Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright (C 2002 by

2002, Vol. 6, No. 1, 59-71 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Self-Esteem and Socioeconomic Status: A Meta-Analytic Review

Jean M. Twenge
Department of Psychology
San Diego State University

W. Keith Campbell
Department of Psychology
University of Georgia

Socioeconomic status (SES) has a small but significant relationship with self-esteem
(d = .15, r = .08) in a meta-analysis of 446 samples (total participant N = 312,940).
Higher SES individuals report higher self-esteem. The effect size is very small in
young children, increases substantially during young adulthood, continues higher un-
til middle age, and is then smallerfor adults over the age of60. Gender interacts with
birth cohort: The effect size increased over time for women but decreased over time
for men. Asians and Asian Americans show a higher effect size, and occupation and
education produce higher correlations with self-esteem than income does. The results
are most consistent with a social indicator or salience model.

Self-esteem and socioeconomic status (SES) are
two of the most important and frequently examined
psychological and sociological variables. At their in-
tersection we find the relationship between the individ-
ual's view of self (self-esteem) and society's primary
view of the individual (SES). Yet the empirical rela-
tionship between these two variables is very unclear,
with some studies finding a positive relationship, some
negative, and some no relationship at all (e.g.,
Gray-Little & Appelbaum, 1979; Kohr, Coldiron,
Skiffington, Masters, & Blust, 1988; Mullis, Mullis, &
Normandin, 1992; Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978;
Trowbridge, 1972; Wiltfang & Scarbecz, 1990; Wylie,
1974; Zirkel & Moses, 1971). The inconsistent find-
ings suggest the existence of powerful moderators,
which may be examined using a meta-analytic strategy.
For example, is SES more important to self-esteem
with increasing age and occupational achievement?
Have there been changes in the importance of SES to
the self-esteem of women? A meta-analysis opens the
possibility of delineating the sources of variation in the
research to date and thus the theoretical underpinnings
of the relationship between self-esteem and SES.
In this article, we used meta-analytic techniques to
summarize 446 studies of self-esteem and SES. Taken
together, these studies include almost a third of a mil-
lion participants (total N = 312,940). We present and
then test several theoretical models of the self-es-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jean M. Twenge, Depart-
ment of Psychology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile
Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4611. E-mail: jeant@umich.edu or
jtwenge@ mail.sdsu.edu
teem/SES link, using moderators such as age, gender,
race and culture, and SES measurement to confirm or
disconfirm each model.
Before we begin, it is important to define both
self-esteem and SES. Self-esteem is usually defined as
"the extent to which one prizes, values, approves, or
likes oneself' or "the overall affective evaluation of
one's own worth, value, or importance" (Blascovich &
Tomaka, 1991, p. 115). This article focuses on self-es-
teem within this definition-that is, as an overall eval-
uation of the self. SES can also be a difficult term to
define. In this analysis, any study measuring a respon-
dent's (or their parents' or family's) educational attain-
ment, occupational status, income, or a composite of
these is included in the definition of SES. Although
these indicators of SES are separable and different,
they tend to be correlated. (For example, occupations
with higher status generally offer more salary than
those with low status.) More important, these indica-
tors can be subsumed in the same theoretical rubric,
measuring social class and social status. In many ways,
SES categories are the quintessential example of "sta-
tus groups"-categories of people with unequal
amounts of prestige (Gerth & Mills, 1946).
Moderator variables might help explain the process
and causation between SES and self-esteem. Age differ-
ences show how the source of SES might matter for
self-esteem: Children's SES is ascribed from their par-
ents, whereas adult SES is derived from the individual
and is presumably earned (e.g., Rosenberg & Pearlin,
1978). Birth cohort, as a proxy for the larger social envi-
ronment, may also affect the link between SES and
self-esteem (Caspi, 1987; Elder, 1974, 1981; Gergen,

59
 TWENGE & CAMPBELL
1973; Nesselroade & Baltes, 1974; Twenge, 2000, 2001;
Twenge & Campbell, in press). In particular, women's
work roles have changed tremendously over the last 40
years, a shift that is likely to affect women's individual
characteristics (Stewart & Healy, 1989; Twenge, 2001).
In her social role theory, Eagly (1987) argued that work
and family roles cause gender differences in personality
and self-views. Thus, women's changing work roles
might affect the correlation between SES and self-esteem
for women; gender and birth cohort may interact. In addi-
tion, culture and race may affect the relationship. Cul-
tures and racial groups vary in their perspectives, and
these perspectives affect personality, emotion, and cogni-
tion (e.g., Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999; Heine &
Lehman, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus,
Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996; Markus, Kitayama, &
VandenBos, 1996; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; Suh, Diener,
Oishi, & Triandis, 1998). Values placed on education and
income clearly differ among cultures, a factor that could
moderate the SES/self-esteem effect. The way SES is
measured might also be an important moderator. The
most common measures of SES are education, occupa-
tion, and income; some of these might be more important
to self-esteem than others.
Models Relevant to SES
and Self-Esteem
We delineate three models we judged most relevant
to SES and self-esteem: social indicator or salience, re-
flected appraisals, and self-protective mechanisms.
The social indicator or salience model has been used to
explain the link between status and self-esteem (e.g.,
Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978), taking the varying psy-
chological centrality of status into account (French &
Kahn, 1962). The reflected appraisals model, some-
times called "internalization of stigma," was used in
the mid-20th century to theorize that oppressed groups
should have low self-esteem (see, e.g., Cartwright,
1950; Erikson, 1956; Scott, 1997). This model fell
somewhat out of favor during the 1980s when re-
Table 1. A Summary of Predictions
Overall
Model Effect Size Age
Social Indicator or Positive Linear upward, then
Salience decrease in older
adults
Reflected Appraisals Positive Constant in children,
higher for adults.
Possibly highest
during middle age
Self-Protective Neutral or small Most negative for
Mechanisms positive school age, then less
negative or neutral
Note: SES = socioeconomic status.
60
searchers found that Black Americans reported self-es-
teem equal to or higher than that of Whites (e.g., Porter
& Washington, 1979; however, the model may apply
differently to SES groups compared to racial groups).
These findings spurred a reappraisal of minority
self-esteem centered on self-protective mechanisms
(Crocker & Major, 1989). Each model makes specific
predictions for the overall effect size and four primary
moderator variables (age, gender interacting with birth
cohort, race and culture, and SES measurement).
These predictions are summarized in Table 1.
Social Indicator or Salience Model
Because SES is an indicator of status within social
groups, elevated self-esteem should result from ele-
vated SES (Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978). If an indi-
vidual aspires to success in the form of social status
and wealth and achieves these goals, elevated self-es-
teem should result (e.g., James, 1890/1950; Pelham,
1995; Pelham & Swann, 1989). Conversely, the indi-
vidual who does not achieve social status may suffer
from lowered self-esteem. This might be especially
true in the United States, where SES is perceived as
changeable and earned (Hare, 1977). Thus, this
model predicts a positive correlation between self-es-
teem and SES.
However, there is reason to expect that SES does not
have the same meaning and salience to every group.
Thus, this model predicts that the relationship between
self-esteem and SES should be moderated by several
variables. As French and Kahn (1962) argued, people
differ in what they consider important to their self-es-
teem: Dimensions of the self may differ in their psy-
chological "centrality." In the case of SES, individuals
probably differ in the emphasis they place on SES in
their overall equation for self-esteem.
Age. To explain age differences in the effect
size, the social indicator or salience model notes the
following. In those college age or younger, SES is
measured not by the individual's own income or ac-
Gender and
Birth Cohort Race and Culture SES Measurement
Increase over time for Based on salience Education and
women, decrease occupation higher
for men
Increase over time for Unclear for race; None
women, no change based on treatment
for men of others in culture
No changes More negative for None
minorities
 SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
complishments, but by their parents'. Thus, for chil-
dren and adolescents, SES is an ascribed status, one
they have not earned or worked toward (Demo &
Savin-Williams, 1983; Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978).
For adults, however, SES reflects their own, earned
status, such as their education, their occupation, and
their income. Thus, SES is a social indicator of
earned status only for adults. In addition, the salience
or psychological centrality of SES to the self-concept
may change with age (Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978).
Young adults who have not yet attained their full
earning power may not find SES as salient as mid-
dle-age individuals, who are more likely to be at the
peak of their careers and their income. Similarly,
older adults and the elderly, often retired, may no lon-
ger view their occupation and income as their pri-
mary source of self-esteem. (Because SES is still an
earned status for older adults, it is not likely that the
effect size will return to the levels of childhood.)
Thus, the salience or centrality model predicts that
the correlation between self-esteem and SES will
vary considerably depending on the age of the indi-
vidual. It will begin very low in elementary school
children, increase slowly until high school and col-
lege, rise considerably for young adults, increase
again for the middle-aged, and then decrease for
older adults and the elderly.
Gender and birth cohort. This model also pre-
dicts gender differences across generations. In these
discussions, we refer to birth cohort or generation as an
effective proxy for changes in the larger sociocultural
environment (see Twenge, 2000, 2001, 2002, for dis-
cussions). Most relevant for changes in the
SES/self-esteem link, women's labor force participa-
tion has changed considerably over the years. In addi-
tion, women have increasingly pursued professional
careers; the percentage of law, medicine, and doctoral
degrees awarded to women has quadrupled since the
early 1 960s (Statistical Abstract of the United States,
U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). The changes for
men over this time have been more subtle. Men's la-
bor-force participation has not changed. However, they
do not dominate the professions as they once did. In ad-
dition, men have relinquished sole ownership of the
breadwinner role, as fewer men are now solely respon-
sible for supporting their families. Using the social in-
dicator or salience model, we reason that these gender
role changes have increased the psychological central-
ity of SES to women's self-esteem and decreased it for
men's. Thus, this model predicts that the effect size
linking SES and self-esteem will increase over time for
women and decrease over time for men.
Race and culture. The salience or centrality
model may also have implications for racial and cul-
tural groups. If one culture or subculture considers SES
more salient than another does, racial or national dif-
ferences in the effect size may appear. However, it is
difficult to make a priori predictions about each
group's valuation of SES. Thus, we can only say that
racial and national differences would not be inconsis-
tent with this model, although it is difficult to predict
the pattern of these differences. We can make one pre-
diction: If culture influences the salience of SES to
self-esteem, we would expect to see similarities be-
tween samples of recent U. S. immigrants and samples
from their home countries. For example, many Asian
Americans are relatively recent immigrants; the effect
size for Asian Americans should be similar to that of
regional Asian samples. Research suggests that both
Asians and Asian Americans emphasize education
more than Westerners do (e.g., D'Ailly, 1992; Goyette
& Xie, 1999; Whang & Hancock, 1994). This suggests
that Asian groups might show a stronger link between
SES and self-esteem.
SES measurement. In addition, the way SES is
measured may also moderate the effect size based on sa-
lience. For example, occupational and educational sta-
tus may be more salient to personal self-esteem than in-
come because they are better indicators of social status
and importance. If this is true, the salience or centrality
model predicts higher effect sizes for occupational sta-
tus and educational level than for income.
Reflected Appraisals
According to the reflected appraisals model, we in-
ternalize others' perceptions of ourselves (Cooley,
1902; Mead, 1934). This process is sometimes referred
to as the "looking-glass self' or the "internalization of
stigma." This paradigm applies to SES because SES in-
fluences the way others treat us and is thus eventually
reflected in self-esteem. If others see us as lower class
and lower status, we are likely to see ourselves that way
and therefore experience lower self-esteem. For exam-
ple, children and adults living in poor neighborhoods,
using food stamps, or wearing worn clothes may be os-
tracized and demeaned by more advantaged people,
with obvious consequences for the self-concept
(Symonds, 1968; Wiltfang & Scarbecz, 1990). Con-
versely, people with high education, high occupational
prestige, and high income are often treated with respect
and consideration, perhaps leading to higher self-es-
teem. Although the internalization of stigma model has
received little support from studies of race differences
in self-esteem (Twenge & Crocker, in press), it may
still be an effective model for SES because SES is
viewed as changeable and earned, whereas race is not
(Hare, 1977). Like the social indicator or salience
model, the reflected appraisals model predicts a posi-
tive correlation between self-esteem and SES.
61
 TWENGE & CAMPBELL
Age. The reflected appraisals model predicts age
differences, but only after young adulthood. Children
old enough to complete a self-esteem measure are
also old enough to internalize others' opinions, so
there should be few differences between elementary,
junior high, and high school samples. After young
adulthood, the effect size should increase because
outsiders' judgments of low-SES adults are likely to
be harsher than their judgments of low-SES children
(just as their judgments of high SES are likely to be
more positive for adults). Judgments of SES are
likely to be strongest for middle-aged adults because
this is the age when income is expected to peak. Re-
tired adults who are poor might be judged less
harshly. On the other hand, judgments could be simi-
lar for all adult age groups. People might think that
young adults and retirees are just as responsible for
their SES as middle-aged adults are.
Gender and birth cohort. Because the reflected
appraisals model is concerned with the perceptions of
others, change over time in attitudes toward women is
relevant for the gender and birth cohort moderator.
Most evidence indicates that attitudes toward women's
working have grown steadily more positive over time
(Thornton, Alwin, & Camburn, 1983; Twenge, 1997).
Thus, the correlation between SES and self-esteem
should increase over time for women: High-SES
women have been judged more positively over time,
and this should be internalized in the form of self-es-
teem. There is little work on changes in attitudes to-
ward men's working over time; it seems likely that
these attitudes have not changed much, as men's work
patterns have not substantially altered. Thus, the corre-
lation between SES and self-esteem should not change
over time for men.
Race and culture. The reflected appraisals
model does not make clear predictions for the influ-
ence of race on the effect size. It is not clear that people
treat low-SES people differently according to their
race; in some cases, race may cause further prejudice,
whereas in others it may soften the impact of low SES.
It is also not clear if the treatment of SES varies within
racial groups (that is, in how members of the group
treat each other).
However, within nations and cultures, there may be
a moderating effect similar to that predicted by the so-
cial indicator or salience model. If some nations or cul-
tures place more importance on SES, they may treat in-
dividuals differently depending on SES. This is the
external version of the cultural differences predicted
by the salience model.
SES measurement. To determine if SES mea-
surement influences the effect size under this model, we
must know which aspects of SES are most relevant to
62
how others treat us. This is difficult to say; in their own
ways, the SES indicators of education, occupation, and
income are all visible to others. Thus, this model pre-
dicts no significant differences in SES measurement.
Self-Protective Mechanisms
The self-concept possesses a wide range of power-
ful self-protective strategies. These strategies may ef-
fectively shield the self from external feedback due to
SES (e.g., the external feedback described in the re-
flected appraisals model previously discussed). In ad-
dition, individuals in low SES groups may use a
self-serving bias (Campbell & Sedikides, 1999); that
is, they might take credit for the SES they have
achieved but blame any lowered SES on factors exter-
nal to the self. Individuals may also strategically use
downward social comparisons. They may maintain
self-esteem by always comparing themselves to those
who are less fortunate, no matter what level of SES
they have obtained (Wills, 1981).
An excellent example of such a strategy was pro-
vided by Crocker and Major (1989), who argued that
belonging to a low-status group does not necessarily
lead to lowered self-esteem. Instead, group members
may protect their self-esteem by attributing negative
feedback to prejudice, comparing themselves only to
others in their group, or devaluing the dimensions in
which the group performs poorly. Such self-protective
strategies may help explain why Blacks actually have
higher self-esteem than Whites do (Gray-Little &
Hafdahl, 2000; Twenge & Crocker, in press).
However, it is not clear that self-protective mecha-
nisms operate for SES in the same way they do for
race. As Hare (1977) pointed out, economic classes
lack the solidarity, mutual support, and protection
that racial groups have. Individuals are less likely to
see class as a primary identity and are not as likely to
attribute negative reactions to prejudice against their
class group. Some individuals, especially adults, may
also feel at least partially responsible for their mem-
bership in a lower social class, an attribution that mit-
igates the use of self-protective mechanisms
(Crocker, Cornwell, & Major, 1993; Crocker & Ma-
jor, 1989). The idea that people judge SES by social
comparison (comparing themselves to similar others
rather than larger ideals) has received support in
some studies (e.g., Hagerty, 2000) but not in others
(e.g., Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). If self-protec-
tive mechanisms operate for class as they do for race,
there should be a negative relationship between SES
and self-esteem. However, if they are less powerful
(but still operative) for class-the most likely propo-
sition self-protective mechanisms may reduce or
nullify (though not reverse) any positive relationship
predicted by the other models.
 SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
Age. This model predicts specific age-based dif-
ferences in the effect size. Given the psychological skill
necessary to use self-protective mechanisms, elemen-
tary school students would not be very adept at using this
strategy. However, as the other models pointed out, they
would also not be very affected by the social indicator or
salience or reflected appraisals mechanisms. Thus, they
should show little to no effect. Older children and ado-
lescents would take fullest advantage of self-protective
mechanisms: They have the maturity to use the tech-
nique and, most important, would not feel responsible
for their lower status (because their SES is ascribed from
their parents). Individuals who feel that their lower sta-
tus is ascribed and not earned are much more likely to
employ self-protective mechanisms (Crocker et al.,
1993; Crocker & Major, 1989). Thus, junior high
school, high school, and college students would be most
likely to show a null effect (if self-protective mecha-
nisms reduce any positive relationship). The same rea-
soning predicts a positive effect size for adults (young
adults through the elderly) who might feel more respon-
sible for low SES and thus would not have the fullest use
of self-protective mechanisms.
Gender and birth cohort. Women's use of
self-protective mechanisms might depend on birth co-
hort and time. Because prejudice based on gender did
not receive much attention before the late 1960s,
women might not have used self-protective mecha-
nisms until later. Thus, the lower effect size predicted
by this model would grow closer to zero for women
over time as they attributed their low SES to sexism.
However, it is also possible that the feminist movement
has actually decreased women's use of self-protective
mechanisms; if women believe that gender prejudice
no longer exists, they may actually be less likely to
make prejudice-based attributions, causing the effect
size to rise. Given the unclear and possibly contradic-
tory nature of self-protective mechanisms based on
gender, this model in the end predicts no changes in the
effect size for women. Because these movements have
not affected men significantly, the correlation for men
is expected to remain constant.
Race and culture. This model might also predict
some moderating effect for race. Because Blacks may
use self-protective mechanisms to guard their self-es-
teem against any racially based threats, they could be
more likely to employ these mechanisms against
SES-based threats as well. Thus, the effect size would be
closer to zero among Black samples (and possibly in
Hispanic and Asian samples). This model does not pre-
dict any regional differences in the effect size.
SES measurement. Self-protective mechanisms
are likely to apply equally to all aspects of SES (occu-
pation, education, and income). Thus, this model pre-
dicts no differences based on SES measurement.
Overview
In this article, we examine the relationship between
self-esteem and SES and several moderators (primar-
ily: age, gender interacting with birth cohort, race,
country or culture, and SES measurement; second-
arily: self-esteem measurement and published vs. un-
published data source). We interpret the results based
on three possible models: social indicator or salience,
reflected appraisals, and self-protective mechanisms,
each of which makes specific predictions for the effect
size and moderators (see Table 1).
Method
To locate studies for the meta-analysis, we searched
three databases: PsycINFO (journal articles in
psychology, sociology, and related fields searched 1967
to 1998; American Psychological Association,
1967-1998), ERIC (journal articles in education andre-
lated fields searched 1966 to 1998; ERIC, 1966-1998),
and Dissertation Abstracts International (dissertations
and master's theses, a major source of unpublished data,
searched 1960 to 1998; University Microfilms Interna-
tional, 1960-1998). We searched these sources using
the key words self-esteem or self-concept and socioeco-
nomic or income or class or SES. This search yielded
both studies reporting primary data and those reporting
data from national, large-scale studies; data from na-
tional studies representing the same samples from the
same year were entered only once. We relied on these
database searches and did not search the reference lists
of articles because the vast majority of studies did not
concern themselves primarily with the SES differences
(thus reference lists would have yielded few useful data
points; two other recent meta-analyses on self-esteem
also did not search reference lists-Kling, Hyde,
Showers, & Buswell, 1999; Gray-Little & Hafdahl,
2000). We excluded articles written in a language other
than English at the database stage, given the difficulty in
coding effect sizes from such articles.
Studies using any measure of SES and any measure
of general self-esteem were retained for further exami-
nation. For self-esteem measures, this included classic
global scales such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965), adjective scales, and omnibus mea-
sures summing over several areas of competence (e.g.,
the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory [Coopersmith,
1967], the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale [Fitts, 1965],
and the Piers-Harris Self-Competence Scale for
Children [Piers, 1969]). It did not include scales tap-
ping only narrow domains of self-esteem (e.g., aca-
63
 TWENGE & CAMPBELL
demic self-esteem, body image, etc.) Studies examin-
ing abnormal populations were excluded (e.g.,
psychiatric or hospital patients, people with alcohol-
ism, people with drug addictions, children in fos-
ter-home care, juveniles labeled as delinquent, chil-
dren with hyperactivity, gang members, or abuse
survivors). Studies including fewer than 15 respon-
dents were also eliminated from the initial search.
For self-esteem measures with subscales, we used
the total score to calculate the effect size. In most cases,
the relationship between self-esteem and SES was re-
ported as an r; in other cases, t tests, F tests, or means and
standard deviations were reported. We converted all of
these effect sizes to d, as that is the most universal metric
for effect sizes derived from different statistical sources.
When means were reported for more than two SES
groups, the groups were recombined to form two groups
(this is necessary because computing d requires com-
paring two groups; when groups were combined they
were weighted by sample size). When there were an odd
number of SES groups (e.g., three or five), we compared
lower SES groups to combined middle and higher SES
groups. Formulas specified by Wolf (1986) were em-
ployed to convert statistics into the effect size d, or the
difference between two groups in terms of standard de-
viations (although we also used techniques not men-
tioned there, e.g., including studies that reported group
means and an Fbut not a standard deviation). Studies re-
porting no effect (k = 7) were coded as d = .00. Because
there were so few ofthese studies, their inclusion did not
significantly change any of the study results.
For the analyses, we converted d to r and then con-
verted r to Z using Fisher's r to Z transformation. This
is the best technique for analyzing data when many of
the data points are in terms of r (Hedges & Olkin,
1985). The analyses were then weighted by n - 3
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Shadish & Haddock, 1994).
This ensures that samples with more respondents (as-
sumed to be better estimates of the population mean)
are correspondingly weighted in computing the aver-
age effect size. These Zs were then converted back to r
and then d (as noted previously, we relied on d as the
best universal indicator of effect size). The effect size
in terms of r is also reported for most analyses.
Studies providing enough information were then
coded for moderating variables: measure of SES used
(occupational status, education, income, or a composite
measure); year of data collection (assumed to be 2 years
prior to publication unless otherwise specified; see, e.g.,
Oliver & Hyde, 1993); measure of self-esteem used; age
of respondents; gender composition of sample; country;
racial composition of sample; urban, rural, or suburban
location; and type of study (published versus disserta-
tion or master's thesis). The samples were categorized
into age groups, with the younger groups categorized
using the system employed in Kling et al. (1999): ele-
mentary school (Grades 1-5; ages 6-10); junior high
64
(Grades 6-8; ages 11-13); high school (Grades 9-12,
ages 14-17); and college (ages 18-22). We also created
three adult groups: young adult (23-39), middle age
(40-59), and older adults or the elderly (60 and up).
Samples were assigned to groups based on the average
age of the sample. An effect size for an age group was
computed by weighting for sample size if, for example,
a study reported means separately for different grades.
Studies reporting statistics separately for male and
female samples were counted as two separate data
points, as were studies reporting statistics for different
age groups, SES measurement, countries, self-esteem
measures, racial groups, or years of data collection.
However, studies reporting separate statistics for
mother's and father's education, occupation, or both
were averaged to obtain a mean value.
The ds grouped by moderating variables were then
tested for heterogeneity within the group (whether, for
example, all studies of high school students showed a
homogeneous effect size) and between groups
(whether age groups differed in their effect sizes, a pro-
cedure analogous to an analysis of variance). These
heterogeneity statistics (Q) were calculated using the
formulas provided by Hedges and Becker (1986). The
distribution follows an approximate chi-squared distri-
bution, with k - 1 degrees of freedom (where k is the
number of studies) for the within-groups computation
and p - 1 degrees of freedom (where p is the number of
groups being compared) for the between-groups analy-
sis. Analyses with continuous variables were per-
formed using linear regressions weighted by n - 3.
This method yielded 446 effect sizes, involving a to-
tal of 312,940 respondents (median n for individual
studies = 197). There were 287 studies (i.e., articles or
dissertations); there are more samples than studies be-
cause articles often reported statistics for different age,
gender, racial, and measurement groups (see preced-
ing). The studies were published between 1966 and
1998, with a median data collection year of 1981. The
median age of the study participants was 17 (M = 24),
with a range from 5 to 76. Most samples (n = 391) were
collected in the United States. Published studies to-
taled 244, whereas dissertations and masters' theses
yielded 202 data points.
Results
Overall Effect Size
Is SES related to self-esteem? If so, what is the na-
ture of the relationship? Across all 446 samples, the
weighted mean effect size (d) for the relationship be-
tween SES and self-esteem was .15. A test for
heterogeneity indicated that the samples were signifi-
cantly heterogeneous, Quotal = 2,542.20, p < .001. The
mean unweighted d was .19, with a median of .1 8. The
95% confidence interval for the weighted d was .14 to
 SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

.16; because this confidence interval did not include
zero, the effect was statistically significant.
Expressed in terms of a correlation (r), the weighted
effect was .08. This meant that individuals with higher
SES also scored higher on measures of self-esteem.
This is a small effect size in absolute terms (Cohen,
1977), very similar to the d for sex differences in
self-esteem (d = .16; Kling et al., 1999).
Moderator Variables
We proceeded to try to explain some of the variance in
the effect sizes by examining relevant moderator variables.
Age. Age is an important moderator variable for
determining the theoretical underpinnings of the
SES/self-esteem link. The results showed that age was
a strong moderator. The effect size increased progres-
sively at nearly every stage of development, reaching a
peak at middle age but then declining in adults over the
age of 60 (see Table 2 and Figure 1). Age was also a
significant effect when retained as a continuous vari-
able, r(446) = . 18, p < .001 (in a bivariate linear regres-
sion weighted by n - 3). This correlation was inde-
pendent of birth cohort, as it remained the same with
the year in the regression equation. A quadratic regres-
sion also showed a significant curvilinear pattern for
age (R2= .05,R = .22,p< .01).
We also performed comparisons between specific
age groups. First, we compared school-age individuals
(elementary school through college) to adults, thus as-
certaining the difference between ascribed SES (one's
parents' SES) and self-earned SES. The average effect
size for the school-age groups was . 13, compared to .23
for the adult groups (QBet.een = 136.70, p < .001). We
also compared high school and college students to
adults; the effect was still highly significant (QB =
1 1 1.43, p < .001). High school and college students did
not differ significantly in effect size. The slightly
smaller effect size in college students might have been
caused by reduced variance in SES in this group.
We also made individual comparisons within the
adult age groups. The effect size was significantly
higher in middle age than in young adulthood (QB =
8.35,p < .01) and significantly higher in middle age than
in the older adults and the elderly (QB = 12.1 3,p < .00 1).
Thus, the effect size increased from college into young
adulthood and middle age and then decreased after re-
tirement age. The results for age are most consistent
with the social indicator or salience model and the re-
flected appraisals model. They are less consistent self-
protective mechanisms (see Table 1 for predictions).

Table 2. Moderator Variables in the Socioeconomic Status and Self-Esteem Effect Size
95% CI
Variable and categories QB k d for d r QW
Age group 172.20*
Elementary school (5-10) 69 .08 .05 to .11 .04 277.38*
Junior High (11- 13) 65 .12 .10 to .14 .06 319.80*
High School (14-18) 99 .14 .13 to.15 .07 475.20*
College (18-22) 50 .10 .08 to.12 .05 120.50*
Young Adults (23-39) 58 .21 .19 to .23 .11 321.90*
Middle Aged (40-59) 77 .25 .23 to .27 .13 730.73*
Older Adults/Elderly (60+) 28 .17 .13 to .21 .08 116.76*
Racial group (United States Only) 51.45*
White 105 .14 .12 to.16 .07 533.40*
Black 74 .18 .15 to .21 .09 245.68*
Hispanic 24 .05 .00 to .10 .02 155.76*
Asian 7 .46 .35 to .57 .23 19.11*
Country or Culture
Western (United States, Canada, Europe, Australia) 60.98* 424 .15 .14 to .16 .08 2,391.36*
Asia 15 .29 .25 to .33 .15 38.70*
Africa 7 .04 .00 to .08 .02 50.68*
SES Measurement 58.16*
Occupation 109 .20 .18 to .22 .10 452.35*
Education 95 .18 .16 to .20 .09 712.50*
Income 109 .11 .09 to .13 .06 633.29*
Composites 133 .14 .13 to.15 .07 696.97*
Self-Esteem Measurement 141.80*
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 178 .17 .16 to.18 .08 1,101.82*
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory 45 .14 .11 to .17 .07 232.20*
Piers-Harris Self-Competence Scale for Children 30 .26 .20 to .32 .13 60.60*
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale 30 .19 .14 to .24 .09 135.90*
All Other Scales 163 .03 .01 to .05 .02 862.27*
Note: QB = between-groups heterogeneity; QW = within-groups heterogeneity; CI = confidence interval.
*p< .001.
65
 TWENGE & CAMPBELL

0.35 self-esteem increased in successive birth cohorts of

0.30
women, with women born later showing a higher effect
size. The opposite effect occurred for men, who
0.25 showed a negative correlation between the effect size
and birth year, r = -.37, p < .001, k = 56. Men born in
0.20 later years demonstrated a smaller effect size than
those born earlier. As Figure 2 displays, the regression
0.15L lines cross; whereas the effect size was once stronger
0 10
for men, it is now stronger for women. It is also inter-
esting to note that the regression lines cross at the
0.05 beginning of the Baby Boom generation (circa
1940-1945), demonstrating the generational effect.
0lementary Junior High High School College Young adult Middle age Older adult The interaction between birth cohort and gender
Age group
also occurs when all samples (mixed sex as well as sin-
gle sex) are included. In this analysis, gender was
Figure 1. Age and effect size.
coded as the percentage of the sample that was female
(e.g., 0%, 50%, 80%, 100%). The interaction term of
Gender and birth cohort. Several models pre- Birth Cohort x Gender was a significant predictor of
dicted that gender and birth cohort would interact. To the effect size, r = .18, p < .01, k = 197. These results
compute the birth year of each sample, we subtracted are most consistent with the social indicator or salience
the sample's average age from the year the data were model; the reflected appraisals model predicted the in-
collected. In these analyses, birth cohort is a proxy for crease for women, but not the decrease for men.
changes in the sociocultural environment. Using a re-
gression model weighted by n - 3, we examined the
correlation between birth year and d separately for Race and culture. Several models predicted dif-
samples of adult women and men in the United States. ferences based on race and country or culture. We first
We limited the analysis to adults because we expected examine overall differences between racial groups
that only earned SES would be affected by historical within the United States. Analyses showed that racial
changes. Only U.S. samples were included to focus on group was a significant moderating variable (see Table
the social change within one culture; social change 2). Hispanics had the smallest effect size (d = .05; QB
may have taken different paths in other cultures. compared to Whites = 13.75, p < .001). Asian Ameri-
Has the effect size for self-esteem and SES changed cans showed the largest effect size; with d = .46, it ap-
over time for women and men? The results show that it proached half a standard deviation (QB compared to
has (see Figure 2 for a plot of the regression lines). For Whites = 32.45, p < .001). Although Asian American
the sake of simplicity, we examined the effect first for samples were predominantly adult (71 % compared to
single-sex samples (effect sizes reported for either 48% in the overall sample), this age distribution was
all-female or all-male samples). For all-female sam- not responsible for the larger effect size: The two sam-
ples (k = 55), the correlation between d and birth year ples of Asian American children actually had a larger
was .42 (p < .001). Thus, the link between SES and effect size (d = .56) than the five samples of adults (d =
.39). The effect size for Blacks was not significantly
different than that for Whites.
Females Regional differences between countries were con-
0.6 --- Males sistent with the White-Asian U.S. racial differences
0.5 (see Table 2). Asian samples showed a higher effect
0.4 j size than Western samples (QB for the two regions =
a1) 37.45, p < .001). This suggests that Asian culture sees
0.3
SES as more salient to self-esteem. African nations
LL
0.2 show the opposite result, with an effect size smaller
0.1
than that of Western nations (QB = 18.17, p < .00 1). Af-
rican cultures may see SES as less salient; alterna-
0.0 tively, there may be less variance in SES in these coun-
-0.1 tries, making it less relevant to self-esteem or lowering
-0.2 any correlation between the two variables. These re-
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 sults were best predicted by the social indicator or sa-
Birth year
lience model, partially predicted by the reflected ap-
Figure 2. Birth cohort changes in the effect size, interaction by praisals model, and not predicted by the self-protective
sex. mechanisms model (see Table 1).
66
 SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
SES measurement and other moderators. The
way SES was measured influenced the effect size
(see Table 2). Occupation and education correlated
more highly with self-esteem than did income. Com-
posites of SES displayed an intermediate effect size.
These were the results predicted by the social indica-
tor or salience model.
Self-esteem measurement had a small but signif-
icant influence on the effect size (see Table 2). The
Rosenberg scale (Self-Esteem Scale; Rosenberg,
1965) and Coopersmith scale (Self-Esteem Inven-
tory; Coopersmith, 1967) were the two most com-
mon self-esteem measures; the effect sizes pro-
duced by these scales did not differ. The
Piers-Harris scale (Self-Competence Scale for
Children; Piers, 1969) showed a larger effect size,
whereas miscellaneous, primarily unstandardized
measures showed smaller ones. The miscellaneous
scales may have produced a smaller effect size due
to lower reliability and validity.
A few other potential moderating variables did not
reach significance. Location of sample (urban, subur-
ban, rural) and type of study (published vs. unpub-
lished) did not show any significant relationships with
effect size.
A Regression of Moderators
To give a more complete picture of our findings, we
entered previously significant moderator variables into
a multiple regression equation with the effect size as
the dependent variable and n - 3 as a regression weight.
Non-U.S. samples were excluded to clarify the analy-
sis for race and the birth cohort and gender interaction.
Dummy variables were necessary in some cases; in
general, samples with specific characteristics (e.g.,
from a specific racial group) were compared to sam-
ples without this information (e.g., with samples of
mixed or unknown racial origin). For SES measure-
ment, specific variables (income, education, and occu-
pation) were compared to composite measures. The
gender and birth cohort interaction term was entered
using Birth Cohort x Percentage Female of each sam-
ple. We also included the quadratic term for age (age
squared) to test the curvilinear pattern of age. Age was
centered by subtracting the mean to reduce the correla-
tion between age and age squared.
Results from the multiple regression are reported in
Table 3. A positive beta in this analysis meant that the
moderator variable led to a higher effect size; a negative
beta meant that it led to a lower effect size (not necessar-
ily a negative one). The multiple R was .35, p < .001
across 391 samples. The largest effect was for age,
which rose to .39 with all variables included (compared
to .18 for the bivariate correlation between age and the
effect size). The quadratic term for age was also signifi-
Table 3. Multiple Regression Analysis: Predicting the
Effect Size From Moderator Variables
Variable
Age 39**
Age Squared (Quadratic Term for Age) .22**
Birth Cohort x Gender Interaction .11 *
Year -.01
White -.02
Black .03
Hispanic -.1 1*
Asian .10*
Occupation as SES Measure .07
Education as SES Measure .02
Income as SES Measure -.15**
Note: SES = socioeconomic status. A negative beta does not mean
that the variable produces a negative effect size; rather, a negative
beta indicates that higher levels of the moderator variable are associ-
ated with smaller effect sizes.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
cant, beta = .22. The Birth Cohort x Gender interaction
was significant; the beta was lower here than in the
bivariate correlation, most likely because this analysis
included all age groups (the bivariate analysis included
only adults, where SES is more salient). Asians showed
a significantly higher effect size and Hispanics a signifi-
cantly lower one than did Whites and Blacks. (The effect
sizes for Whites and Blacks did not differ significantly.)
Measuring SES using income led to a lower correlation
between self-esteem and SES.
Discussion
We began this article with the goal of clarifying the
previously confusing literature on the relationship be-
tween SES and self-esteem. Our main result can be sum-
marized as follows: There is a small but statistically sig-
nificant positive relationship between self-esteem and
SES across 446 samples including 312,940 respon-
dents. Although small, this effect is not trivial. The ef-
fect size is similar in magnitude to sex differences in
self-esteem (Kling et. al., 1999); Black and White dif-
ferences in self-esteem (Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000;
Twenge & Crocker, in press); the effect of parental di-
vorce on children's well-being (Amato & Keith, 1991);
and sex differences in verbal ability, spatial visualiza-
tion, and social leadership (Ashmore, 1990).
The data summarized here are very heterogeneous.
Thus, it is difficult to discuss the effect size without ref-
erence to moderators because the effect size varies so
much among groups (particularly age groups). There
was a smaller association between SES and self-es-
teem in childhood and adolescence (when SES reflects
parents' earned status rather than children's earned sta-
tus). The SES/self-esteem link increased significantly
in young adulthood, further increased in middle age,
and then decreased after retirement age.
67
 TWENGE & CAMPBELL
Gender and birth cohort interact as moderators.
Over time, the correlation increases for women and de-
creases for men, producing a crossover effect. Asian
and Asian American samples showed larger effect
sizes, suggesting the existence of cultural differences
in the salience of SES for self-esteem. Finally, educa-
tion and especially occupation showed the largest cor-
relations, with income producing a smaller effect.
Theoretical Models
Which model best explains the pattern of data uncov-
ered in the present meta-analysis? The overall effect
size, which is positive, is most consistent with the social
indicator or salience and reflected appraisals models.
However, the positive effect is small; perhaps self-pro-
tective mechanisms dampen the effect produced by so-
cial indicator or salience and the reflected appraisals.
These results can be clarified by examining the
moderator variables. The results for the moderator
variables were most consistent with the social indicator
or salience model (e.g., French & Kahn, 1962; Rosen-
berg, 1979; Rosenberg & Pearlin, 1978). Age demon-
strated the pattern predicted by this model: It increased
until high school, rose during young adulthood and
middle age, and decreased after retirement age. The re-
sults for adults also support the salience model. SES is
the most salient to the self-esteem of middle-age adults
and somewhat less salient for young adults and retired
people. The reflected appraisals model also predicted
larger effect sizes for adults compared to children, but
it did not predict the curvilinear pattern evident in the
adult data. However, as noted in the introduction, it is
possible that people judge middle-age adults most
stringently on their SES. Thus the results are not incon-
sistent with reflected appraisals. Self-protective mech-
anisms should work better for children than adults
(consistent with the results), but no differences among
adult age groups were expected. Thus the social indica-
tor or salience model best explains the age differences.
The social indicator or salience model also made the
most accurate predictions for the interaction between
gender and birth cohort. As predicted by this model,
the effect size increased for women over time and de-
creased for men, based on the salience of SES to
self-esteem. The reflected appraisals model expected
the increase for women, but not the decrease for men,
whereas self-protective mechanisms predicted no
changes. However, the reflected appraisals model
might help explain the decrease in the correlation for
men; perhaps societal expectations have shifted away
from men valuing the breadwinner role above all else
and men have internalized this view.
The differences based on race and culture are best
explained by either the social indicator or salience
model or the reflected appraisals model. SES may be
68
more salient to self-esteem in Asians and less salient in
Africans and U. S. Hispanics. On the other hand, the
effect may also be caused by the treatment of people in
these cultures based on SES; the reflected appraisals
model would predict that some cultures and subcul-
tures judge people differently based on SES and others
do not. If these external opinions were internalized,
then differences in the correlation between self-esteem
and SES would result based on culture. Thus, either
model potentially explains the racial and cultural dif-
ferences. The self-protective mechanisms model, how-
ever, would predict a lower effect size for all minori-
ties. This did not occur, as Asian minorities showed a
larger effect size compared to Whites, Hispanics a
smaller one, and Blacks the same as Whites.
Finally, the social indicator or salience model best
predicts the moderating effect of SES measurement.
This model predicted that education and occupation,
arguably the most internally salient aspects of SES,
would show the largest effects. This was indeed the
case. The reflected appraisals and self-protective
mechanisms models did not predict any differences.
Thus, the social indicator or salience model fits the
data the most closely. The reflected appraisals model
also made several correct predictions. All three models
may explain the direction and size of the overall effect,
but the moderators are clearly best explained by the sa-
lience model. This does not imply that the reflected ap-
praisals and self-protective mechanism models of
self-esteem are wrong; they simply do not explain dif-
ferences based on SES as well as the salience model
does. This may reflect the weaker overall influence of
these models; alternatively, these models may operate
only in limited domains.
These results provide an interesting comparison to
results on racial differences in self-esteem. Studies
have consistently found that Black Americans report
higher self-esteem than Whites (Gray-Little &
Hafdahl, 2000; Twenge & Crocker, in press); however,
other racial groups report lower self-esteem compared
to Whites. Twenge & Crocker (in press) found that
these differences were best explained by cultural views
and tendencies, especially those surrounding individu-
alism (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
These cultural views have some similarities with the
salience model, which essentially proposes that the sa-
lience of SES depends on stage of life and culture. The
reflected appraisals model, referred to as internaliza-
tion of stigma in Twenge and Crocker (in press), did
not fit the data on race differences in self-esteem. For
SES, however, it conformed to the data reasonably
well, explaining the overall effect size and aspects of
some moderators. This suggests that low SES is inter-
nalized as a stigma in a way that race is not. Observers
may view a poor person as responsible for their fate,
particularly if that person is an adult. Even the person
may see it this way, rendering self-protective mecha-
 SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
nisms useless (Crocker et al., 1993; Crocker & Major,
1989). Whether people are responsible for their own
poverty is a question that lies beyond the scope of this
article. However, it seems that SES may be a stigma
similar to being overweight: People often perceive the
poor and the fat as responsible for their conditions,
whether they are or not (Crocker et al., 1993).
Strengths and Limitations
The data presented here have several obvious
strengths. First, we summarized a broad field of data,
including over 450 samples and almost a third of a mil-
lion respondents. This offers tremendous benefits for
statistical reliability, an especially important quantity
given the inconsistency of past findings. It also helps
ensure that the age differences in particular are solid,
given their basis in the reports of thousands of respon-
dents from each group.
We were able to examine many variables that indi-
vidual studies usually cannot. For example, individual
studies usually cannot include such a complete range
of ages; here, we summarized data from samples with
average ages from 5 to 76. We were also able to include
many possible moderators in a regression equation, de-
termining which variables produce unique variance in
the effect size. In addition, our examination of the in-
teraction between gender and birth cohort is effectively
impossible for an individual study, given the difficul-
ties of collecting longitudinal data for more than one
cohort. Using meta-analytic techniques to summarize
data collected over a 32-year period (1964 to 1996)
permitted us to complete this analysis. This long time
span also allowed us to conclude that the age effect was
not due to birth cohort (Schaie, 1965) because year of
data collection does not affect the correlation between
age and the effect size. However, controlling for year
does not entirely eliminate the possibility of an age by
cohort interaction. Thus, we cannot definitively say
that birth cohort does not influence the age effect, but
only that the effect is most likely due to age.
Our conclusions must include several caveats. First,
the effect size found in this research is small. This does
not mean the results are theoretically unimportant;
these results, as noted, are similar to those of other
meta-analyses involving self-esteem. Nevertheless,
these data show that SES, an important measure of so-
cial standing, accounts for only a small percentage of
the variance observed in individual self-esteem. This
relationship is stronger when SES is salient and earned,
as with middle-age adults. Even in this group, however,
the size of the effect implies that there must be several
other variables causing (or being affected by) self-es-
teem. That is, if SES does not explain a large percent-
age of the variance in self-esteem, what variables do?
Future research that simultaneously examines a host of
variables would be useful in mapping the social
sources of self-esteem (e.g., parenting, peer relations,
etc.; see, e.g., Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995).
Additionally, research could examine whether attribut-
ing negative feedback to prejudice based on low SES
protects self-esteem (as it does for race prejudice; cf.
Crocker & Major, 1989).
Second, our findings regarding racial and cultural
differences in the SES/self-esteem link should be con-
sidered tentative. We noted that the SES/self-esteem
link was strongest for Asians, lowest for Hispanics, and
moderate for Whites and Blacks. These results are con-
sistent with a salience model only if SES is somewhat
more important to the self-esteem of Asians than other
racial groups (some research does suggest that educa-
tion is more important to Asians; e.g., D'Ailly, 1992;
Goyette & Xie, 1999; Whang & Hancock, 1994). In ad-
dition, we did not include studies written in a language
other than English; this necessarily limited the number
of international samples. Although the samples we did
find did not differ in overall effect size from the U. S.
samples, this probably occurred because the effect size
was higher in some regions (Asia) than in others (Af-
rica). Further research might explore more fully how the
SES/self-esteem link differs between cultures.
Last, we did not explore all possible models and ex-
planations for the SES/self-esteem link. For example, it
is possible that having higher self-esteem leads to higher
SES. The age effect might be the result of this causality.
Children can do little to change their SES, whereas
adults (particularly middle-age adults) might be able to
translate high self-esteem into SES success. For retired
adults, it is probably too late for high self-esteem to lead
to success in education or jobs. The interaction between
gender and birth cohort might also be explained this
way: Women could have developed higher self-esteem
first, which lead them to pursue higher education and
betterjobs (although this seems unlikely given that both
genders increased in self-esteem from the 1970s to the
1990s; Twenge & Campbell, 2002). In addition, a third
variable (e.g., extraversion) might be correlated with
both SES and self-esteem (Jackson & Gerard, 1996).
Another limitation of the data we examined is their
emphasis on one-time measurement. Some ofthe adults
in the samples could have had a very different SES dur-
ing their childhood (either lower or higher than their
adult status). If self-esteem is formed early, there might
be a mismatch between SES and self-esteem for adults
because their SES is measured for their adult status. This
might help explain why the effect size is fairly small.
Another explanation we did not explore in depth is so-
cial dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). This
theory posits that people in power (here, those high in
SES) create myths to legitimize their power. High
self-esteem might be the outcome of these legitimizing
myths; people high in SES might have higher self-es-
teem because they believe their wealth and power must
69
 TWENGE & CAMPBELL
mean they are better people. This can be a justification
for their social position. However, the three theoretical
models we presented seemed to represent the most
likely explanations for the observed correlation be-
tween the two variables (and indeed the social indicator
or salience model fits the data very well).
Implications and Conclusions
The results have several implications for research
and practice in a variety of areas. First, our findings
point to the importance of including age as a variable
when examining self-esteem. If we had limited our in-
quiry to only a certain age group, we would have
reached very different conclusions regarding the
self-esteem/SES link. Indeed, the significant age effect
may help account for the disagreement and inconsis-
tency in the literature to date.
Second, these results highlight the importance of
examining birth cohort, a variable often unwisely ig-
nored in psychological research (Caspi, 1987; Gergen,
1973). As seen in other research, birth cohort provides
a useful proxy for examining the effects of the larger
sociocultural environment. These data in particular
demonstrate the importance of examining the interac-
tion between birth cohort and gender (Stewart & Healy,
1989; Twenge, 2001). Our findings regarding birth co-
hort and gender would not have been observed if we
did not examine the two variables together.
A final and related implication involves the differ-
ence between ascribed and earned SES. First, the corre-
lation between self-esteem and SES is weaker in chil-
dren than in adults. There is clearly intuitive appeal in
the prediction that low SES results in children with low
self-esteem. However, this conclusion is not well sup-
ported by the data. As noted in the introduction, the
smaller correlation for children may occur because their
SES is not earned. In contrast, the earned nature of SES
for adults may account for the higher effect size in these
groups. The notion of SES as earned may also help ex-
plain the increase in the SES/self-esteem correlation for
women over time. At one time, a woman's SES was
equivalent to her husband's; in later birth cohorts, mea-
sured SES was more likely to include the woman's own
occupation or income (both due to measurement effects
and to women's greater labor force participation). Thus
the correlation for women became higher when SES
measures incorporated women's earned SES. The con-
verging evidence from these two moderators (age and
gender interacting with birth cohort) provides a view of
how self-esteem operates within the individual. For
self-esteem, it is not enough to simply enjoy the perks of
high status; one must have had something to do with it.
This invites the conclusion that self-esteem is more de-
pendent on willful actions and choices than passively in-
herited (or reflected) status.
70
References
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of
children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.
American Psychological Association. (1967-1998). PsycINFO [Online].
Washington, DC: Author [Producer]. Ovid Technologies [Distribu-
tor].
Ashmore, R. D. (1990). Sex, gender, and the individual. In L. A.
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook ofpersonality theory and research (pp.
486-526). New York: Guilford.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures
of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.
1 15-160). New York: Academic.
Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the
self-serving bias. Review of General Psychology, 3, 23-43.
Cartwright, D. (1950). Emotional dimensions of group life. In M. L.
Raymert (Ed.), Feelings and emotions (pp. 439-447). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Caspi, A. (1987). Personality in the life course. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 53, 1203- 1213.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution
across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bul-
letin, 125, 47-63.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order New York:
Scribner's.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. New York:
Freeman Press.
Crocker, J., Cornwell, B., & Major, B. (1993). The stigma of over-
weight: Affective consequences of attributional ambiguity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 60-70.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The
self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96,
608-630.
D'Ailly, H. H. (1992). Asian mathematics superiority: A search for
explanations. Educational Psychologist, 27, 243-261.
Demo, D. H., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1983). Early adolescent
self-esteem as a function of social class: Rosenberg and Pearlin
revisited. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 763-774.
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the
subjective well-being of nations. Journal ofPersonality and So-
cial Psychology, 69, 851-864.
Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression: Social change
and life experience.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elder, G. H. (1981). Social history and life experience. In D. H.
Eichorn, J. A. Clausen, N. Haan, M. P. Honzik, & P. H. Mussen
(Eds.), Present and past in middle life (pp. 181-203). New
York: Academic Press.
ERIC database (1966-1998). University of Iowa. Distributor: First Search.
Erikson, E. (1956). The problem of ego-identity. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 4, 56-121.
Fitts, W. H. (1965). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale manual. Nash-
ville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests.
French, J. R. P., & Kahn, R. L. (1962). A programmatic approach to
studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal
of Social Issues, 18(4), 1-47.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-320.
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in so-
ciology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goyette, K., & Xie, Y. (1999). Educational expectations of Asian
American youths: Determinants and ethnic differences. Sociol-
ogy of Education, 72, 22-36.
Gray-Little, B., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1979). Instrumentality effects
in the assessment of racial differences in self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1221-1229.
 SELF-ESTEEM AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
Gray-Little, B., & Hafdahl, A. R. (2000). Factors influencing racial
comparisons of self-esteem: A quantitative review. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 126, 26-54.
Hagerty, M. R. (2000). The social comparisons of income in one's
community: National surveys of income and happiness. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 764-771.
Hare, B. R. (1977). Racial and socioeconomic variations in
preadolescent area-specific and general self-esteem. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 31-51.
Hedges, L. V., & Becker, B. J. (1986). Statistical methods in the meta-anal-
ysis of research in gender differences. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn
(Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis
(pp. 14-50). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methodsfor meta-anal-
ysis. New York: Academic Press.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self-affir-
mation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 389-400.
Jackson, L. A., & Gerard, D. A. (1996). Diuranal types, the "Big
Five" personality factors, and other personal characteristics.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 273-283.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.
(Original work published 1890)
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999).
Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 125, 470-500.
Kohr, R. L., Coldiron, R., Skiffington, E. W., Masters, J. R., & Blust,
R. S. (1988). The influence of race, class, and gender on self-es-
teem for fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade students in Pennsylva-
nia schools. Journal of Negro Education, 57, 467-481.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometerhypoth-
esis. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 68,518-530.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayma, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implica-
tions for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Re-
view, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and
"basic" psychological principles. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W.
Kruglanski (Eds.) Social psychology: Handbook of basic prin-
ciples, pp. 857-913. New York: Guilford.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & VandenBos, G. R. (1996). The mu-
tual interactions of culture and emotion. Psychiatric Services,
47,225-226.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mullis, A. K., Mullis, R .L., & Normandin, D. (1992). Cross-sec-
tional and longitudinal comparisons of adolescent self-esteem.
Adolescence, 27, 51-61.
Nesselroade, J. R., & Baltes, P. B. (1974). Adolescent personality devel-
opment and historical change, 1970-1972. Monographs of the Soci-
etyfor Research in Child Development, 39 (1, Serial No. 154).
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychol-
ogy of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (in press). Re-
thinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoreti-
cal assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin.
Pelham, B. W. (1995). Self-investment and self-esteem: Evidence
for a Jamesian model of self-worth. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 1141-1150.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to
self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680.
Piers, E. V. (1969). Manualfor the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Con-
cept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings & Tests.
Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. (1979). Black identity and self-es-
teem: A few of studies of black self-concept, 1968-1978. An-
nual Review of Sociology, 5, 53-74.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg, M., & Pearlin, L. I. (1978). Social class and self-esteem
among children and adults. American Journal of Sociology, 84,
53-77.
Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmen-
tal problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92-107.
Scott, D. M. (1997). Contempt and pity: Social policy and the image
of the damaged Black psyche 1880-1996. Chapel Hill: Univer-
sity of North Carolina Press.
Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect
size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis (pp. 261-281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual develop-
ment and social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30-42.
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis
of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus
norms. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74,482-493.
Symonds, M. (1968). Disadvantaged children growing in a climate
of hopelessness and despair. American Journal of Psychoanaly-
sis, 28, 15-24.
Thornton, A., Alwin, D. F., & Camburn, D. (1983). Causes and con-
sequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change. American
Sociological Review, 48, 211-227.
Trowbridge, N. (1972). Self-concept and SES in elementary school
children. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 525-537.
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35-51.
Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in
anxiety and neuroticism, 1952-1993. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 1007-1021.
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women's assertiveness in response to
status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133-145.
Twenge, J. M. (2002). Birth cohort, social change, and personality:
The interplay of dysphoria and individualism in the 20th cen-
tury. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in Personal-
ity Science (pp. 196-218). New York: Guilford.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort dif-
ferences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 735-748.
Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (in press). Race and self-esteem:
Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians,
and American Indians, including a commentary on Gray-Little
and Hafdahl. 2000 Psychological Bulletin.
University Microfilms International (1800-1998). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International [Online]. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical abstract of the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Whang, P. A., & Hancock, G. R. (1994). Motivation and mathemat-
ics achievement: Comparisons between Asian-American and
non-Asian students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
19, 302-322.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psy-
chology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
Wiltfang, G. L., & Scarbecz, M. (1990). Social class and adoles-
cents' self-esteem: Another look. Social Psychology Quarterly,
53, 174-183.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for re-
search synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Zirkel, P. A., & Moses, E. G. (1971). Self-concept and ethnic group
membership among public school students. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 2, 253-265.
71