The RSES measures global self-esteem, a person's overall positive or negative attitude toward the self, as a single score rather than a set of domain-specific self-evaluations.
It originated in Morris Rosenberg's 1965 study of adolescent self-image and has become the most widely used self-report measure of self-esteem, with acceptable reliability and a largely invariant factor structure documented across dozens of nations.
Low self-esteem prospectively predicts later depressive symptoms, while scores are essentially unrelated to objective intelligence and socioeconomic status, supporting the scale's use as a focused measure of self-regard.
It is in the public domain but has no validated clinical cutoff: scores should be read against normative means, and the RSES is a research and screening measure, not a diagnostic instrument.
Single global self-esteem score; total 10-40 (or 0-30 in the alternative 0-3 convention)
Validated populations
Adolescents (secondary-school age) and adults; administered in 53 nations
License
Public domain; free to use with citation of Rosenberg (1965)
Original citation
Rosenberg (1965), Society and the adolescent self-image
Introduction
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is the most widely used measure of global self-esteem in psychological research and clinical practice. Developed by Morris Rosenberg (1965) within a large survey study of American high-school students, the 10-item scale assesses a person’s overall sense of self-worth and self-acceptance. With over 50 years of research and validation across dozens of nations, it remains the standard self-report measure of global self-esteem.
Understanding Global Self-Esteem
The RSES measures global self-esteem: an individual’s overall positive or negative attitude toward the self as a totality. Unlike domain-specific self-evaluations (academic, social, physical), global self-esteem reflects a general sense of personal worth and acceptance that transcends particular domains or situations. Rosenberg (1965) treated this general self-regard as a fundamental aspect of the self-concept, and the scale operationalizes it in ten short agree-disagree statements.
Theoretical Foundation
Rosenberg conceptualized self-esteem as a basic human need and a crucial component of mental health. High self-esteem is characterized by self-respect, considering oneself worthy of happiness, and believing one has value as a person; low self-esteem involves self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, and feelings of unworthiness (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale captures this single underlying dimension through balanced positive and negative item wording. Factor-analytic work supports the unidimensional interpretation: the best-fitting model is a single factor accompanied by a method effect associated with the negatively worded items (Corwyn, 2000), and a bifactor analysis reaches a compatible conclusion, with a strong general self-esteem factor alongside wording-based method factors (McKay, Boduszek, & Harvey, 2014).
📊 Key insight: The RSES treats self-esteem as one global attitude toward the self; its negatively worded items introduce a method effect, not a second substantive dimension (Corwyn, 2000).
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
10 short statements about the self, rated for agreement
4-point response scale, strongly disagree to strongly agree
One global score; the scale has no subscales
A few minutes (typically under 5) to complete
Public domain, free to use with citation of Rosenberg (1965)
Dimensions Assessed
Global self-esteem – overall sense of personal worth, self-respect, self-satisfaction, and self-acceptance
Single dimension by design and by evidence – a unidimensional construct with a method effect from the negatively worded items (Corwyn, 2000; McKay et al., 2014)
Versions & Adaptations
Original 10-item RSES (Rosenberg, 1965), originally scored as a Guttman scale; modern administration uses Likert-summative scoring of the same items
Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE), a one-item alternative measure validated against the RSES (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001)
Translations: administered in 28 languages across 53 nations in the largest cross-national study (Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Research Applications
Clinical psychology – mental-health screening and treatment-outcome monitoring (not diagnostic)
Developmental psychology – tracking self-esteem change across the adult lifespan
Educational and health research – relating self-regard to achievement and health-related outcomes
Cross-cultural research – comparing the structure and correlates of self-esteem across nations
Rate your agreement with ten statements about yourself.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Participants rate their agreement with each statement on a 4-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree.
Historical note: Rosenberg’s original 1965 measure was a 10-item Guttman scale that yielded a 7-point score (Rosenberg, 1965). Likert-summative scoring (1-4 per item, total 10-40; or 0-3 per item, total 0-30) is the modern convention and represents the same responses rescaled.
Complete RSES Items
The scale is in the public domain, so the full item set can be reproduced. The 10 items appear below in standard order; positive and negative items are presented alternately, as in the original scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Items marked (R) are reverse-scored: standard items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (five items).
1. “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”
2. “At times, I think I am no good at all” (R)
3. “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”
4. “I am able to do things as well as most other people”
5. “I feel I do not have much to be proud of” (R)
6. “I certainly feel useless at times” (R)
7. “I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others”
8. “I wish I could have more respect for myself” (R)
9. “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure” (R)
10. “I take a positive attitude toward myself”
Scoring Procedure
Administer the 10 items in standard order with the 4-point response scale.
Reverse-score the five negatively worded items: standard items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (1↔4, 2↔3).
Sum all 10 items. Totals range 10-40 with 1-4 coding (or 0-30 with 0-3 coding); higher totals indicate higher self-esteem.
Score Interpretation
The RSES has no published, validated clinical cutoff and is not a diagnostic instrument. No absolute score bands (high/moderate/low) have a published basis, and none are offered here; scores are best interpreted against normative means such as those below.
Population Norms
Descriptive means on the 10-40 scoring, from the 53-nation cross-national study (Schmitt & Allik, 2005):
Sample
N
M
SD
Source
Cross-national grand mean (53 nations, 28 languages)
16,998
30.85
4.82
Schmitt & Allik (2005)
United States (predominantly college-age)
—
32.21
5.01
Schmitt & Allik (2005)
These are descriptive sample means, not diagnostic thresholds. Every nation in the study averaged above the theoretical scale midpoint of 25.0, with Japan lowest at 25.50 (Schmitt & Allik, 2005). The authors caution that negatively worded items behaved differently across nations, which limits the value of direct cross-national mean comparisons.
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency: mean Cronbach’s α = .81 across 53 nations, ranging from .45 to about .90 by nation (Schmitt & Allik, 2005); α = .88 in a U.S. college sample (Robins et al., 2001)
Test-retest reliability: r = .85 over a 2-week interval (n = 28; Silber & Tippett, 1965)
Factor Structure
Unidimensional structure: the best-fitting model is a single factor with a method effect associated with the negatively worded items (Corwyn, 2000)
Bifactor model: a general self-esteem factor with positive/negative wording method factors (McKay et al., 2014)
Cross-cultural invariance: the factor structure was largely invariant across 53 nations (Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Zero-order correlations of the RSES with related constructs (Robins et al., 2001):
Life satisfaction: r = .54 (Robins et al., 2001)
Optimism (LOT-R): r = .48 (Robins et al., 2001)
Depressive symptoms (CES-D): r = -.34 (Robins et al., 2001)
Objective intelligence: essentially no relationship with measured IQ or SAT scores (r = -.07 with SAT; Robins et al., 2001; Baumeister et al., 2003); self-esteem correlates only weakly (r ≈ .20) with self-perceived intellectual ability (Robins et al., 2001)
Socioeconomic status: essentially no correlation (r = .02; Robins et al., 2001)
Development and Gender Differences
Adult lifespan trajectory (ages 25-104): self-esteem increases during young and middle adulthood, rising about half a standard deviation (d = .47) from age 25 to 60, peaks at about age 60, then declines in old age (d = -.68 from age 60 to 100), a decline linked to changing socioeconomic status and health (Orth, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2010)
Gender difference: males score slightly higher than females, a small difference (d = .21; Kling et al., 1999, as reported in Bleidorn et al., 2016)
Cross-cultural consistency of the gender difference: across 48 nations, males consistently reported higher self-esteem than females, though the magnitude varied by culture (Bleidorn et al., 2016)
Scar model: depressive symptoms have a smaller reverse effect on later self-esteem; the vulnerability effect is significantly stronger than the scar effect (Sowislo & Orth, 2013)
Academic, Relationship, and Social Findings
School achievement: small positive correlation with grades and achievement tests, meta-analytic average r ≈ .21 to .26; the evidence indicates self-esteem is largely a result of doing well, not a cause of it (Baumeister et al., 2003)
Relationship satisfaction: self-esteem correlates r = .26 to .36 with relationship satisfaction across dating and married samples (Murray et al., 2000)
Social acceptance: self-esteem tracks perceived social acceptance (the sociometer hypothesis; Leary et al., 1995)
Cross-Cultural Research
53 nations studied: largely invariant factor structure and acceptable internal consistency in nearly all nations (mean α = .81; Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Mean levels vary across cultures, but direct cross-national mean comparisons have limited value because negatively worded items behaved differently across nations (Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Applications
Research outcome measure – self-esteem as predictor, correlate, or outcome in individual-differences, developmental, health, and social research
Mental-health screening – low self-esteem as an indicator of depression risk (not diagnostic; Sowislo & Orth, 2013)
Treatment monitoring – tracking change in self-regard across therapy or interventions
Cross-cultural comparison – with the measurement caveats noted below
Research Design Considerations
Report the scoring convention explicitly (1-4 coding, totals 10-40, versus 0-3 coding, totals 0-30); the two conventions are the same responses rescaled
Apply the full five-item reverse key (standard items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9) before summing; an incomplete key mis-scores every respondent
Do not impose cutoffs: no validated clinical threshold exists; interpret scores against normative means (Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Model method effects where the analysis is factor-analytic; the negatively worded items carry a documented method effect (Corwyn, 2000; McKay et al., 2014)
Cultural Considerations
Items may reflect Western individualistic values; cross-national mean comparisons should be made cautiously (Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Negatively worded items behaved differently across nations, so score differences between cultures can reflect response style rather than substantive self-esteem differences (Schmitt & Allik, 2005)
Limitations and Cautions
Socially desirable responding: participants may inflate self-reports
Method effects: negatively worded items introduce a method factor that can complicate factor-structure interpretation (Corwyn, 2000)
State versus trait: scores may be influenced by temporary mood or circumstances
Not diagnostic: no validated clinical cutoff; the RSES is a research and screening measure, not a stand-alone diagnostic tool
Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is in the public domain and may be used in research and clinical work without charge or permission. The Rosenberg family, through the University of Maryland Department of Sociology, requests citation of the original publication when the scale is used or referenced.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (no DOI)
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (no DOI)
Validation Research:
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002
Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 16(3, suppl.), 1017-1071. (no DOI)
Psychometric Studies:
Corwyn, R. F. (2000). The factor structure of global self-esteem among adolescents and adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 357-379. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2291
McKay, M. T., Boduszek, D., & Harvey, S. A. (2014). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A bifactor answer to a two-factor question? Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(6), 654-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.923436
Developmental and Cross-Cultural Research:
Orth, U., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Self-esteem development from young adulthood to old age: A cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 645-658. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018769
Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J. A., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 470-500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.470
Correlates and Applications:
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213-240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028931
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 478-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.478
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518-530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the RSES measure?
The RSES measures global self-esteem, an individual's overall positive or negative attitude toward themselves. It captures general feelings of self-worth, self-respect, self-satisfaction, and self-acceptance that transcend specific domains such as academic or social self-evaluations, and factor-analytic work treats it as a single dimension with a method effect from the negatively worded items (Corwyn, 2000).
How is the RSES scored?
Items are rated 1-4 (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Five items are reverse-scored: standard items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9, the negatively worded items, including "All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure". Totals range 10-40, with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem; the alternative 0-3 coding (totals 0-30) is the same data rescaled. Rosenberg's original 1965 version was scored as a Guttman scale yielding a 7-point score.
Is the RSES free to use?
Yes. The RSES is in the public domain and free to use for research and clinical purposes. The Rosenberg family, through the University of Maryland Department of Sociology, requests citation of Rosenberg (1965) when the scale is used or referenced.
Does the RSES have a clinical cutoff?
No. The RSES has no published, validated clinical cutoff and is not a diagnostic instrument. Scores are best interpreted against normative means, such as the cross-national grand mean of M = 30.85 (SD = 4.82) across 53 nations on the 10-40 scoring (Schmitt & Allik, 2005), rather than against fixed bands.
How reliable is the RSES?
Internal consistency is good on average: a mean Cronbach's alpha of .81 across 53 nations, though it varied by nation (Schmitt & Allik, 2005), and about .88 in a U.S. college sample (Robins et al., 2001). Two-week test-retest reliability was r = .85 in Silber and Tippett's (1965) early validation work.
Does low self-esteem cause depression?
A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found that low self-esteem prospectively predicts later depressive symptoms (the vulnerability model), and that this effect is significantly stronger than the reverse effect of depressive symptoms on later self-esteem (the scar model; Sowislo & Orth, 2013). The effects are modest, so low RSES scores indicate risk rather than a diagnosis.
How does the RSES differ from the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory?
The RSES is briefer (10 items versus the Coopersmith School Form's 58) and measures only global self-esteem, whereas the Coopersmith assesses domain-specific self-esteem (social, academic, family, personal) and is commercially published. The RSES uses an agree-disagree rating format rather than Coopersmith's "like me / unlike me" format, and it is free and widely used with both adolescents and adults.
