Contingency as a Moderator of the Effect of Domain Self-Esteem on Global Self-Esteem

Abstract

The aim in this study was to examine whether contingency of domain self-esteem moderates the effect of domain self-esteem on global self-esteem. Chinese university students (N = 320) completed the Contingencies of Self-worth Scale and the Self-worth Questionnaire (both by Yang, Hu, Pang, & Wang, 2007) and the Chinese version (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1997) of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Results indicated that in domains that the individual could control, such as ability or behavior style, domain self-esteem directly influenced global self-esteem; in domains that the individual could not control, such as appearance and nationality, contingency of domain self-esteem moderated the effect of domain self-esteem on global self-esteem. Cultural differences in contingencies of domain self-esteem are also discussed.

Factors Underlying Contextual Variations in the Structure of the Self: Differences Related to SES, Gender, Culture, and “Majority/Nonmajority” Status During Early Adolescence

“…Well‐known domains of the self‐concept include social functioning, cognitive/academic performance, and athletic ability (Harter, ). The second premise is that the construction of the self is the result of both individual and contextual factors (Bukowski, Adams, & Santo, ; Hu, Yang, Wang, & Liu, ). Contexts vary in the significance that is ascribed to particular domains of the self‐concept.…”

Contingent Self‐worth in Chinese Adolescents and Young Adults: Relations with Global Self‐Esteem and Depressive Symptoms

“…Crocker and colleagues argue that compared to CSW in externally controlled domains, CSW in internally controllable domains may be less detrimental to psychological well-being because internally controlled CSW needs are comparatively easier to satisfy (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001;Crocker et al, 2003;Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). Other research suggests that the combination of CSW and beliefs about the controllability of outcomes in a given domain may interact to impact performance in complex ways (Hu, Yang, Wang, & Liu, 2008;Niiya, Brook, & Crocker, 2010;Niiya, Crocker, & Bartmess, 2004). There is some ambiguity, however, regarding how domains are classified as internal versus external.…”