
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: ten items, six decades of use
Morris Rosenberg's scale is the most widely used measure of self-esteem in the world. It's simple and reliable, and research helps clarify what self-esteem does and doesn't predict.
Where the scale comes from
Sociologist Morris Rosenberg created the scale for a study of about five thousand high-school students in New York State, published in 1965 in the book "Society and the Adolescent Self-Image" (Rosenberg, 1965). He defined self-esteem as a global positive or negative attitude toward oneself.
The scale has ten statements, such as "I feel that I have a number of good qualities" and "At times I think I am no good at all". Half are positive and half negative, and answers range from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". The negative items are reverse-scored and added to the positive ones, so higher scores mean higher self-esteem.
What the research says
The scale has good internal consistency and stability, and it was administered simultaneously in 53 nations in a large cross-cultural study, which found a similar structure in most of them and averages above the scale midpoint in nearly every country (Schmitt & Allik, 2005).
Across the lifespan, self-esteem tends to rise from adolescence to middle age and decline in old age (Orth & Robins, 2014). An influential review concluded that high self-esteem is strongly linked to feeling happy, but there is little evidence that it causes good school or job performance; often the relationship runs the other way, with success raising self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2003).
Debates
A long-running technical debate is whether the positive and negative items measure one thing: analyses show two factors, but much of that split seems to come from the effect of negative wording rather than two different kinds of self-esteem (Marsh, 1996). Another debate is cultural: in some cultures openly valuing yourself is less accepted, which can affect answers.
Limitations
The result reflects how you rate yourself right now and can shift with mood and recent events. The scale doesn't measure self-compassion, narcissism or self-esteem in specific areas such as appearance or work. A low score is not a diagnosis, but if it comes with persistent sadness, it's worth talking to a professional.
How Ethea adapts the model
Ethea presents the ten items with the four original response options, reverse-scores the negative items and adds up the points, as in the publication, with indicative ranges. This questionnaire was not created by Ethea: credit goes to Morris Rosenberg. The result texts avoid the idea that "more self-esteem" fixes everything and point to research-backed paths such as self-compassion.
References
Links with a DOI go to the original article. Where no DOI is given, the link opens a Google Scholar search.
- Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
- Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623–642. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623(opens in a new tab)
- Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. DOI: 10.1111/1529-1006.01431(opens in a new tab)
- Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 381–387. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
- Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810–819. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)
- Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Revisão da adaptação, validação e normatização da Escala de Autoestima de Rosenberg. Avaliação Psicológica, 10(1), 41–49. Search Google Scholar(opens in a new tab)