance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin,
132, 641– 666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling
nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,
but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–
1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1155
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1475
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the
quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment pro-
cesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478 – 498.
Neff, L. A., & Geers, A. L. (2013). Optimistic expectations in early
marriage: A resource or vulnerability for adaptive relationship function-
ing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 38 – 60. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032600
ⴱ
Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard,
R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental ante-
cedents to transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal media-
tional analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 535–544. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.010
Orth, U. (2018). The family environment in early childhood has a long-
term effect on self-esteem: A longitudinal study from birth to age 27
years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 637– 655.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000143
Orth, U., Erol, R. Y., & Luciano, E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem
from age 4 to 94 years: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 144, 1045–1080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000161
Orth, U., & Luciano, E. C. (2015). Self-esteem, narcissism, and stressful
life events: Testing for selection and socialization. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 109, 707–721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000049
Orth, U., Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (2015). Self-esteem development across
the life span: A longitudinal study with a large sample from Germany.
Developmental Psychology, 51, 248 –259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0038481
ⴱ
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span develop-
ment of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1271–1288. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0025558
ⴱ
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, R. D. (2014). Is low
self-esteem a risk factor for depression? Findings from a longitudinal
study of Mexican-origin youth. Developmental Psychology, 50, 622–
633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033817
ⴱ
Park, W., & Epstein, N. B. (2013). The longitudinal causal directionality
between body image distress and self-esteem among Korean adoles-
cents: The moderating effect of relationships with parents. Journal of
Adolescence, 36, 403– 411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013
.01.002
ⴱ
Pinquart, M., & Fröhlich, C. (2009). Psychosocial resources and subjec-
tive well-being of cancer patients. Psychology & Health, 24, 407– 421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440701717009
Poulsen, A. A., Ziviani, J. M., & Cuskelly, M. (2006). General self-concept
and life satisfaction for boys with differing levels of physical coordina-
tion: The role of goal orientations and leisure participation. Human
Movement Science, 25, 839 – 860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov
.2006.05.003
Raudenbush, S. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In
H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer
victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of
longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244 –252. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science.
Personal Relationships, 14, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811
.2006.00139.x
Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship
context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 844 – 872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.844
ⴱ
Reitz, A. K., Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2016). Me, us, and
them: Testing sociometer theory in a socially diverse real-life context.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 908 –920. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000073
Reynolds, B. M. (2010). Pubertal timing and internalizing symptoms
across the middle school years: Peer context influences in measurement
and the search for mechanisms. Dissertation Abstracts International: B.
The Sciences and Engineering. Retrieved from https://search.proquest
.com/docview/819633706?accountid⫽14505
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Work experiences and
personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 582–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.84.3.582
Roberts, B., Wood, D., & Caspi, A. (2008). The development of person-
ality traits in adulthood. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 375–398). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Roberts, R. E. L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1993). Relationships with parents,
self-esteem, and psychological well-being in young adulthood. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 56, 263–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786663
Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2008). Naturalizing the
Self. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 421– 447). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2005). Self-esteem development
across the life span. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14,
158 –162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00353.x
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2011). Different patterns of
sexual identity development over time: Implications for the psycholog-
ical adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Journal of Sex
Research, 48, 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490903331067
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136
Sarason, I., Sarason, B., & Shearin, E. (1986). Social support as an
individual difference variable: Its stability, origins, and relational as-
pects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 845– 855.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.845
ⴱ
Schaffhuser, K., Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Allemand, M. (2014). Dyadic
longitudinal interplay between personality and relationship satisfaction:
A focus on neuroticism and self-esteem. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 53, 124 –133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.007
ⴱ
Schindler, H. S. (2010). The importance of parenting and financial con-
tributions in promoting fathers’ psychological health. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 72, 318 –332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737
.2010.00702.x
ⴱ
Schmidt, M., Blum, M., Valkanover, S., & Conzelmann, A. (2015). Motor
ability and self-esteem: The mediating role of physical self-concept and
perceived social acceptance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 17,
15–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.11.006
Schuengel, C., Voorman, J., Stolk, J., Dallmeijer, A., Vermeer, A., &
Becher, J. (2006). Self-worth, perceived competence, and behaviour
problems in children with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation,
28, 1251–1258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638280600554652
Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view
of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 86, 549 –573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.549
Sim, C. H., Gan, F. F., & Chang, T. C. (2005). Outlier labeling with
boxplot procedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
100, 642– 652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001466
ⴱ
Smokowski, P. R., Bacallao, M. L., Cotter, K. L., & Evans, C. B. R.
(2015). The effects of positive and negative parenting practices on
adolescent mental health outcomes in a multicultural sample of rural
youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46, 333–345. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0474-2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1476 HARRIS AND ORTH
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression
and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 139, 213–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028931
Srivastava, S., & Beer, J. S. (2005). How self-evaluations relate to being
liked by others: Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 966 –977. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.966
Sroufe, L. A. (2002). From infant attachment to promotion of adolescent
autonomy: Prospective, longitudinal data on the role of parents in
development. In J. G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey, & M. Bristol-Power
(Eds.), Parenting and the child’s world: Influences on academic, intel-
lectual, and social-emotional development. Monographs in parenting
(pp. 187–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
Sterne, J. A. C., Becker, B. J., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In
H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias
in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 75–98).
West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2006). Regression methods to detect
publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In H. Rothstein, A. Sutton,
& M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention,
assessment, and adjustments (pp. 99 –110). West Sussex, UK: Wiley,
Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch6
Sutton, A. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. Hedges, & J. Valen-
tine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp.
435– 452). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How
we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 17, 351–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90043-3
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
193–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Tetzner, J., Becker, M., & Baumert, J. (2016). Still doing fine? The
interplay of negative life events and self-esteem during young adulthood.
European Journal of Personality, 30, 358 –373. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/per.2066
Thompson, R. (2006). The development of the person: Social understand-
ing, relationships, self, conscience. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology (3rd ed., pp. 24 –98). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability
of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 205–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205
ⴱ
Vanhalst, J., Luyckx, K., Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., &
Goossens, L. (2013). Low self-esteem as a risk factor for loneliness in
adolescence: Perceived - but not actual - social acceptance as an under-
lying mechanism. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1067–
1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9751-y
Wagner, J., Becker, M., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2015). The first
partnership experience and personality development: A propensity score
matching study in young adulthood. Social Psychological and Person-
ality Science, 6, 455– 463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550614566092
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018).
Self-esteem development in the school context: The roles of intraper-
sonal and interpersonal social predictors. Journal of Personality, 86,
481– 497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12330
Wilson, D. (2010). Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Re-
trieved June 20, 2015, from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html
ⴱ
Yeh, H., & Lempers, J. D. (2004). Perceived sibling relationships and
adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 133–
147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000013425.86424.0f
Yeung, K. T., & Martin, J. L. (2003). The looking glass self: An empirical
test and elaboration. Social Forces, 81, 843– 879. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1353/sof.2003.0048
Zeigler-Hill, V., Besser, A., Myers, E. M., Southard, A. C., & Malkin,
M. L. (2013). The status-signaling property of self-esteem: The role of
self-reported self-esteem and perceived self-esteem in personality judg-
ments. Journal of Personality, 81, 209 –220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-6494.2012.00790.x
Received February 25, 2019
Revision received July 30, 2019
Accepted August 10, 2019 䡲
Correction to Kluger and Malloy (2019)
In the commentary “Question Asking as a Dyadic Behavior” by Avraham N. Kluger and Thomas
E. Malloy (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2019, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 1127–1138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000156), there was an error in using the variable number of dates
offered instead of the number of date offers received. This error affects results in Tables 7 and 8,
Figure 1, and Table 1A, and the conclusions drawn from the results, resulting in global changes
throughout the commentary. The code for the corrections and new calculations are available at
https://osf.io/x69u2/.
The online version of this article has been corrected.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000355
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1477
SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Content uploaded by Ulrich Orth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulrich Orth on Jan 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
