The Differences Between Self-Esteem and Self-Confidence

By Justin Ho
September 9, 2013
New York Universitys Graduate School was interviewing me for the upcoming
academic cycle. This was my first ever graduate school interview, and I spent weeks
preparing for it. I felt that the flow of the interview was going well, and I was giving solid
answers until they asked
Rate your self-confidence from 1-to-10, and explain why you gave it that number.
Without hesitation I responded along the lines of, Id say about 7 or 8. I have
confidence in myself and know that I have the capability to take on any challenge. I
say 7 or 8 only because I know I can always improve.
Okay, so now rate your self-esteem from 1-to-10, and explain why you gave it that
number.
I sat there analyzing the situation. Arent they the same thing? Was I asked a trick
question? I admitted that I didnt know that there was a difference.
Self-confidence: This is our view on our own abilities to do something. The level of self-
confidence is usually a result of overcoming certain obstacles or working to improve a
skill. Triumph in establishing these traits and skills builds on our confidence.
For example: Melissa has been studying for her GRE for the past 4 months. She knows
shes ready to take on the test. She is highly confident in her GRE test taking ability.
Self-esteem: This is our perception of ourselves. The level of self-esteem is a result of
social norms and what we believe ourselves to be. People who have high levels of self-
esteem are comfortable in their own skin and are happy with what they see in the
mirror.
For example: The acne on Mels chin has finally subsided. The medication and extra
steps he took to clean his face has really paid off. Mel feels happier with his self-image.
Seeing clearer skin in the mirror, Mels self-esteem increased. Is one more important
than the other?
An individual can have high self-esteem, but low self-confidence and vice versa.
It is common for one to affect the other. An individual with high self-confidence may
realize his abilities and, as a result, see himself as a stronger individual, increasing his self-
esteem.
What isnt highlighted enough is that many confident individuals may have
unexpectedly low self-esteems. This is most tangible when looking into the lives of
celebrities.
Pop culture pressures individuals to have the perfect body image and makes it tough
for people to be completely comfortable in their own skin.
Some celebrities have attained their fame with hard work and outstanding talent.
Although they seem to be producing the most cutting edge product of their field and
are confident in their abilities, the pop culture pressure pushes their self-esteems are at
dangerous lows.
To answer the question, I feel that self-esteem is more important. Self-esteem defines the
roots of self-confidence. It is difficult to see a friend who is extremely skilled and
confident in his ability, but does not like his self image.
High Self-Confidence vs Arrogance
High self-confidence is important for sustaining optimal performance in any skill or task.
Most people admire confident individuals for their trust and belief in themselves to
accomplish something, but more often than not, we see those individuals cross into the
realm of arrogance.
There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Being confident has nothing to
do with understanding what is right or wrong. It is about being open to new
perspectives with regards to what we do and always looking to improve our craft.
Confidence stems from understanding that challenges are meant to test the individual.
A confident individual welcomes these challenges.
A persons behavior demonstrates whether they are arrogant or confident. Confident
people dont feel the need to verbally broadcast their talents and achievements. They
show their faith in themselves through actions more so than with words. Individuals who
are arrogant tend to flaunt their successes and pander for adoration.
Our ego is an integral tool for managing our self-confidence. Ego isnt necessarily a
negative asset. If used correctly, were able to grow more than we believe. Ego is our
perception of ourselves, it is our self-esteem. It is incredibly important to have our egos in
line to prevent our self-confidence from pouring into the arrogance category.
Low Self-Esteem vs. Humility
There are many misconceptions when defining both low self-esteem and humility.
Humility is a characteristic that is often praised and well-respected. Google defines
humility as a modest or low view of ones own importance. This definition is
misleading.
Having a low view of self-importance does not necessarily mean that the individual
does not like his self image. Humble individuals understand that there are more
important things than their own accomplishments.
It can be tough to discern between the low self-esteem and humility in many situations.
You tell your friend that she put on an amazing performance, but she replies, nah, it
wasnt that great. Psychologically speaking, its difficult to see where this answer is
rooted. Is she being humble about her above-average performance or does she have
underlying insecurities that contribute to low self-esteem?
Even though it is not clear, the best we can do is clarify that her performance was
great.
Why it is not okay to have low self-esteem and/or self-confidence.
It is healthy to have a considerable amount of both self-confidence and self-esteem.
Individuals often make excuses to be content with low levels of both. We cannot let
ourselves believe it is okay to have low self-esteem and self-confidence.
Its okay to acknowledge that we can improve our confidence or esteem. We all have
aspects of ourselves we can improve. In the pursuit of true happiness, both self-
confidence and self-esteem should be traits we strive to build upon throughout our lives.
Our mentality dictates whether we can strengthen these traits.
After discerning between these two terms, I realized that Ive focused on building my
self-confidence and actively avoided working on my self-esteem. Masking my personal
image, I wanted to paint my self-image with my accomplishments. After realizing that I
did not enjoy this self-portrait, I changed my approach. Rooting my self-confidence
construction in personal image building, I was able to have my self-confidence aid the
reconstruction of my self-esteem.

http://theuplab.com/2013/09/09/differences-self-esteem-confidence/











Self-Esteem
Summary prepared by Nancy Adler and Judith Stewart in collaboration with the
Psychosocial Working Group. Last revised, March 2004.
Definition and Background
Self-esteem is a widely used concept both in popular language and in psychology. It
refers to an individual's sense of his or her value or worth, or the extent to which a
person values, approves of, appreciates, prizes, or likes him or herself (Blascovich &
Tomaka, 1991). The most broad and frequently cited definition of self-esteem within
psychology is Rosenberg's (1965), who described it as a favorable or unfavorable
attitude toward the self (p. 15).
Self-esteem is generally considered the evaluative component of the self-concept, a
broader representation of the self that includes cognitive and behavioral aspects as
well as evaluative or affective ones (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). While the construct is
most often used to refer to a global sense of self-worth, narrower concepts such as self-
confidence or body-esteem are used to imply a sense of self-esteem in more specific
domains. It is also widely assumed that self-esteem functions as a trait, that is, it is stable
across time within individuals. Self-esteem is an extremely popular construct within
psychology, and has been related to virtually every other psychological concept or
domain, including personality (e.g., shyness), behavioral (e.g., task performance),
cognitive (e.g., attributional bias), and clinical concepts (e.g., anxiety and depression).
While some researchers have been particularly concerned with understanding the
nuances of the self-esteem construct, others have focussed on the adaptive and self-
protective functions of self-esteem (see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991, for a review of
conceptual and methodological issues).
Self-esteem has been related both to socioeconomic status and to various aspects of
health and health-related behavior, as has a related construct, self-efficacy. Self-
efficacy, a term associated with the work of Bandura, refers to an individual's sense of
competence or ability in general or in particular domains. Research on both constructs
as they relate to SES and to health will be reviewed below.
Measurement
Self-esteem.
Among the most popular and well-utilized measures of self-esteem are the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale (1965) and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (I 967/1981).
Rosenberg's scale was originally developed to measure adolescents' global feelings of
self-worth or self-acceptance, and is generally considered the standard against which
other measures of self-esteem are compared. It includes 10 items that are usually
scored using a four-point response ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The
items are face valid, and the scale is short and easy and fast to administer. Extensive
and acceptable reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) and validity
(convergent and discriminant) information exists for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).
The Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory was developed through research to assess
attitude toward oneself in general, and in specific contexts: peers, parents, school, and
personal interests. It was originally designed for use with children, drawing on items from
scales that were previously used by Carl Rogers. Respondents state whether a set of 50
generally favorable or unfavorable aspects of a person are "like me" or "not like me."
There are two forms, a School Form (ages 8-15) and an Adult form (ages 16 and older)
(Anastasi, 1988; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991; Pervin, 1993). Acceptable reliability
(internal consistency and test-retest) and validity (convergent and discriminant)
information exists for the Self-Esteem Inventory (see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).
Self-efficacy.
Virtually all measures of self-efficacy, by virtue of the nature of the construct, are
domain specific, assessing individuals' sense of competence in particular areas. Rodin
and McAvay (1992; see also Seeman, Rodin, & Albert, 1993) developed and validated
a self-efficacy measure designed to be particularly relevant to older adults that
includes the domain of health. It taps both interpersonal efficacy (dealing with friends
and family) and instrumental efficacy (finances, safety, productivity) and has a total of
eight items.
Froman and Owen (1991) published a health self-efficacy measure intended for use
with high school students. The 43 item scale has two subscales, Physical Health and
Mental Health, and has acceptable reliability and validity (Froman & Owen, 1991).
Respondents are asked to indicate their confidence in their ability to perform 43
behaviors, such things as "eating a balanced diet," "maintaining friendships," and "telling
the truth."
Relationship to SES
Self-esteem
Perhaps the most famous investigation into the relationship of self-esteem to SES is
Rosenberg and Pearlin's (1978) assessment of social class and self-esteem among
children and adults. In an effort to clarify decades of inconclusive work on what many
thought would be an obvious connection between one's social status or prestige and
one's personal sense of worth, Rosenberg and Pearlin suggested that age was a critical
factor in teasing apart this relationship. Indeed, they found virtually no association
between social class of parents (measured by the Hollingshead Index of Social Position)
and self-esteem among younger children, a modest association among adolescents,
and a moderate association among adults based on their own social class. They rely on
theories about social comparison processes, reflected self-appraisals, self-perception
theory, and psychological centrality to explain the age graded relationship. Because
the salience of class in the interpersonal context differs for children and adults, and
because the social class of children is ascribed while that of adults is generally
considered achieved, Rosenberg and Pearlin argue, the extent to which the sense of
inequality inherent in the meaning of social class is mirrored within individuals is not the
same for children as it is for adults.
Coopersmith's (1967) original work was designed to assess the origins of self-esteem in
children. The results of this work in which children filled out the Self-Esteem Inventory and
provided ratings of their parents, staff members interviewed mothers, and mothers filled
out questionnaires, indicated that "external indicators of prestige [of the parents] such
as wealth, amount of education, and job title did not have as overwhelming and as
significant an effect on self-esteem as is often assumed" (Pervin, 1993, P. 189). Parental
attitudes and behaviorsacceptance of their children, clear and well-enforced
demands, and respect for actions within well-defined limitswere the primary
antecedents of children's sense of self-worth (Pervin, 1993).
Since the work by Rosenberg and Pearlin (1978) and Coopersmith (1967), others have
explored the relationship of self-esteem to SES, especially among adolescents. With
some exceptions, Rosenberg and Pearlin's results have been replicated (though it
appears that more people have studied adolescents than adults). Filsinger and
Anderson (1982) found no relationship between own SES (Duncan SES Index) and self-
esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) among adolescents, but a significant
relationship between the SES of the person's best friend and self-esteem. They attribute
this to a heightened sense of self-efficacy among those who interact with friends who
are of a higher social status than themselves, as it may be the social status of significant
others from which adolescents derive their own sense of social status (p. 383). Demo
and Savin-Williams (1983) replicated and extended Rosenberg and Pearlin's findings,
and demonstrated that the relationship between SES (father's occupation) and self-
esteem (Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, plus two others to assess reflected
appraisals and academic self-esteem) was greater among eighth-graders than among
fifth-graders.
Richman, Clark, and Brown (1985) found a main effect for the relationship between self-
esteem and SES among adolescents, but demonstrate complicated interactions of
gender, race, and social class: white females (including high SES individuals) were
significantly lower in general self-esteem than white males and black males and
females. There has been considerable research on the relationship between race and
self-esteem. As for social class, in which the expectation is that the social order will be
reflected in individual self-assessments, people of color are hypothesized to have lower
self-esteem than are white people. In research comparing whites and blacks, blacks
often have equal or higher self-esteem than whites, and a number of theories, including
those related to self-protection and disidentification, have been offered to explain
these findings (see Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991; Steele, 1992).
Using both traditional and non-traditional measures of social class (including father's
unemployment status, neighborhood unemployment, family welfare status, and
neighborhood evaluation), Wiltfang and Scarbecz (1990) found that father's education
had a small positive relationship with adolescents' self-esteem and non-traditional
measures had moderate to strong (neighborhood unemployment) associations with
self-esteem (items from both Rosenberg and Coopersmith), all in the expected
direction; they also found, however, that adolescent achievement variables (school
grades, group leadership, report of many close friends) contributed significantly more to
their self-esteem than did parental social class variables (P. 180).
In a study of 711 sixteen-year-olds in England, Francis and Jones (1995) found that the
relationship of SES and self-esteem varied with the measure of self-esteem. There was a
significant relationship between SES and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (r = -
.122, p <.001) and a moderate relationship with the Rosenberg (r =.063, p <.05).
Considerably less attention appears to have been paid to the self-esteem-SES
relationship among adults. In their study of 228 employed men, Gecas and Seff (1990)
were interested in the role of psychological centrality and compensation in maintaining
self-esteem. Simple bivariate correlations between self-esteem (measured by a 14-item
semantic differential scale) and SES were as follows: with occupational prestige, r = .21;
with education, r = .16; with income, r = .08 (significance level unavailable, N = 228).
There were, however, mediating effects of the centrality of particular contexts to the
self. They found that when work was a central aspect of men's self-concept,
occupational variables (occupational prestige, control at work) were more strongly
related to self-esteem than when they were not; similarly, when home was important,
home variables (control and satisfaction at home) were strongly related to self-esteem.
Self-efficacy
Clark (1996) suggested that resources, assessments of ability, and expectations about
the environment all make up a sense of control, which combines with outcome
expectations, physiologic states, primary and secondary experiences, and verbal
persuasion, to affect self-efficacy. More specifically, he noted that individual
components of SES may influence efficacy through a sense of control and active
problem solving (associated with higher levels of education and occupation) and that
sense of control is affected by income through material resources. In an empirical
investigation of the effect of SES on exercise self-efficacy, Clark, Patrick, Grembowski,
and Durham (1995) found direct effects of age and education on exercise self-
efficacy, and indirect effects of age, education, income, and occupation that
generally operated through previous exercise experience, satisfaction with amount of
walking, depression, and outcome expectations.
Relationship to Health
Much of the research about the relationship between self-esteem and health appears
to have been done in terms of the influence of self-esteem on health-related behaviors.
Self-esteem has been related to such health practices as the use of birth control
(Herold, Goodwin, & Lero, 1979), doing breast self-exam (Hallal, 1982), and exercise
(e.g., Lih-Mei Liao, Hunter, & Weinman, 1995; Vingerhoets, Croon, Jeninga, & Menges,
1990). Self-efficacy has been related to smoking cessation, pain management, weight
control, and adherence to health prevention programs (Pervin,1993). Rodin and
McAvay (1992) found that older adults' decline in perceived health was associated
with decreased self-efficacy. At least one study did not find a linear relationship
between self-esteem and health behaviors. Hollar and Snizek (1996) found that young
adults with high self-esteem and high levels of knowledge about AIDS employed safer
practices for non-conventional sexual practices than those with lower self-esteem, but
were riskier than those with lower self-esteem for more conventional sexual practices.
Abood and Conway (1992) found a relationship between self-esteem and health
values, and between self-esteem and general wellness behavior, but not between self-
esteem and tobacco or alcohol use. The relationship between self-esteem and general
wellness behavior remained significant even when health values were controlled for.
Rivas Torres and colleagues (Rivas Torres & Fernandez Fernandez, 1995; Rivas Torres,
Fernandez Fernandez, & Maceira, 1995) examined the relationship among self-esteem,
health values, and health behaviors among adolescents. They found a significant
relationship between self-esteem and general health behavior for both younger and
older adolescents, and that self-esteem accounted for a significant percent of the
variance in mental health behavior, social health behavior, and total health behavior.
Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger & Vohs (2003) in a review of the self-esteem literature
conclude that the benefits of high self-esteem fall into two categories, enhanced
initiative and pleasant feelings. They conclude that self-esteem has little association
with health behavior. High self-esteem does not appear to prevent children from
drinking, taking drugs, smoking or engaging in early sex. In fact, they suggest that high
self-esteem tends to foster experimentation possibly leading to early initiation of sexual
activity or drinking but that in general the effects of self-esteem are negligible with the
one exception being a reduction in chances of bulimia in females in the presence of
high self-esteem.
Based on the work of Brown and McGill (1989) and DeLongis, Folkman, and Lazarus
(1988), Lyons and Chamberlain (1994) expected that self-esteem would mediate the
relationship between minor life events and health. While they found a direct correlation
between self-esteem and health at two time periods in their study, they found no
interaction of self-esteem and minor events for any health outcome.
The well-established relationship between self-esteem and psychological well-being
(e.g., depression, social anxiety, loneliness, alienation; see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991)
may be an important factor in understanding the self-esteem/health relationship.
Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington (1996) found high correlations among self-
esteem, self-efficacy, ego strength, hardiness, optimism, and maladjustment, and all of
these constructs were significantly related to health.
Twenge & Campbell (2001) in a cross-temporal meta-analytic review describe age and
birth cohort differences in self-esteem among college students and school-age
children. Self-esteem in college students increased substantially during 1968-1994 as
measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale while children's scores on the
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory showed a curvilinear pattern, decreasing from 1965
to 1979 and increasing from 1980 to 1993. They conclude that during this period of rising
self-esteem few postive changes occurred in children and young adults' behavior,
noting most of the relevant behavioral indicators worsened, for example, increases in
teen pregnancy, increases in adolescent crime rates, and increases in teen suicide
rates and in anxiety and depression. (They note that their review does not include data
after 1994, when many social indicators began to improve.)
Stamatakis, Lynch, Everson, Raghunathan, Salonen and Kaplan (2003) looked at the
association of self-esteem and 10-year all-cause mortality in a population-based
sample of 2682 male residents of Kuopio, Finland who were followed prospectively as
part of the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. They report that while lower
self-esteem was found to be associated with many socioeconomic, behavioral,
psychosocial and disease characteristics no association between self-esteem and all-
cause mortality was observed after adjustment for other psychosocial characteristics,
primarily hopelessness.
Limitations
Perhaps the biggest limitation of all measures of self-esteem is their susceptibility to
socially desirable responding. Most measures are self-report, and it is difficult to obtain
non-self-report measures of such a personal and subjective construct. Also, scores tend
to be skewed toward high self-esteem, with even the lowest scorers on most tests
scoring above the mean and exhibiting fairly high levels of self-esteem. As Blascovich
and Tomaka (1991, p. 123) note, however, "an individual who fails to endorse Self-
Esteem Scale items at least moderately is probably clinically depressed," suggesting
that even the restricted range of self-esteem scores is useful amongand
representative ofnon-depressed individuals. Finally, the Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory has been criticized for lack of a stable factor structure (Blascovich & Tomaka,
1991).
Selected Bibliography
Abood, D. A., & Conway, T. L. (1992). Health value and self-esteem as predictors of
wellness behavior. Health Values, 16, 20-26.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Kreuger, 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.
Bernard, L.C., Hutchison, S., Lavin, A. & Pennington, P. (1996). Ego-strength, hardiness,
self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, and maladjustment: Health-related personality
constructs and the "Big Five" model of personality. Assessment. Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc: US. June Vol. 3(2), 115-131.
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, Volume I. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Clark, D. 0. (1996). Age, socioeconomic status, and exercise self-efficacy. The
Gerontologist, 36 157-164.
Clark, D. O., Patrick, D. L., Grembowski, D., & Durham, M. L. (1995). Socioeconomic
status and exercise self-efficacy in late life.Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 355-376.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). The antecedents of self-esteem. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1967).
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.
Filsinger, E. E., & Anderson, C. C. (1982). Social class and self-esteem in late
adolescence: Dissonant context or self-efficacy?Developmental Psychology, 18, 380-
384.
Francis, L. J., & Jones, S. H. (1996). Social class and self-esteem. Journal of Social
Psychology, L36, 405-406.
Froman, R. D., & Owen, S. V. (1991). High school students' perceived self-efficacy in
physical and mental health. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 181-196.
Gecas, V., & Seff, M. A. (1990). Social class and self-esteem: Psychological centrality,
compensation, and the relative effects of work and home. Social Psychology Quarterly,
53, 165-173.
Lyons, A., & Chamberlain, K. (1994). The effects of minor events, optimism, and
selfesteem on health. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 559-570.
Pervin, L. A. (1993). Personality: Theory and research. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Richman, C. L., Clark, M. L., & Brown, K. P. (1985). General and specific self-esteem in
late adolescent students: Race x gender x SES effects. Adolescence, 20, 555-566.
Rodin, J., & MeAvay, G. (I 992). Determinants of change in perceived health in a
longitudinal study of older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 47, P373-P384.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rosenberg, M., & Pearlin, L. 1. (1978). Social class and self-esteem among children and
adults. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 53-77.
Rivas Torres, R.M., & Fernandez Fernandez, P. (I 995). Self-esteem and value of health a
determinants of adolescent health behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 16, 60-63.
Stamatakis, K.A., Lynch, J., Everson, S.A., Raghunathan, T., Salonen, J.T. & Kaplan, G.A.
(2003). Self-esteem and mortality: Prospective evidence from a population-based
study. AEP, 14 (1): 58-65.
Twenge, J.M. & Campbell, W.K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem:
A cross-temporal meta-analysis.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 321-344.
Wiltfang, G. L., & Scarbecz, M. (1990). Social class and adolescents' self-esteem:
Another look. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 174-183.

http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/selfesteem.php