Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from BMC Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
RESEARCH Open Access
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The
Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available
in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01380-3 BMC Psychology
*Correspondence:
Malin Brueckmann
malin.brueckmann@uni-bielefeld.de
1Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitaetsstraße 25,
Bielefeld 33615, Germany
2Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Luxembourg, 11, Porte
des Sciences, Esch-sur-Alzette L-4365, Luxembourg
Abstract
Background Numerous studies have demonstrated that low, unstable, or contingent self-esteem negatively aects
youth development and is linked to adolescent psychopathology. However, most previous studies have applied
variable-oriented approaches, and less is known about the natural combination of self-esteem facets in school-aged
adolescents, how parental conditional regard aects self-esteem proles, and how these proles relate to self-
kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfaction.
Methods By employing a longitudinal person-oriented approach (i.e., latent prole analysis and latent transition
analysis) on two-wave longitudinal data from 587 German secondary school students (52.3% female, Mage=13.52
years), this study aims to (1) identify adolescents’ self-esteem proles based on the level, stability, and contingency
of self-esteem; (2) examine the impact of parental conditional regard on the self-esteem proles explained using
self-determination theory; and (3) examine these proles’ relationship with self-kindness, self-judgement, and life
satisfaction.
Results Four self-esteem proles were derived: optimal-secure (~ 8%), good (~ 18%), average (~ 36%), and low-insecure
(~ 38%). The results reveal a concerningly high proportion as well as a high stability of low-insecure self-esteem (~ 98%)
and indicate the strong negative inuence of parental conditional regard on the development of optimal-secure
self-esteem. Furthermore, the results demonstrate strong correlations between optimal-secure self-esteem, highly
developed self-kindness, and high life satisfaction.
Conclusions Using a longitudinal person-oriented approach, it was possible to identify a group with highly
vulnerable self-esteem, characterised by particularly low self-kindness, strong self-judgment, and lower life
satisfaction. The ndings of this study support the need for prevention and intervention targeting adolescents with
low-insecure self-esteem.
Keywords Parenting, Life satisfaction, Self-compassion, Self-judgement, Latent prole, And latent transition analysis
What if parental love is conditional …?
Children’s self-esteem proles and their
relationship with parental conditional regard
and self-kindness
MalinBrueckmann1* , ZiwenTeuber2, JelenaHollmann1 and ElkeWild1
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 2 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
Introduction
Self-esteem (SE) is a central issue in the aetiology of vari-
ous clinical disorders and thus requires signicant atten-
tion in the context of therapeutic interventions [1, 2]. For
example, in research on the development of depression,
there is substantial empirical support for the vulnerabil-
ity model, in which low SE is assumed to be the central
vulnerability factor in the emergence of rumination and
the development of depression [3, 4]. On the other hand,
positive self-image acts as a resilience factor and weakens
the link between critical life events and depression [5].
Although the complexity of aetiological models should
not be underestimated, it is not only the development of
depression that can be traced back to dysfunctional self-
image and the individual’s own value attributions: SE also
plays a central role in the development of personality and
eating disorders, as well as addictive disorders (to name
just a few examples; [1, 6]). SE manifests itself as early as
childhood and adolescence [7, 8], during which parents
are the most important caregivers for their children and
serve as a signicant source of resonance. eir love and
appreciation, which are not conditional on their chil-
dren’s appearance, performance, or behaviour, contribute
to the development of optimal, secure SE and shape the
child’s compassion towards themselves [9]. Such uncon-
ditional positive regard was already emphasised by Carl
Rogers [10] within the framework of client-centred psy-
chotherapy in order to provide clients with positive rela-
tional experiences and thus guide them to value and treat
themselves kindly, regardless of their performance.
It is not surprising, then, that SE as a central vulner-
ability or resilience factor is one of the most researched
topics in the behavioural and social sciences and is
increasingly being considered alongside conditional
regard, self-kindness, and self-judgement [11, 12]. To
date, however, many studies have followed a nomothetic,
variable-oriented approach and considered the SE facets
separately. is approach has resulted in many contradic-
tory ndings, especially with regard to optimal SE (see
[13, 14]). To our knowledge, there is a lack of idiographic,
person-oriented approaches to studying SE in childhood
and early adolescence. Since these stages are central to
the development and stabilisation of SE and personal-
ity and their eects persist across the lifespan (see [15,
16]), a holistic view of SE proles and their relationship
with parental academic conditional regard (PACR), self-
kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfaction is particu-
larly important in these age spans. Not least, this holistic
view helps to clarify what optimal SE looks like, how it
is inuenced by PACR, and whether an optimal, secure
SE is a sign of a healthy, resilient personality. To this end,
we conducted a two-wave study of 587 school-aged ado-
lescents and applied latent prole and transition analyses
to identify SE proles. We then explored these proles’
stability and tested their relationship with possible pre-
dictors (PACR) and outcomes (self-kindness, self-judge-
ment, and life satisfaction).
Global self-esteem and self-esteem facets
Global SE denotes an individual’s subjective evaluation
and assessment of themselves and thus represents their
attitude toward their own person [17–19]. However, in
current research, global SE has long since ceased to be
considered; instead, the dierentiated examination of
individual facets (level, stability, and contingency) and
their interactions has increasingly come to the fore.
Level of SE refers to the extent to which the individual
(de)values and (dis)likes their own person. A person’s
SE can therefore be positive and high or negative and
low. For example, high global SE is demonstrated to be
positively related to life satisfaction [20], work engage-
ment, and academic success [21] and has been identied
as a protective factor against psychological problems in
general [22]. In contrast, lower global SE is associated
with more mental health problems such as anxiety and
depression [23], procrastination [24], and social dicul-
ties [25]. However, there are also contradictory ndings
regarding whether high SE is exclusively benecial [11,
13], prompting more attention to be paid to additional SE
facets.
e stability of SE is one of the facets that has been
used to elucidate contradictory results regarding optimal
SE (cf., [26]). e extent of changes in SE experienced
over time, as well as the subjective assessment of the fra-
gility and robustness of the SE level, are subsumed under
the facet of SE stability (cf., [27]). Individuals with unsta-
ble compared to stable SE are characterised by stronger
aective swings and higher reactivity in behaviour [28].
However, overall, SE stability alone does not have signi-
cant predictive power, so it is often examined in combi-
nation with SE level. Regarding the interaction between
the SE facets of level and stability, low and stable SE is
more likely to lead to depression [29], whereas high but
unstable SE is associated with reactive positive aects
following receipt of positive feedback but equally with
strong defensive and devaluing tendencies following
receipt of critical feedback [2, 30, 31].
us, individuals dier in the extent to which the
level of their SE depends on external factors such as the
achievement of self-imposed goals and standards or
those dened by relevant others (SE contingency; [28,
32, 33]). High SE contingency denotes a strong reliance
on positive external feedback, which arises because the
individual does not consider the self to be intrinsically
valuable but ties their worth to success and eort. Con-
sequently, it is not surprising that Otterpohl et al. ([32]
p. 988) state, ‘Research in the past decades found that
CSE [contingent self-esteem] is associated with several
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
negative outcomes, often even above and beyond any
eect of global self-esteem (e.g., nancial, social, and
academic problems, depression, drinking, and anger)’.
SE contingency not only contributes to the elucidation
of contradictory ndings when combined with the other
SE facets but also, when considered on its own, is related
to life satisfaction and well-being [34–37], parenting [37,
38], and self-compassion [39].
Self-esteem proles
If we consider possible compositions of the dierent
facets, several dierent proles can be assumed to exist.
First, there is a high, stable, and less contingent SE prole.
is SE prole is understood to be synonymous with true
SE, which is independent of external conditions and feed-
back and is considered to be less fragile (optimal-secure
SE; [28, 40, 41]). It does not have to be tested but arises
without continuous self-evaluation [42, 43]. Further-
more, it is considered to be a resource, associated with
particularly favourable development and reduced risk of
mental health problems [44]. In contrast, and consistent
with previous research, a second expected SE prole is an
insecure one that is unstable and highly contingent. is
expectation is in line with Kernis’ [28] postulation of an
insecure SE, which is characterised by high vulnerability
to psychological disorders. Because of the highly contin-
gent nature of this SE prole, children and adolescents
with such a prole strive to improve themselves through
eort, achievement, and success [12, 45]. However, an
insecure SE prole may be associated with either low or
with high SE levels. It is possible that the level of SE in
this context depends primarily on successes, for example
academic performance, and thus on the activation of neg-
ative or positive self-attributions. In the context of narcis-
sism, scholars have applied variable-oriented approaches
to analyse discrepancies in explicit and implicit SE,
obtaining results that suggest fragile (explicitly high and
implicitly low SE levels; e.g., [46, 47]) or damaged SE (the
other way around; e.g., [48, 49]). ese results further
emphasises that insecure SE can occur with both high
and low SE levels. However, an insecure SE prole is tied
to increased risk of frustration, excessive demands, and
failure in relation to the individual’s own performance
aspirations [50]. is risk results in a third SE prole that
can be described in terms of learned helplessness [51] as
low, stable, and less contingent. Children and adolescents
who notice that they do not achieve the desired successes
and do not receive positive feedback despite their eorts
may give up on themselves [52, 53]. Lastly, a fourth pro-
le, in which all three facets are average and undierenti-
ated, would also be conceivable and in line with previous
research [54].
Despite the aforementioned considerations regarding
qualitatively dierent SE proles, identications of the
number and composition of the proles are exploratory,
as there is little evidence regarding the holistic view of
the three SE facets [54], and current ndings on the indi-
vidual SE facets are inconclusive.
Stability of self-esteem poroles
Based on the denition of global SE as a general, endur-
ing tendency to assess the value of one’s own person [55],
it can be assumed that the SE prole structures and pro-
le memberships are quite stable over the lifespan. is
assumption is supported by the rank-order stability of SE
(estimated. 64; [56]), which is comparable to the rank-
order stability of basal personality traits [17]. If changes
in prole memberships arise, the general tendency in
assessing SE should remain stable, so that individuals
could be assigned to similar or related proles over a
shorter or longer time period (e.g., changes from an opti-
mal-secure to an insecure SE prole seem unlikely and
would counteract the formation of a general, enduring
tendency to feel either valuable or worthless).
Self-esteem proles and parental academic conditional
regard
Various prominent theories regarding the development
of SE (e.g., the internalisation of early social experiences
model, attachment theory, symbolic interactionism theory,
and sociometer theory; for an overview, [11]) share the
view that parental behaviour may be the most important
factor inuencing children’s self-representation. In the
last decade, parental conditional regard has been identi-
ed as a central and frequently used parenting strategy,
especially in the academic domain, that frustrates basic
psychological needs, as suggested by self-determina-
tion theory (SDT; e.g., by creating an inner ambivalence
between autonomy and relatedness). It is considered
highly autonomy-suppressive and thus harmful to child
(SE) development [40, 57, 58]. PACR is understood as a
specic type of controlling parenting behaviour where
parental appreciation is dependent on the child meet-
ing the parent’s expectations in the academic domain.
us, children may try to retain their parents’ aection
by behaving as desired and striving to meet their parents’
expectations [59]. Here, PACR includes not only with-
drawal of love in response to undesirable child behaviour
(parental academic negative conditional regard, PANCR)
but also increases in parental appreciation in response to
the child meeting parental education standards (parental
academic positive conditional regard, PAPCR; [60]). It
has been shown that not only PANCR but also PAPCR
are associated with strong disadvantages (e.g., emotional
and motivational costs) compared to autonomy-support-
ive parenting strategies, while the eects of PANCR are
generally stronger than those of PAPCR [61]. In any case,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 4 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
PACR – both PAPCR and PANCR – does not lead to
children developing optimal, secure SE in the long run.
From the SDT perspective, PACR frustrates the satis-
faction of the basal psychological needs for autonomy,
experience of competence, and belonging, which are
assumed to be essential for personal growth, well-being,
and integrity [15]. PACR has a strong autonomy-sup-
pressing eect; children and adolescents must behave in
a certain way to receive aection and appreciation from
their parents (satisfaction of the need for belonging),
which is why they increasingly act on the basis of external
pressure, shame, and guilt rather than their own intrinsic
motivation [15, 62]. is results in introjected action reg-
ulation, and, in the long run, children begin to integrate
the (academic) conditions for self-appreciation into their
value system and perceive external pressures as their own
internal pressures [41, 63].
In recent years, the positive connection between SE
contingency and PACR has been repeatedly demon-
strated [60, 64–66]. In addition, children with parents
high in PACR show lower SE levels [67] and lower SE
stability, which vary along with academic outcomes [68].
While PAPCR is primarily associated with high SE con-
tingency [68, 69], PANCR has an additional negative
eect on the level of SE [67, 68]. Withdrawal of paren-
tal love and attention in the event of the child’s academic
failure is likely to pose a direct threat to the child’s SE
and, following SDT, to thwart the child’s ability to experi-
ence competence. Since PAPCR and PANCR cannot be
considered two sides of the same coin [12], it is justiable
to consider their relationships with the dierent SE pro-
les separately.
Based on the above, it can be assumed that more PACR
in general leads to a more contingent and possibly less
stable (more insecure) SE. Regardless of SE level, insecure
SE is often accompanied by avoidance of mistakes and
hiding of one’s own weaknesses (e.g., [12]), since children
try to avoid direct or indirect negative parental feedback
on their performance. Furthermore, as the insecurity of
SE increases, so does the tendency to devalue oneself on
the basis of negative performance. e use of PANCR in
particular is expected to be associated with a low, unsta-
ble, and highly contingent SE prole. In contrast, a high,
unstable, and highly contingent SE prole might be more
related to the use of PAPCR. is is because children
with this prole can be described as highly engaged and
motivated, which can contribute to success and meeting
expectations, at least in the short term [12]. If children of
parents who show PACR (and especially PANCR) consis-
tently fail to meet parental demands despite high eort
expenditure, learned helplessness is likely to occur, and
low, stable, and low-contingent SE develops. For the aver-
age SE prole (where all three facets are in the average
range), we assume less PACR than for the two proles
already mentioned, and we expect the development
of optimal, secure SE to be associated with the lowest
amount of PACR.
Self-esteem proles, self-kindness, self-judgement, and life
satisfaction
Optimal, secure SE (high, stable, and less contingent)
allows children and adolescents to integrate their own
strengths, weaknesses, and failures because they are
not seen as threatening to their self-worth [28, 44]. is
enables them to treat themselves with respect, accep-
tance, and friendliness, regardless of their performance,
and not to devalue themselves on the basis of mistakes.
It is precisely this positive, accepting, and tolerant atti-
tude towards oneself even when considering one’s own
weaknesses and imperfections that Ne [70] describes as
self-compassion. In addition to the facets of mindfulness
versus overidentication and connective humanity versus
isolation, self-kindness and a low tendency towards self-
judgement are central aspects of self-compassion and
include this patient and benevolent, rather than punitive
and judgemental, attitude towards the self [70].
Following the ‘self-compassion-as-a-consequence
model’, in which ‘believing you are a person of worth […]
is a precursor to feeling worthy of SC [self-compassion]’
([71] p. 620), we assume that optimal, secure SE corre-
lates with more self-kindness and less self-judgement.
e opposite is expected for insecure SE (regardless of SE
level), as high contingency leads to devaluation of the self
in the face of imperfections. Furthermore, for the prole
of learned helplessness (low, stable, and less contingent),
high self-judgement and low self-kindness are assumed,
since the person considers themselves to be completely
failed and worthless anyway. For the average SE prole,
we expect values somewhere in between: that is, more
self-kindness and less self-judgement than for the inse-
cure and learned helplessness proles, respectively, and
less self-kindness and more self-judgement than for the
optimal, secure SE prole.
Over the last few decades, it has been demonstrated
that life satisfaction is signicantly related to mental
health (for an overview, see [72]) and that SE is one of
the central predictors of both life satisfaction and mental
health [20]. Insecure SE varies depending on external cir-
cumstances [35] and leads to constant tension and strain
due to high performance pressure. In turn, this results in
lower life satisfaction and a higher risk for psychologi-
cal disorders (e.g., depression; [69]). erefore, the high-
est life satisfaction is expected to co-occur with optimal,
secure SE and to decrease across the following order of
proles: average SE, insecure SE (lower life satisfaction
with reduced SE level), and learned helplessness.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 5 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
Current study
Research objectives
As one of the rst, the present study aims to identify
SE proles in a sample of secondary school students to
examine the six-week stability of prole membership as
well as the relationship between SE prole and PACR,
self-kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfaction. For
this purpose, a longitudinal, person-oriented approach
was adopted to address three research objectives.
e rst main research objective was to identify the
number and characteristics of SE proles with respect
to the three facets of level, stability, and contingency. We
expected to nd at least four proles: (P1) optimal-secure
(high, stable, less contingent), (P2) average (all three fac-
ets in the average range), (P3) insecure (either with low
or high SE levels or both proles), and (P4) learned help-
lessness (low, stable, less contingent). Furthermore, we
explored the stability of the proles: we expected the
aliation to individual proles to be relatively stable over
a six-week period (as well as over longer time spans),
and any occurring transitions to be made only to related
proles.
e second research objective was to investigate the
relationship between PACR and the probability of mem-
bership of the dierent SE proles. We expected that
both more PAPCR and PANCR would predict the devel-
opment of the insecure (P3) and learned helplessness (P4)
SE proles, while the optimal-secure prole [1] would be
associated with the lowest expressions of PACR.
e third research objective was to examine possible
relationships between SE prole membership and self-
kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfaction. For stu-
dents with optimal-secure SE (P1), we expected more
self-kindness, less self-judgement, and more life satis-
faction. We hypothesised that students with the average
(P2), insecure (P3), and learned helplessness (P4) SE pro-
les would show more self-judgement as well as less self-
kindness and life satisfaction in the corresponding order.
Covariates
To investigate the relationships between SE proles,
PACR, self-kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfac-
tion, it is important to consider possible time-invariant
covariates. In particular, previous research has identi-
ed gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and migration
background as signicant inuencing factors in relation
to parenting behaviour, SE, self-kindness, self-judge-
ment, and life satisfaction. For example, SES is positively
related to less controlling parenting strategies [73, 74] as
well as adolescents’ mental health [75] and SE [76]. For
gender, inconsistent ndings emerge with respect to
SE, suggesting that, to the extent that signicant dier-
ences occur, boys have more positive and stable SE than
girls. In relation to migration status, for example, lower
life satisfaction [77] and lower global SE [78] are evident.
To avoid confounds of gender, SES, and migration back-
ground, these factors were integrated as covariates in the
analyses.
Method
Participants and procedure
e original sample in the current study consisted of 727
students (mean age at T1 = 13.55 years, SD = 1.09, age
span from T1 to T2 = 12–18 years) from German schools
of dierent types (including academic and non-academic
school tracks). e data were collected between March
and June 2017 at two measurement time points with an
average interval of six weeks. Participation in the survey
was voluntary; all parents and students were required
to complete an informed consent form beforehand.
Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of
Bielefeld University and all methods were carried out in
accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. e
survey was administered on site during one hour of the
school day and was guided by two trained instructors.
After removing students who either participated at
only one measurement time point or had missing val-
ues on over half of the scales of the relevant constructs,
data for 587 students (52.3% female) remained in the
analysis. In this sample, 205 participants had a migration
background, 40% were in seventh grade, 44.9% in eighth
grade, and 15.1% in ninth grade.
Missing data analysis
For the analysis of missing values, the data from the orig-
inal sample of 727 students (excluding 7 students who
participated at T2 but not at T1, e.g., due to illness) was
compared with the T1 data from students who dropped
out at T2 (104 students). Another 29 students had more
than 50% missing values on the relevant scales and were
therefore excluded from further analyses. Hence, a total
of 616 students participated at T1 and did not drop
out until T2 (51.2% girls, 36.1% with a migration back-
ground), and a total of 587 reliable pairs of data remained
for further analyses. In our study, boys had a signicantly
higher probability of dropping out (χ2 = 12.135, p = .002,
Cramer’s V = 0.129; [79, 80]). Furthermore, adolescents
who dropped out reported higher levels of experienced
PAPCR (t = 2.216, p = .028, d = 0.242) and signicantly
lower life satisfaction (t = −2.847, p = .005, d = 0.337). No
signicant eects were found for SES (χ2 = 1.01, p = .908),
migration background (χ2 = 0.093, p = .345), PANCR
(t = 0.375, p = .708), self-kindness (t = − 1.582, p = .116), or
self-judgement (t = 1.225, p = .223), nor for level of SE (t =
− 1.679, p = .094), SE stability (t = –0.125, p = .901), or SE
contingency (t = 0.021, p = .983). In further analyses, we
used the robust maximum likelihood estimator to handle
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 6 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
missing values. Gender, SES, and migration background
were included as covariates.
Measures
Predictors (PAPCR and PANCR), covariates (gender,
migration background, and SES), and outcomes (self-
kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfaction) were mea-
sured as manifest variables (i.e., scale mean measured at
T1 and T2). e four SE proles are composed of three
facets: level, stability, and contingency of SE. ese cor-
responding facets were modelled as latent variables with
multiple indicators measured at both time points. In
what follows, we report McDonald’s omega as a measure
of internal consistency because it reects the proportion
of variance in the scale results that is explained by the
overall latent factor [81, 82].
Facets of self-esteem
e three SE facets were assessed using the GermanSelf-
Esteem Inventory for Children and Adolescents [33] and
rated on a ve-point Likert scale (1 = does not apply,
5 = applies). e original scale of 30 items was shortened
to 12 items by integrating the items with the highest
loadings on the respective factors (following the manual)
into the short version. us, all three facets included four
items each. e scale for level of SE showed good internal
consistency (e.g., ‘I feel worthy’; ωT1 = 0.823, ωT2 = 0.846).
e items of the SE stability scale (e.g., ‘Whether I feel
good or not actually changes all the time’; ωT1 = 0.798,
ωT2 = 0.836) were recoded so that higher scores represent
higher stability. An example item on the SE contingency
scale is ‘I feel more valuable somehow when I get good
grades’; ωT1 = 0.720, ωT2 = 0.797). According to the results
of the conrmatory factor analysis (CFA), the three-fac-
tor structure could be found in our data.
Parental academic conditional regard
e two facets of PACR – PAPCR and PANCR – were
measured using nine items, each adapted from the Ger-
man Parental Academic Conditional Regard Inventory
[15, 83]. is instrument records parental aective and
behavioural reactions in terms of increased (PAPCR) or
withdrawn attention (PANCR) based on children’s school
performance. An example for PAPCR is ‘When I get
good grades in school, I notice that my main caregiver
praises me by paying more attention to me’ (ωT1 = 0.939,
ωT2 = 0.949). e PANCR scale (e.g., ‘When I get a bad
grade in school, I realise that my primary caregiver
is punishing me with disrespect’) also showed excel-
lent internal consistency at both measurement points
(ωT1 = 0.922, ωT2 = 0.950). All items were rated on a ve-
point Likert scale (1 = not true at all, 5 = is exactly right).
e solution of the two-factor CFA t the data well.
Self-compassion
Self-kindness and self-judgement were considered as the
two essential facets of self-compassion and measured via
the Self-Compassion Scale [70, 84]. Both scales included
ve items, which were rated on a ve-point Likert
scale (1 = very rare, 5 = very often). An example of a self-
kindness item is ‘I try to be understanding and patient
towards those traits of my personality that I don’t like’
(ωT1 = 0.726, ωT2 = 0.781). In comparison, ‘I disapprove
of and condemn my own mistakes and weaknesses’ is an
example of a self-judgement item (ωT1 = .740, ωT2 = .776).
e two-factor structure was approved in our data.
Life satisfaction
e Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; [85, 86]) was
used to measure one aspect of adolescents’ well-being.
It consists of ve items (e.g., ‘I am satised with my life’;
ωT1 = 0.824, ωT2 = 0.843) that are scored on a ve-point
Likert scale (1 = does not apply, 5 = applies). is scale was
also unidimensional in our study.
Covariates
Adolescents’ gender, migration background, and SES
were considered as covariates. ree response cat-
egories were provided for gender (1 = male, 2 = female,
3 = diverse). Migration background was dummy coded
as 0 = no migration background and 1 = migration back-
ground if at least one of the respondent’s parents or
grandparents had been born abroad. Respondents’ SES
was assessed by the number of books available in the
household using a ve-point response scale ranging from
1 = 0–10 books to 5 = over 200 books [87].
Analysis strategy
For the data analysis, the Morin and Litalien [88] teach-
ing paper was used for guidance. Latent prole analy-
sis (LPA) and latent transition analysis (LTA) were
performed to estimate the SE proles and the transitions
between these proles within the six-week time span. All
data analyses were conducted in Mplus 8.6 [89].
Longitudinal measurement invariance
Before investigating our research questions, we tested
the longitudinal measurement invariance of the SE fac-
ets. Once the nal model of measurement invariance
had been established, the corresponding factor scores
(estimated in standardised units as M = 0, SD = 1) of the
SE facets were saved for further analyses. Compared
with Z-scores, which are standardised scores represent-
ing how far each data point is from the mean in stan-
dard deviation units, factor scores provide a more direct
representation of the latent constructs and have the key
advantage of partially controlling for measurement error
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 7 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
while maintaining the hierarchical nature of the measure-
ment model [90].
Latent prole analysis
To determine the number of SE proles (Research Objec-
tive 1), cross-sectional LPA models were set up sepa-
rately for both measurement time points. is decision
was based on both theory and consideration of statisti-
cal characteristics. For statistical adequacy, the following
criteria were taken into account: Akaike’s information
criterion (AIC), the Consistent AIC (CAIC), the Bayesian
information criterion (BIC), the Adjusted BIC (ABIC),
entropy, and the Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test
(LMR-LRT). e smaller the AIC, CAIC, BIC, and ABIC,
the better the t of the model. Furthermore, signicant
(p < .05) LMR-LRT values indicate that a model with k
proles ts the data better than a model with k-1 pro-
les, whereas higher entropy values (ranging from 0 to 1)
reect higher classication accuracy.
Latent transition analysis
Following the identication and determination of the
number of proles for each of the measurement time
points, we integrated the cross-sectional LPA models
into a longitudinal LPA model and tested for prole simi-
larity by following four steps (see [91]). In the rst step,
we investigated the congural similarity to test whether,
at each measurement point, the same number of proles
could be identied using the same indicators. Next, we
held the mean values of the prole indicators constant
to check the structural similarity of the proles longi-
tudinally. If both congural and structural similarity (as
the prerequisite for all further steps) were obtained, we
performed a test of dispersion similarity. Here, we exam-
ined the extent to which dierences within proles were
similar across measurement time points by holding the
indicator variances constant over time. Finally, we tested
distributional similarity to determine whether the prob-
ability of prole membership diered over time. To iden-
tify the most similar model, we employed the t indices
of CAIC, BIC, and ABIC. e rule is that at least two of
the indices should decrease with the addition of further
restrictions [88, 92]. To test the stability of prole ali-
ations and the transitions between proles over the six-
week period (Research Objective 1), the model identied
as most similar was transferred into an LTA model, an
extension of LPA using longitudinal data. We followed
the manual auxiliary three-step approach [93].
Subsequently, it was possible to identify the associa-
tions between prole membership and covariates, pre-
dictors, and outcomes by including them in the LTA
model from the previous step (Research Objectives 2 and
3). To test the eects of presumed covariates and predic-
tors on prole membership (predictive similarity) over
time, each of the three covariates (i.e., gender, migration
background, and SES) and the two parental conditional
regard factors (i.e., PANCR and PAPCR) were included
as predictors in the LTA model. To examine whether the
association between prole membership and outcomes
persisted over the two measurement time points (explan-
atory similarity), each of the three outcomes (i.e., self-
kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfaction) was added
to the LTA model while controlling for all covariates and
predictors.
Results
e scale means and zero-order intercorrelations
between the variables are shown in Appendix (1) e
results regarding the measurement invariance of the
SE facets are presented in Appendix (2) Based on
these results, strong measurement invariance could be
assumed, enabling the factor scores of the SE facets to be
used in further analyses.
Latent proles of self-esteem facets
Regarding Research Objective 1, at T1, a four-prole
solution was shown to be optimal (see Appendix 1). At
T2, the LMR-LRT test was not signicant for four com-
pared to three proles, but all four t indices pointed
to the four-prole solution. e corresponding t indi-
ces also indicated that a ve- or six-prole solution was
more appropriate but produced proles that comprised
less than 5% of the participants that emerged from the
ve-prole solution (cf., [94]). Since the additional pro-
les were relatively close to the proles produced by
prior solutions and did not yield meaningful new insights
regarding qualitative dierences between proles (i.e.,
they showed only minor dierences in all three SE fac-
ets), they were not considered on the basis of parsimony
(e.g., [95]). Accordingly, when the theoretical consider-
ations, t indices, and explanatory power of additional
proles were considered together, the four-prole solu-
tion was assumed to be the best t for both measurement
time points and showed higher classication accuracy
(> 0.78) than solutions with more than four proles (see
Appendix 3). e next step in the analysis was to check
the similarity of the four-prole solutions across the two
measurement time points. As Appendix 4 shows, declin-
ing t indices despite further restrictions supported the
distributional similarity model, which formed the basis
for all further analyses.
e rst prole was labelled optimal-secure SE because
students in this prole (6.80% at T1 and 4.94% at T2)
had high values in terms of SE level and stability and
extremely low SE contingency. e second prole had a
similar pattern to that of the optimal-secure SE, with a
slightly lower level of stability and slightly higher contin-
gency. It was labelled good SE (21.30% at T1 and 13.28%
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 8 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
at T2). Adolescents in prole 3 showed values close to 0
for the three SE facets, representing the average SE prole
(35.61% at T1 and 40.38% at T2). Participants in the last
prole reported low SE level and stability but very high
SE contingency. erefore, the last prole represented
insecure SE with a low SE level and was thus called low-
insecure SE (36.29% at T1 and 41.40% at T2). No further
SE proles, for example insecure SE with a high SE level
or learned helplessness, were found when considering
ve- or six-prole solutions. Figure1 provides an over-
view of the identied proles.
Latent transitions between self-esteem proles
In the next step (Research Objective 1), following the
manual auxiliary three-step approach, we converted the
distributional similarity model into an LTA model. In this
LTA model, we examined the stability and change of the
SE proles over time (transition probabilities from T1
to T2 are summarised in Fig.2). Overall, prole stability
was high for all four SE proles (particularly for the low-
insecure prole). Transitions occurred almost exclusively
to related proles, consistent with our hypothesis.
Self-esteem proles, predictors, and outcomes
We ran predictive similarity models based on the dis-
tributional LTA model to address the eects of covari-
ates and PACR on SE prole membership. Multinomial
logistic regression estimations are shown in Table1. Boys
consistently showed a signicantly higher probability of
belonging to an optimal-secure SE prole than girls (e.g.,
OR = 2.956, p < .01 for low-insecure vs. optimal-secure).
Migration background was not signicantly associated
with the tendency to belong to an optimal-secure or low-
insecure SE prole. In addition, SES was not a signicant
predictor of the development of SE proles. For PACR
– both PAPCR and PANCR – signicant eects were
obtained: in general, increased PACR raised the probabil-
ity of belonging to the low-insecure compared to the opti-
mal-secure SE prole (e.g., PANCR: OR = 8.016, p < .01).
We ran explanatory similarity models based on the
distributional LTA model to examine the inuence of
adolescents’ SE on their well-being and self-compassion.
Table2 presents the results for the SE proles and out-
comes (self-kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfac-
tion) while controlling for the covariates and predictors.
Students belonging to the optimal-secure, good, and aver-
age SE proles showed signicantly more self-kindness
than members of the low-insecure prole. For the proles
optimal-secure, good, average, and low-insecure, in the
corresponding order, signicantly increasing mean val-
ues are shown with respect to self-judgemental thoughts
and behaviours. In terms of life satisfaction, there was no
signicant dierence between the good and average pro-
les, while there was signicantly higher life satisfaction
for the optimal-secure prole and signicantly lower life
satisfaction for the low-insecure prole.
Discussion
Despite the wealth of research on global SE as well as
its dierent facets (for an overview, [11]), few stud-
ies have jointly considered all three SE facets in child-
hood and adolescence or these facets’ relationship with
PACR, self-kindness, self-judgement, and life satisfac-
tion. is study, which employed a longitudinal, person-
oriented approach, obtained four central results: (1) the
identication of four SE proles, (2) the conrmation
of their high stability (particularly in relation to low-
insecure SE), (3) evidence of the overall negative impact
of PACR on SE development (promoting low, unstable,
and highly contingent SE), and (4) a demonstration of
the positive association between optimal-secure SE and
less self-judgement, more self-kindness, and greater life
satisfaction.
Self-esteem proles and their relationships
Four SE proles could be identied based on the facets
of SE level, stability, and contingency. In accordance with
our hypothesis, the proles optimal-secure, average, and
low-insecure were detected in our sample. However, the
proles high-insecure and learned helplessness (low, sta-
ble, not contingent) were not detected.
Nonetheless, corresponding SE proles are suspected
to exist in the general population, as, for example, high-
insecure SE has been extensively studied in the context
of variable-oriented approaches. However, a correspond-
ing SE prole may be more likely to be found in adults
and particularly in clinical sub-populations, as it is pri-
marily associated with narcissism (e.g., [28, 47, 50, 96]).
Furthermore, an insecure SE prole with an average SE
level as well as a prole of learned helplessness have
been identied in a previous person-oriented approach,
but only in a particularly large and selective sample [54].
Since learned helplessness is associated with a lack of
perspective; prolonged failures; and internal, stable, and
uncontrollable attributions (e.g., [97]), it can be assumed
that a corresponding SE prole would develop primar-
ily at older ages. Over the course of a child’s academic
career, school becomes more evaluative and competitive,
so that the evaluation of learning outcomes, as opposed
to the learning process, becomes more of a focus [98].
At the same time, self-condence regarding the ability
to master school tasks decreases with age and experi-
ence [99], especially in the case of persistent negative
experiences, which may favour the development of a low,
stable, and non-contingent SE prole in the long run.
Furthermore, it is conceivable that SE proles of learned
helplessness would be more prevalent in cultures with
either a lack of perspective or even more controlling and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 9 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
Fig. 1 Self-esteem proles at T1 and T2 based on distributional similarity model. Note. Level = self-esteem level; Stability = self-esteem stability; Contin-
gency = self-esteem contingency
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 10 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
Table 1 Results from multinomial logistic regressions for eects of predictors and demographics on prole memberships
good vs. optimal-secure average vs. optimal-secure low-insecure vs.
optimal-secure
β (SE) OR β (SE) OR β (SE) OR
Gender 0.215 (.309) 1.240 0.506 (.302) 1.658+ 1.084 (.326)* 2.956**
Migration 0.064 (.290) 1.066 -0.072 (.290) 0.931 0.084 (.302) 1.088
SES 0.079 (.118) 1.082 0.054 (.121) 1.055 0.021 (.127) 1.021
PANCR 0.534 (.886) 1.690 1.480 (.780)+ 4.392+ 2.081 (.797)** 8.016**
PAPCR -0.032 (.165) .968 0.328 (.149)* 1.388* 0.444 (.159)** 1.559**
good vs. low-insecure average vs. low-insecure good vs. average
β (SE) OR β (SE) OR β (SE) OR
Gender -0.868 (.236)** .420* -0.578 (.217)** .561** − .56(.27)* .748
Migration -0.020 (.230) .980 -0.156 (.228) .855 0.136 (.235) 1.145
SES 0.058 (.090) 1.059 0.032 (.088) 1.033 0.025 (.089) 1.026
PANCR -1.557 (.427)** .211** -0.602 (.180)* .548** -0.955 (.459)* .385**
PAPCR -0.476 (.122)** .621** -0.116 (.111) .890 -0.360 (.129)* .698**
Note. SE: Stan dard Error of the coecien t; OR: Odds Ratio; gende r: 1 = male, 2 = female; mig ration: 0 = without migration background,
1 = w ith migration backgroun d; SES = socioec onomic status; PAPCR = parental academic positive conditional regard;
PAN CR = parental academic ne gative conditional regard
* p < .05; ** p < .01. + p < .10
Fig. 2 Transition probabilities (in %) of self-esteem proles over time. Note. Stability estimates are in boldface. Transition probabilities sum up to 100%
for each measurement occasion
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 11 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
failure-oriented parenting behaviours. For example, Chi-
nese (vs. European American) children report that their
parents emphasise their academic failures instead of their
achievements [100]. Moreover, Chinese parents on aver-
age react more harshly than European American parents
to their children’s failures, but at the same time show
no positive reaction to their successes [101]. However,
further research on SE proles in dierent age and life
domains, as well as across dierent cultures, is needed to
better understand the consistency of the proles and the
conditions of their development.
Independently of the proles that were expected
but not found, another prole appeared that was not
expected. In addition to the optimal-secure prole, which
was only marginally represented (between 5% and 7% of
the sample), another prole was identied in the upper
SE range. e good prole showed a slightly lower SE
level, slightly lower stability, and slightly higher contin-
gency than the optimal-secure prole and was found
in many more children and adolescents. Empirically,
Crocker and Wolfe [102] found support for this nding
and argued that there are hardly any people who show
a non-contingent SE. Crocker [103] was able to dem-
onstrate that children and adolescents rarely have a low
score on the contingency domain of SE (< 5%).
is nding can also be explained in relation to the
strong negative inuence of parental conditional regard
on SE development, which, in alignment with our
hypothesis, we also found for both PANCR and PAPCR.
For example, one study found that over 80% of par-
ents use some kind of psychological control in the con-
text of parenting [104], which then negatively aects SE
development. Moreover, it is not only parents who sig-
nicantly inuence children’s SE development but also
peers [105] and teachers [106]. rough direct or indi-
rect feedback, such as the possible promotion of social
comparisons or even positive conditional regard for good
performance, peers and teachers can negatively impact
the holistic development of SE. Cohen and colleagues
[106] support this reasoning by showing that conditional
regard is a widely used motivational strategy in the class-
room, where it also frustrates children’s needs for auton-
omy and relatedness. However, further empirical data on
how multiple relationships aect SE are lacking, which
represents another interesting area of research [107].
Overall, this also provides theoretical support for the
dierentiation between optimal-secure SE (which devel-
ops only under truly optimal socialisation conditions at
all levels and is therefore poorly represented) and good
SE, which develops much more frequently in the general
population.
At the same time, these theoretical and empirical expla-
nations provide a possible explanation for the high num-
ber of children and adolescents with low-insecure SE and
for the strong stability of this prole, regardless of the
generally high prole stabilities and the possibility that
they were overestimated due to the short measurement
interval and thus stable contextual factors. In addition,
it can be assumed that parental conditional regard has a
double negative impact on children and adolescents, as
it not only aects them directly but also undermines the
development of their socioemotional competencies [40].
erefore, social relationships are indirectly negatively
inuenced, decreasing general well-being and presum-
ably further stabilising low-insecure SE. A similar eect
is produced by the tendency, among children and ado-
lescents whose parents use conditional regard, to experi-
ence their friends and partners as conditionally regarding
[108].
e dierentiated eects of PAPCR and PANCR on SE
proles could not be fully examined within the scope of
this study. On the one hand, only minor qualitative dier-
ences emerged between the proles; hence, it cannot be
determined, for example, whether PAPCR is more likely
to be related to high-insecure SE, while PANCR is more
likely to be related to a prole of learned helplessness due
to the additional negative inuence on SE level (and not
only on SE contingency; [67, 68]). However, the nding
that use of PANCR yields an eightfold increase in the
probability of belonging to the low-insecure compared
to the optimal-secure SE prole is consistent with previ-
ous assumptions. is is especially true when consider-
ing that the probability of belonging to the low-insecure
compared to the optimal-secure SE prole is only 1.5
times higher when PAPCR is used. On the other hand,
this study did not identify whether PAPCR and PANCR
co-occur to high, low, or varying degrees, but this point is
important in relation to PACR’s association with SE (cf.,
[12]). erefore, further research is needed to clarify the
relationship between PAPCR, PANCR, and qualitatively
dierent SE proles.
Table 2 Associations between Prole Membership and Outcomes after Controlling for Covariates
P1: optimal-secure
M [CI]
P2: good
M [CI]
P3: average
M [CI]
P4: low-insecure
M [CI]
Signicant test
Life Satisfaction 4.269 [4.078; 4.443] 3.866 [3.645; 4.033] 3.850 [3.765; 3.958] 2.942 [2.816; 3.083] P1 > P2 = P3 > P4
Self-kindness 3.009 [2.740; 3.279] 2.943 [2.743; 3.143] 3.083 [2.977; 3.189] 2.638 [2.531; 2.746] P4 < P2 = P3 = P1
Self-judgement 1.666 [1.524; 1.785] 1.881 [1.757; 1.985] 2.369 [2.275; 2.448] 3.125[3.002; 3.229] P1 < P2 < P3 < P4
Note. M: mean val ue. CI: 95% condence interv al of mean value
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 12 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
Empirical ndings and theoretical considerations
(e.g., SDT; [57, 58]) regarding the negative relationship
between PACR and SE are consistent with the results of
this study. However, assumptions regarding a causal rela-
tionship between corresponding constructs should be
treated with caution, as Otterpohl and colleagues [32]
point out that it is child characteristics and behaviours,
in the form of higher SE contingency, that inuence
parental conditional regard rather than the other way
around. In order to avoid reopening the debate, regard-
ing whether parents inuence their children or vice versa
[32], in the context of this study, it is important to inter-
pret the corresponding ndings correlatively. In line with
well-known socialisation theories (e.g., attachment the-
ory and sociometer theory), it is conceivable that parents
inuence their children’s SE via PACR. At the same time,
there are also well-founded theoretical considerations
that parents react with conditional regard to their chil-
dren’s contingent SE [32] or use PACR because their own
SE is contingent on their children’s performance [109].
Consequently, it can be concluded that increased PACR
is related to low-insecure rather than optimal-secure SE.
Finally, in line with our hypotheses, life satisfaction and
self-compassion in the form of increased self-kindness
and reduced self-judgement were shown to be signi-
cantly positively associated with optimal-secure SE and
signicantly negatively associated with low-insecure SE.
In addition, we found clear dierences between all SE
proles in the degree of self-judgement. Regarding chil-
dren and adolescents’ self-kindness, there was a signi-
cant dierence only between the low-insecure SE prole
on the one hand and the optimal-secure, good, and aver-
age proles on the other, where the latter three did not
dier signicantly. is eect could not be explained
statistically – for example, by dierences in the variance
of the two constructs – so further research is needed to
elucidate the corresponding eects. is is relevant for
research on resilient and healthy personalities as well
positive psychology, in order to identify which mecha-
nisms reduce self-judgement among children and adoles-
cents with optimal-secure SE compared to children and
adolescents with good or average SE. Placing the ndings
of this study in the context of previous research, it might
be assumed that children and adolescents with low-inse-
cure SE are at particular risk for developing depressive
symptoms (although causality remains unclear). Indeed,
Stolow and colleagues [110] showed that positive forms
of self-compassion, in the form of self-kindness, predict a
reduction in depressive symptoms, whereas no signicant
increase in depressive symptoms was found for negative
forms of self-compassion in the form of self-judgement.
However, other studies have provided ample evidence
of the central role of self-judgement in the development
of, for example, dierentiated personality disorders [111,
112]. In any case, further research is needed, although the
present ndings are in line with previous studies indicat-
ing that high self-compassion is associated with a secure,
positive self-image in adolescence (e.g., [111]).
Self-esteem proles and their stability
is study’s identication of mainly quantitative rather
than qualitative dierences between the proles (forming
a continuum comprising optimal-secure, good, average,
and low-insecure SE) may challenge the assumption of
independent SE facets. Proles with strong discrepancies
between SE instability and contingency were not found
in children and adolescents (nor in the group of psychol-
ogy and education undergraduates studied by Kärchner
& Schwinger; [54]). Although qualitatively dierent pro-
les, such as high-insecure SE or learned helplessness,
are still expected to occur in other sub-populations, these
proles do not show discrepancies between SE instabil-
ity and contingency either. Because SE contingency is
dened as the extent to which SE uctuates in response
to self-relevant events (e.g., [113]), consonance with SE
instability is expected. is expectation is consistent
with the frequently reported moderate positive correla-
tions between SE instability and contingency (e.g., [33]),
which were also conrmed by our ndings. Neverthe-
less, the distinctiveness and utility of the SE facets of
instability and contingency are evidenced by their weak
correlation with SE level [114] and supported by the fact
that they predict behaviour (e.g., aggression: [115]; ver-
bal defensiveness: [116]) and psychological adjustment
(e.g., depression: [117, 118]) beyond the eect of SE level.
us, it should not be concluded from the results of this
study that qualitatively dierent SE proles do not exist.
Rather, the question of the existence of proles that dier
in the facets of instability and contingency remains unre-
solved and requires further research.
Further research is also needed regarding the stability
of SE proles. is study found high prole stability over
a period of six weeks, in accordance with our hypoth-
esis, and transitions occurred predominantly to related
proles. Most prole transitions (in both directions)
occurred between the proles optimal-secure and good,
which might reect (the lack of) the reliability of the
measurement instrument or the similarity of the two pro-
les. However, the low-insecure prole showed concern-
ingly high stability, which might be due to self-fullling
prophecies. Low, unstable, and highly contingent SE is
associated with more self-handicapping, lower life sat-
isfaction [54], social withdrawal, and poor psychosocial
adjustment in general (e.g., [23, 25, 29]). Further research
is urgently needed to test whether this high stability is
also found in other samples and over longer time periods.
If this is the case, research should aim to elucidate what
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 13 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
this stability means for the long-term development of the
children and adolescents concerned.
In contrast to the results of this study, when examin-
ing results on the development of the individual SE facets
over the life span, we nd that contingency and instability
of SE develop similarly and decrease with age, whereas SE
level increases with age [119]. ese ndings suggest that
older people show more self-acceptance (e.g., [120]) and,
as age increases, mistakes and failures have less impact
on SE [119]. Another hypothesis comes from Crocker
and Wolfe [102], who state that as people age, their SE
becomes less dependent on external contingencies (e.g.,
praise and recognition from others) and gradually shifts
to dependence on more internal contingencies (e.g., vir-
tue). us, the SE of older people would uctuate less
due to external inuences in everyday life (such as social
feedback), and perceived SE stability would increase.
e reduction of SE instability and contingency with
increased age is further supported by the idea that older
individuals exhibit more adaptive emotion regulation
strategies, mindfulness, and acceptance (for further dis-
cussion see, [121]). ey also have better daily routines
[122] and tend to withdraw from negative interpersonal
relationships [123].
us, when the dierent facets are considered indepen-
dently, the ndings suggest that SE develops positively
over the life course, becoming higher, more stable, and
less contingent. However, the question of how the com-
bination of SE facets develops over the lifespan remains
unanswered. Would the development trend be similarly
positive? Based on the ndings of this study, this does not
seem to be the case.
Limitations and future research
is study has some limitations that contribute to the
formulation of new research questions. In our sample,
we found predominantly quantitative dierences in terms
of prole compositions. Further studies should focus on
larger samples as well as dierent sub-populations (e.g.,
dierent cultures, clinical samples) to identify qualitative
prole dierences and investigate their stability in the
long run. is consideration leads to the second point of
criticism: the six-week time interval is problematic due
to the stability of contextual factors and may have led to
an overestimation of prole stability. Further research
should examine longer time intervals in childhood, ado-
lescence, and adulthood and thereby map the inuence
of dierent developmental stages and signicant envi-
ronmental changes on the development of SE proles.
Another point of criticism arises from the fact that all
the data on all the constructs in this study were collected
from the perspectives of the children and adolescents,
which may have led to an overestimation of eects due
to common method variance. us, in future research, it
would be interesting to collect data on parenting behav-
iours from the parents’ perspective, as it has repeatedly
been demonstrated that self-perceptions and other-
perceptions can dier signicantly [124, 125]. In this
context, the inuence of parental conditional regard on
global SE could be considered not only for dierent com-
binations of PAPCR and PANCR (cf., [12]) but also in
relation to other domains, because parental conditional
regard is usually measured domain-specically [15] and
was captured here only for the academic domain. Eects
in dierent domains exert inuence in the same direc-
tion, as they follow the same principle of frustration of
basic psychological needs and introjection of shame and
guilt, albeit with dierent eect sizes (see [15]). A similar
limitation arises with respect to self-compassion, which
was operationalised by only two of the original six facets.
In further research, it would also be interesting to record
and control for students’ grades, as the signicant inu-
ence of academic success (e.g., in the form of grades) on
the relationship between PACR and dierent SE facets
has been demonstrated (e.g., [126]) but was not consid-
ered here. Last, as indicated above, it will be of central
importance to consider not only parents but also peers
and teachers as sources of conditional regard and to
develop prevention and intervention studies with the aim
of fostering positive changes towards a globally improved
SE.
Practical implications
Despite some limitations, the results of this study have
signicant practical implications. e high number of
children and adolescents with a low-insecure SE and the
high stability of this prole highlight the need for timely
prevention to promote global SE, especially since numer-
ous studies have already demonstrated the importance of
SE in the aetiology of dierent psychological disorders [1,
3, 6]. Nevertheless, shifts to more positive proles pro-
vide evidence that such a change is possible. is result
underscores that interventions that aim to prevent men-
tal disorders by promoting SE and averting far-reaching
consequences are also central to children’s and adoles-
cents’ well-being and life satisfaction. For example, one
starting point would be to educate parents about the
negative consequences of PANCR and PAPCR, as this
study shows that PACR in general has a negative impact
not only on the individual facets of SE but on global SE
development.
Conclusion
By using a longitudinal person-oriented approach, this
study has made a signicant contribution to elucidating
the composition of optimal-secure SE and its relation-
ship with parental conditional regard, self-kindness, self-
judgement, and life satisfaction. Optimal-secure SE (high,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 14 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
stable, and not contingent) is associated with signicantly
more self-compassion and signicantly higher life satis-
faction and is thus a sign of a resilient personality, espe-
cially compared to low-insecure SE (low, unstable, and
highly contingent). Given the important role of SE in the
aetiology of mental disorders, more longitudinal, person-
oriented studies should be conducted to identify particu-
larly vulnerable SE proles and the factors (in addition
to parental conditional regard) that inuence holistic SE
development. Finally, person-centred approaches can
help to clarify contradictory ndings regarding optimal
SE, which can be attributed to a lack of integration of the
major SE facets.
List of Abbreviations
AIC Akaike’s Information Criterion
ABIC Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion
CAIC Consistent Akaike’s Information Criterion
CFA Conrmatory Factor Analysis
LMR-LRT Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test
LPA Latent Prole Analysis
LTA Latent Transition Analysis
PANCR Parental academic negative conditional regard
PAPCR Parental academic positive conditional regard
PACR Parental academic conditional regard
SDT Self-Determination Theory
SE Self-esteem
SES Socioeconomic status
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40359-023-01380-3.
Supplementary Material 1
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
MB designed the study, carried out data analyses, interpreted the results, and
drafted and revised this manuscript; ZT contributed to this study by analysing
the data, supporting the result interpretation, and revising this manuscript; JH
contributed to this study by collecting data and revising earlier drafts of the
manuscript; EW contributed by revising earlier drafts of the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the nal manuscript.
Funding
No funds, grants or other support was received.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are
not publicly available [as there is no consent of the participants for the general
publication of the data] but datasets are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Bielefeld
University. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent forms were
collected from both the students and their parents.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Received: 10 December 2022 / Accepted: 5 October 2023
References
1. Kresznerits S, Rózsa S, Perczel-Forintos D. A transdiagnostic model of low self-
esteem: pathway analysis in a heterogeneous clinical sample. Behav Cogn
Psychother. 2022;50(2):171–86.
2. Zeigler-Hill V. The connections between self-esteem and psychopathology. J
Contemp Psychother. 2011;41(3):157–64.
3. Sowislo JF, Orth U. Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A
meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2013;139:213–40.
4. Beck AT. Depression. Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. New York:
Harper and Row; 1967.
5. Abdel-Khalek AM. Introduction to the psychology of self-esteem. In: Hollo-
way F, editor. Self-esteem: perspectives, inuences and improvement strate-
gies. New York: Nova Publishers; 2016. pp. 1–23. (Psychology of emotions,
motivations and actions).
6. Hilbert S, Goerigk S, Padberg F, Nadjiri A, Übleis A, Jobst A, et al. The role of
self-esteem in Depression: a longitudinal study. Behav Cogn Psychother.
2019;47(2):244–50.
7. Cvencek D, Greenwald AG, Meltzo AN. Implicit measures for preschool
children conrm self-esteem’s role in maintaining a balanced identity. J Exp
Soc Psychol. 2016;62:50–7.
8. Krauss S, Orth U, Robins RW. Family environment and self-esteem
development: a longitudinal study from age 10 to 16. J Pers Soc Psychol.
2020;119:457–78.
9. Brummelman E, Sedikides C. Raising children with high self-esteem (but not
narcissism). Child Dev Perspect. 2020;14(2):83–9.
10. Rogers CR. Client-centered therapy; its current practice, implications, and
theory. Oxford, England: Houghton Miin; 1951.
11. Orth U, Robins RW. Is high self-esteem benecial? Revisiting a classic ques-
tion. Am Psychol. 2022;77(1):5–17.
12. Stegen ST, Soenens B, Otterpohl N, Stiensmeier-Pelster J, Schwinger M.
Latent proles of parental academic conditional positive and negative
regard. Parenting. 2022;22(4):347–81.
13. Baumeister RF, Campbell JD, Krueger JI, Vohs KD. Does High Self-Esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
Lifestyles? Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2003;4(1):1–44.
14. Twenge JM, Foster JD. Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits
among American College Students, 1982–2009. Soc Psychol Personal Sci.
2010;1(1):99–106.
15. Assor A, Roth G, Deci EL. The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: a
self-determination theory analysis. J Pers. 2004;72(1):47–88.
16. Robins RW, Trzesniewski KH. Self-Esteem Development across the Lifespan.
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(3):158–62.
17. Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. Personality development across the life span: lon-
gitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. J Pers Soc Psychol.
2011;101(4):847–61.
18. MacDonald G. Individual dierences in self-esteem. In: Leary MR, Tangney JP,
editors. Handbook of self and identity. The Guilford Press; 2012. pp. 354–77.
19. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ, USA:
Princeton University Press; 1965.
20. Diener E, Diener M. Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-
esteem. In: Diener E, editor. Culture and well-being. Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands; 2009.
21. Bowles T. Focusing on Time Orientation to explain adolescent self Concept
and Academic Achievement: part II: testing a model. J Appl Health Behav.
1999;1:1–8.
22. Rosenberg M, Schooler C, Schoenbach C, Rosenberg F. Global self-esteem
and specic Self-Esteem: dierent concepts, dierent outcomes. Am Sociol
Rev. 1995;60(1):141.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 15 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
23. Zhou J, Li X, Tian L, Huebner ES. Longitudinal association between low self-
esteem and depression in early adolescents: the role of rejection sensitivity
and loneliness. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract. 2020;93(1):54–71.
24. Batool SS. Academic achievement: interplay of positive parenting, self-
esteem, and academic procrastination. Aust J Psychol. 2020;72(2):174–87.
25. Masselink M, Van Roekel E, Oldehinkel AJ. Self-esteem in early adolescence
as predictor of depressive symptoms in late adolescence and early adult-
hood: the mediating role of motivational and social factors. J Youth Adolesc.
2018;47(5):932–46.
26. Kernis MH, Cornell DP, Sun CR, Berry A, Harlow T. There’s more to self-esteem
than whether it is high or low: the importance of stability of self-esteem. J
Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65(6):1190–204.
27. Koszegi B, Loewenstein GF, Murooka T. Fragile self-esteem. SSRN Electron J.
2019.
28. Kernis MH. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychol Inq.
2003;14(1):1–26.
29. Kernis MH, Grannemann BD, Mathis LC. Stability of self-esteem as a modera-
tor of the relation between level of self-esteem and depression. J Pers Soc
Psychol. 1991;61(1):80–4.
30. Kernis MH, Grannemann BD, Barclay LC. Stability and level of self-
esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. J Pers Soc Psychol.
1989;56(6):1013–22.
31. Zeigler-Hill V, Enjaian B, Holden CJ, Southard AC. Using self-esteem instability
to disentangle the connection between self-esteem level and perceived
aggression. J Res Personal. 2014;49:47–51.
32. Otterpohl N, Bruch S, Stiensmeier-Pelster J, Stegen T, Schöne C, Schwinger
M. Clarifying the connection between parental conditional regard and
contingent self‐esteem: an examination of cross‐lagged relations in early
adolescence. J Pers. 2021;89(5):986–97.
33. Schöne C, Stiensmeier-Pelster J. SEKJ - selbstwertinventar für Kinder und
Jugendliche [Self-esteem inventory for children and adolescents]. Göttingen:
Hogrefe; 2016.
34. Sargent JT, Crocker J, Luhtanen RK. Contingencies of self–worth and depres-
sive symptoms in College Students. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2006;25(6):628–46.
35. Schöne C, Tandler SS, Stiensmeier-Pelster J. Contingent self-esteem and
vulnerability to depression: academic contingent self-esteem predicts
depressive symptoms in students. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1573.
36. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-
being: the self-concordance model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(3):482–97.
37. Wouters S, Doumen S, Germeijs V, Colpin H, Verschueren K. Contingencies of
self-worth in early adolescence: the Antecedent Role of Perceived Parenting:
parenting and contingencies of self-worth. Soc Dev. 2013;22(2):242–58.
38. McCormick WH, Turner LA, Foster JD. A model of perceived parenting,
authenticity, contingent self-worth and internalized aggression among col-
lege students. Personal Individ Dier. 2015;86:504–8.
39. Ne KD, Self-Compassion. Self-Esteem, and well-being. Soc Personal Psychol
Compass. 2011;5(1):1–12.
40. Assor A, Kanat-Maymon Y, Roth G. Parental conditional regard: psychologi-
cal costs and antecedents. In: Weinstein N, editor. Human Motivation and
Interpersonal Relationships. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014.
41. Ryan RM, Brown KW. What is optimal Self-Esteem? The cultivation and
consequences of contingent vs. true self-esteem as viewed from the self-
determination theory perspective. In: Kernis MH, editor. Self-esteem issues
and answers: a sourcebook of current perspectives. New York, US: Psychology
Press; 2006. pp. 125–31.
42. Ryan RM. Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the
self in psychological development. In: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation., Lincoln. NE, US: University
of Nebraska Press; 1993. p.1–56. (Current theory and research in motivation,
Vol. 40).
43. Ryan RM, Deci EL, Grolnick WS. Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: their rela-
tion to development and psychopathology. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors.
Developmental psychopathology. Theory and methods. Volume 1. Oxford,
England: John Wiley & Sons; 1995. pp. 618–55. (Wiley series on personality
processes.).
44. Koole SL, Kuhl J. Search of the real self: a functional perspective on optimal
self-esteem and authenticity. Psychol Inq. 2003;14(1):43–8.
45. Rhodewalt F. Possessing and striving for high self-esteem. In: Kernis MH,
editor. Self-esteem issues and answers: a sourcebook of current perspectives.
Psychology Press; 2013. pp. 281–7.
46. Rhodewalt F, Tragakis MW, Finnerty J. Narcissism and self-handicapping: link-
ing self-aggrandizement to behavior. J Res Personal. 2006;40(5):573–97.
47. Tracy JL, Robins RW. Death of a (narcissistic) salesman: an integrative model
of Fragile Self-Esteem. Psychol Inq. 2003;14(1):57–62.
48. Schröder-Abé M, Rudolph A, Schütz A. High implicit self‐esteem is not neces-
sarily advantageous: discrepancies between explicit and implicit self‐esteem
and their relationship with anger expression and psychological health. Eur J
Personal. 2007;21(3):319–39.
49. Vater A, Ritter K, Schröder-Abé M, Schütz A, Lammers CH, Bosson JK, et al.
When grandiosity and vulnerability collide: implicit and explicit self-esteem
in patients with narcissistic personality disorder. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry.
2013;44(1):37–47.
50. Zeigler-Hill V, Besser A, King K. Contingent self-esteem and anticipated reac-
tions to interpersonal rejection and achievement failure. J Soc Clin Psychol.
2011;30:1069–96.
51. Maier SF, Seligman ME. Learned helplessness: theory and evidence. J Exp
Psychol Gen. 1976;105:3–46.
52. Dweck CS, Leggett EL. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and per-
sonality. Psychol Rev. 1988;95:256–73.
53. Perrone L, Borelli JL, Smiley P, Rasmussen HF, Hilt LM. Do children’s attribu-
tions mediate the link between parental conditional regard and child depres-
sion and emotion? J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25(11):3387–402.
54. Kärchner H, Schwinger M. Selbstwertprole und ihre Korrelate im Lern- und
Leistungskontext: Eine latente prolanalyse [Self-esteem proles and their
correlates in the context of learning and achievement: a latent prole analy-
sis]. Z Für Pädagog [Psychol Ger J Educ Psychol]. 2018;32(3):171–86.
55. Brown JD. Self-esteem and self-evaluation: feeling is believing. In: Suls J,
editor. The self in social perspective. Volume 4. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1993. pp. 27–58. (Psychological perspectives on the
self.
56. Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Robins RW. Stability of self-esteem across the
life span. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(1):205–20.
57. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Human autonomy. In: Kernis MH, editor. Ecacy, Agency,
and self-esteem. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1995.
58. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the
self-determination of Behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–68.
59. Assor A, Tal K. When parents’ aection depends on child’s achievement:
parental conditional positive regard, self-aggrandizement, shame and coping
in adolescents. J Adolesc. 2012;35(2):249–60.
60. Otterpohl N, Stegen ST, Stiensmeier-Pelster J, Brenning K, Soenens B. The
intergenerational continuity of parental conditional regard and its role in
mothers’ and adolescents’ contingent self‐esteem and depressive symptoms.
Soc Dev. 2020;29(1):143–58.
61. Roth G, Assor A, Niemiec CP, Ryan RM, Deci EL. The emotional and academic
consequences of parental conditional regard: comparing conditional positive
regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting
practices. Dev Psychol. 2009;45(4):1119–42.
62. Assor A, Vansteenkiste M, Kaplan A. Identied versus introjected approach
and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: the limited
benets of self-worth strivings. J Educ Psychol. 2009;101:482–97.
63. Grolnick WS, Deci EL, Ryan RM. Internalization within the family. In: Grusec
JE, Kuczynski L, editors. Parenting and children’s internalization of values: a
handbook of contemporary theory. New York: Wiley; 1997. pp. 135–61.
64. Curran T. Parental conditional regard and the development of perfectionism
in adolescent athletes: the mediating role of competence contingent self-
worth. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2018;7(3):284–96.
65. Kollat SH. The role of conditional parental regard and excessively Contingent
Self-Esteem in Children’s peer Relationships. Dissertation ed. Pennsylvania
State University; 2007.
66. Haines JE, Schutte NS. Parental conditional regard: a meta-analysis. J Adolesc.
2023;95(2):195–223.
67. Otterpohl N, Keil A, Assor A, Stiensmeier J. Erfassung von elterlicher bedingter
Wertschätzung im Lern- und Leistungsbereich und im Bereich der Emo-
tionsregulation: Eine deutschsprachige Adaptation der parental conditional
regard scale (PCR-D) [Assessment of parental conditional regard in learning,
achievement, and emotion regulation: a german language adaptation of the
parental conditional regard scale (PCR-D)]. Z Für Entwicklungspsychologie
Pädagog. Psychol J Dev Educ Psychol. 2017;49:98–111.
68. Wouters S, Colpin H, Luyckx K, Verschueren K. Explaining the relationship
between parenting and internalizing symptoms: the role of self-esteem level
and contingency. J Child Fam Stud. 2018;27(10):3402–12.
69. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. New York, US: The Guilford Press;
2017.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 16 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
70. Ne KD. The Development and Validation of a scale to measure Self-Compas-
sion. Self Identity. 2003;2(3):223–50.
71. Donald JN, Ciarrochi J, Parker PD, Sahdra BK, Marshall SL, Guo J. A worthy self
is a caring self: examining the developmental relations between self-esteem
and self‐compassion in adolescents. J Pers. 2018;86(4):619–30.
72. Fergusson DM, McLeod GFH, Horwood LJ, Swain NR, Chapple S, Poulton R.
Life satisfaction and mental health problems (18 to 35 years). Psychol Med.
2015;45(11):2427–36.
73. Benner AD, Boyle AE, Sadler S. Parental involvement and adolescents’ Educa-
tional Success: the Roles of prior achievement and socioeconomic status. J
Youth Adolesc. 2016;45(6):1053–64.
74. Ho E, Laursen B. Socioeconomic status and parenting. Handbook of parent-
ing. 3rd ed. Routledge; 2019.
75. Klipker K, Baumgarten F, Göbel K, Lampert T, Hölling H. Mental health prob-
lems in children and adolescents in Germany. Results of the cross-sectional
KiGGS Wave 2 study and trends. J Health Monit. 2018;3(3):34–41.
76. Orth U, Erol RY, Luciano EC. Development of self-esteem from age
4 to 94 years: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull.
2018;144(10):1045–80.
77. Ullman C, Tatar M. Psychological Adjustment among israeli adolescent immi-
grants: a report on life satisfaction, Self-Concept, and self-esteem. J Youth
Adolesc. 2001;30(4):449–63.
78. Altinyelken HK. Migration and self-esteem: a qualitative study among internal
migrant girls in Turkey. Adolescence. 2009;44(173):149–63.
79. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New
York: Routledge; 1988.
80. Ellis PD. The essential guide to Eect Sizes: statistical power, Meta-analysis,
and the interpretation of Research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 2010.
81. Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating
reliability. But… Commun Methods Meas. 2020;14(1):1–24.
82. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unied treatment. Psychology Press; 1999.
83. Roth G. Perceived parental conditional regard and autonomy support as
predictors of young adults’ Self- Versus other-oriented prosocial tendencies. J
Pers. 2008;76(3):513–34.
84. Hupfeld J, Rueux N. Validierung einer deutschen Version der Self-Compas-
sion Scale (SCS-D) [Validation of a german version of the self-compassion
scale (SCS-D)]. Z Für Klin Psychol psychother [Ger. J Clin Psychol Psychother].
2011;40(2):115–23.
85. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Grin S. The satisfaction with Life Scale. J
Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5.
86. Pavot W, Diener E, Colvin CR, Sandvik E. Further validation of the satisfaction
with Life Scale: evidence for the Cross-Method Convergence of Well-Being
measures. J Pers Assess. 1991;57(1):149–61.
87. OECD. Students questionnaire of the OECD programme for international
student assessment (PISA) 2009. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development; 2009.
88. Morin AJS, Litalien D. Longitudinal tests of prole similarity and latent transi-
tion analyses. Montreal, QC: Substantive Methodological Synergy Research
Laboratory; 2017.
89. Muthen LK, Muthen BO, Mplus. 8. 1998.
90. Tang X, Wang MT, Parada F, Salmela-Aro K. Putting the goal back into grit: aca-
demic goal commitment, grit, and academic achievement. J Youth Adolesc.
2021;50(3):470–84.
91. Morin AJS, Litalien D. Mixture modeling for Lifespan Developmental
Research. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University
Press; 2019.
92. Gillet N, Morin AJS, Reeve J. Stability, change, and implications of students’
motivation proles: a latent transition analysis. Contemp Educ Psychol.
2017;51:222–39.
93. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: three-step
approaches using Mplus. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2014;21(3):329–41.
94. Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. Deciding on the number of classes in
latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo Simulation
Study. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2007;14(4):535–69.
95. Spurk D, Hirschi A, Wang M, Valero D, Kaueld S. Latent prole analysis:
a review and how to guide of its application within vocational behavior
research. J Vocat Behav. 2020;120:103445.
96. Rhodewalt F. Possessing and striving for high self-esteem. Self-Esteem Issues
Answ Sourceb Curr Perspect. 2006;281–7.
97. Valås H. Learned helplessness and Psychological Adjustment: Eects of age,
gender and academic achievement. Scand J Educ Res. 2001;45(1):71–90.
98. Eccles JS, Midgley C, Adler T. Grade-related changes in the school environ-
ment: Eects on achievement motivation. Dev Achiev Motiv. 1984;3:283–331.
99. Stipek DJ. Motivating students to learn: a lifelong perspective. National Com-
mission on Excellence in Education; 1984.
100. Ng FFY, Pomerantz EM, Lam Sfong. European american and chinese parents’
responses to children’s success and failure: implications for children’s
responses. Dev Psychol. 2007;43(5):1239–55.
101. Qin DB, Way N, Mukherjee P. The other side of the model minority story: the
familial and peer challenges faced by chinese american adolescents. Youth
Soc. 2008;39(4):480–506.
102. Crocker J, Wolfe CT. Contingencies of self-worth. Psychol Rev.
2001;108:593–623.
103. Crocker J. Contingencies of Self-Worth: implications for self-regulation and
psychological vulnerability. Self Identity. 2002;1(2):143–9.
104. Teuber Z, Tang X, Sielemann L, Otterpohl N, Wild E. Autonomy-related parent-
ing proles and their Eects on Adolescents’ academic and psychological
development: a longitudinal person-oriented analysis. J Youth Adolesc.
2022;51(7):1333–53.
105. Gorrese A, Ruggieri R. Peer attachment and self-esteem: a meta-analytic
review. Personal Individ Dier. 2013;55(5):559–68.
106. Cohen R, Moed A, Shoshani A, Roth G, Kanat-Maymon Y. Teachers’ conditional
regard and students’ need satisfaction and Agentic Engagement: a Multilevel
Motivation Mediation Model. J Youth Adolesc. 2020;49(4):790–803.
107. Verschueren K. Attachment, self-esteem, and socio-emotional adjustment:
there is more than just the mother. Attach Hum Dev. 2020;22(1):105–9.
108. Moller AC, Roth G, Niemiec CP, Kanat-Maymon Y, Deci EL. Mediators of the
associations between parents’ conditional regard and the quality of their
adult-children’s peer-relationships. Motiv Emot. 2019;43(1):35–51.
109. Stegen ST, Otterpohl N, Wessing F, Schwinger M, Assor A, Kanat-Maymon Y,
et al. The process linking Child-Invested Contingent Self-Esteem and condi-
tional regard: the roles of maternal anger and its regulation. J Child Fam Stud.
2022;31(9):2412–23.
110. Stolow D, Zuro DC, Young JF, Karlin RA, Abela JRZ. A prospective examina-
tion of Self-Compassion as a predictor of depressive symptoms in children
and adolescents. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2016;35(1):1–20.
111. Barry CT, Loin DC, Doucette H. Adolescent self-compassion: Associations
with narcissism, self-esteem, aggression, and internalizing symptoms in at-
risk males. Personal Individ Dier. 2015;77:118–23.
112. Shin HS, Black DS, Shonko ET, Riggs NR, Pentz MA. Associations among Dis-
positional Mindfulness, Self-Compassion, and executive function prociency
in early adolescents. Mindfulness. 2016;7(6):1377–84.
113. Crocker J, Park LE. The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychol Bull.
2004;130(3):392–414.
114. Okada R. A meta-analytic review of the relation between self-esteem level
and self-esteem instability. Personal Individ Dier. 2010;48(2):243–6.
115. Webster GD, Kirkpatrick LA, Nezlek JB, Smith CV, Paddock EL. Dierent slopes
for dierent folks: self-esteem instability and gender as moderators of the
relationship between self-esteem and attitudinal aggression. Self Identity.
2007;6(1):74–94.
116. Kernis MH, Lakey CE, Heppner WL. Secure versus fragile high self-esteem as a
predictor of verbal defensiveness: converging ndings across three dierent
markers. J Pers. 2008;76(3):477–512.
117. Cambron MJ, Acitelli LK, Steinberg L. When friends make you blue: the role of
friendship contingent self-esteem in predicting self-esteem and depressive
symptoms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010;36(3):384–97.
118. Franck E, De Raedt R. Self-esteem reconsidered: unstable self-esteem outper-
forms level of self-esteem as vulnerability marker for depression. Behav Res
Ther. 2007;45(7):1531–41.
119. Meier LL, Orth U, Denissen JJ, Kühnel A. Age dierences in instability,
contingency, and level of self-esteem across the life span. J Res Personal.
2011;45(6):604–12.
120. Ry CD. Possible selves in adulthood and old age: a tale of shifting horizons.
Psychol Aging. 1991;6(2):286.
121. Isaacowitz DM. What do we know about aging and emotion regulation?
Perspect Psychol Sci J Assoc Psychol Sci. 2022;17(6):1541–55.
122. Bouisson J, Swendsen J. Routinization and Emotional Well-Being: an experi-
ence Sampling Investigation in an Elderly French Sample. J Gerontol B
Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003;58(5):P280–2.
123. Coats AH, Blanchard-Fields F. Emotion regulation in interpersonal problems:
the role of cognitive-emotional complexity, emotion regulation goals, and
expressivity. Psychol Aging. 2008;23(1):39–51.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 17 of 17
Brueckmann et al. BMC Psychology (2023) 11:322
124. Lohaus A, Vierhaus M. Beurteilerdiskrepanzen bei der Erfassung internali-
sierenden/ externalisierenden verhaltens [Parent-Child discrepancies in the
Assessment of Internalizing/Externalizing Behavior]. Z Für Entwicklungspsy-
chologie Pädagog [Psychol J Dev Educ Psychol]. 2014;46(1):1–10.
125. Taber SM. The veridicality of children’s reports of parenting: a review
of factors contributing to parent–child discrepancies. Clin Psychol Rev.
2010;30(8):999–1010.
126. Brummelman E, Crocker J, Bushman BJ. The praise Paradox: when and
why praise backres in Children with Low Self-Esteem. Child Dev Perspect.
2016;10(2):111–5.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional aliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by Malin Brückmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Malin Brückmann on Oct 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
