See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242526829

Gender Differences in Domain-Specific Self-Esteem: A Meta-Analysis

Article in Review of General Psychology · March 2009

DOI: 10.1037/a0013689

CITATIONS READS
235 6,581

5 authors, including:

Brittany Christine Gentile Shelly Grabe

Genentech University of California, Santa Cruz
30 PUBLICATIONS 3,380 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 3,167 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jean M. Twenge Brooke E Wells

San Diego State University Widener University
151 PUBLICATIONS 27,318 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 1,647 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Psychological Exploration of Engagement in Geek Culture View project

Property Rights and HIV Prevention View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shelly Grabe on 04 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review of General Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 13, No. 1, 34 – 45 1089-2680/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013689

Gender Differences in Domain-Specific Self-Esteem:

A Meta-Analysis
Brittany Gentile Shelly Grabe
University of Georgia University of California, Santa Cruz

Brenda Dolan-Pascoe Brooke E. Wells

and Jean M. Twenge Center for HIV Educational Studies and Training (CHEST)
San Diego State University and National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.

Alissa Maitino
Alliant International University

This meta-analysis examines gender differences in 10 specific domains of self-esteem across 115 studies,
including 428 effect sizes and 32,486 individuals. In a mixed-effects analysis, men scored significantly
higher than women on physical appearance (d ⫽ 0.35), athletic (d ⫽ 0.41), personal self (d ⫽ 0.28), and
self-satisfaction self-esteem (d ⫽ 0.33). Women scored higher than men on behavioral conduct (d ⫽
⫺0.17) and moral– ethical self-esteem (d ⫽ ⫺0.38). The gender difference in physical appearance
self-esteem was significant only after 1980 and was largest among adults. No significant gender
differences appeared in academic, social acceptance, family, and affect self-esteem. The results demon-
strate the influence of reflected appraisals on self-esteem.

Keywords: gender differences, self-esteem, adolescence, physical appearance, meta-analysis

Since the mid-1990s, reports in the popular media have sug- pearance, academics, social). Self-esteem may vary considerably
gested that girls—particularly teens— have distressingly low self- from one domain to another. Thus, domain-specific self-esteem
esteem (e.g., Pipher, 1994). Recent advertisements like the “Dove may show larger gender differences than global self-esteem (e.g.,
Self-Esteem Fund” continue to suggest that girls and women suffer Sondhaus, Kurtz, & Strube, 2001; Tiggemann & Rothblum, 1997).
from negative self- images. But are girls and women actually The present research undertakes a comprehensive meta-analysis of
deficient in self-esteem compared with boys and men? Three gender differences in 10 domain-specific areas of self-esteem.
previous meta-analyses found that the effect size for the gender We draw primarily on two theoretical approaches to self-esteem.
difference in self-esteem was small, d ⫽ 0.15; in adolescence the First, the reflected appraisals model maintains that people base
difference was d ⫽ 0.33, a small to medium effect size (Kling, their self-esteem on others’ opinions and perceptions. This idea has
Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999; Major, Barr, Zubek, & Babey, a long history; Cooley (1902) argued that self-esteem arises from
1999; Twenge & Campbell, 2001). the appraisals of others. Mead (1934) took this concept a step
However, these previous meta-analyses examined gender dif- further, maintaining that our self-esteem is also influenced by the
ferences in global but not domain-specific self-esteem. These are “generalized other”—thus the entire sociocultural environment
two distinct concepts in the literature. Global self-esteem is “the (which in modern times would include the media). Thus, the
positivity of the person’s self-evaluation” (Baumeister, 1998, p. reflected appraisals model would predict gender differences in
694) or “the level of global regard that one has for the self as a areas where societal standards are different for men and women.
person” (Harter, 1993, p. 88). Domain-specific self-esteem, on the The reflected appraisals model has been conceptualized more
other hand, describes self-satisfaction in specific areas (e.g., ap-
recently as a “sociometer” (Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel,
1998; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995) or the “need to
belong” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). These authors theorize that
Brittany Gentile, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia; self-esteem is primarily rooted in our relationships with others—
Shelly Grabe, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa what others think of us, whether they accept us, and so on.
Cruz; Brenda Dolan-Pascoe and Jean M. Twenge, Department of Psychol- Interactions with others are good predictors of fluctuations in
ogy, San Diego State University; Brooke E. Wells, Center for HIV Edu- self-esteem, and even at the level of nations, countries with high
cational Studies and Training (CHEST) and National Development and levels of interaction between friends have higher mean self-esteem
Research Institutes, Inc.; Alissa Maitino, California School of Professional
(Denissen, Penke, & Schmitt, 2008). For gender differences in
Psychology, Alliant International University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jean M. self-esteem, the reflected appraisals model predicts that other peo-
Twenge, Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, 5500 ple’s perceptions of us— or of our gender as a whole—is a key
Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4611. E-mail: component of self-esteem. If someone’s interactions with others
[email protected] around a particular domain are positive, then they would have high

34
 GENDER DIFFRENCES IN DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 35

self-esteem in that domain. If they are negative and judgmental, Physical Appearance
however, self-esteem would suffer. For example, some have the-
orized that negative interactions often occur around women’s There is no objective difference in attractiveness between the
physical appearance, which is often scrutinized and discussed genders, thus the competencies model would predict no gender
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997); thus, women might have lower differences. Competencies might even predict a female advantage,
self-esteem in the domain of physical appearance. as—at least in Western societies— both men and women prefer to
The competencies model (James, 1890) argues that people draw look at female bodies rather than male bodies, and women focus
self-esteem from accomplishments in certain areas. The compe- more on their appearance. Appearance is more central to girls’
tencies model predicts gender differences in areas where actual self-esteem than boys’, with body image a stronger predictor of
performance differs. Thus, it is a model of self-efficacy, predicting global self-esteem in females compared with males (Allgood-
that people will feel high self-esteem when they have performed Merten, Lewinsohn, & Hops, 1990; Polce-Lynch, Myers, Kilmar-
tin, Forssmann-Falck, & Kliewer, 1998).
well and will perform well when they have high self-esteem (e.g.,
However, the reflected appraisals model makes the opposite
Bandura, 1989). Although self-efficacy and self-esteem are distinct
prediction. It is often more difficult for girls and women to feel
concepts, domain-specific self-esteem has some overlap with self-
positive about their appearance because of media messages pro-
efficacy, because it addresses confidence in a certain area of
moting extremely high standards for female appearance (e.g.,
competence. Some of these areas, like academics and athletics, are
Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Harter, 1993). This includes the
performance domains that may show a reciprocal relationship
pressure to be thin, which comes not only from the media but also
between performance and self-esteem, with each influencing the
from family and friends (Wertheim, Paxton, Shultz, & Muir,
other. Thus, the competencies model (and self-efficacy theory)
1997). In other words, reflected appraisals create a self-esteem
predicts that when females perform better in an area, the gender deficit in appearance self-esteem among females. Critical reflected
difference in that area will favor females. This most likely occurs appraisals may be one of the sources for the perception that girls’
through two mechanisms. First, the average individual female is likely self-esteem decreases during adolescence: Girls’ body satisfaction
to perform better in an area, and thus females’ self-esteem will be and perceptions of their attractiveness decrease during the teen
higher than males’ in that area on average. For example, the average years, while boys’ increase or remain the same (Hargreaves &
girl earns better grades than the average boy, so the gender Tiggemann, 2002; Harter, 1990, 1993). This dissatisfaction con-
difference in academic self-esteem should favor females. Second, tinues into adulthood. Tiggemann and Rothblum (1997) found that
females may know that their gender group performs better in the the majority of women rated themselves as overweight and said
area, increasing their self-esteem in that area apart from their they wanted to weigh approximately nine pounds less. In contrast,
individual performance. This mechanism can break down, how- men rated themselves as average weight and wanted to weigh
ever, if people apply shifting standards by only comparing them- slightly more. Women also overestimate male preferences for
selves within gender groups (e.g., Biernat & Manis, 1994). Over- slender female bodies; men’s ideal figure is heavier than what
all, however, the competencies model expects that gender differ- women believed men’s ideal was (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, Rade, &
ences in self-esteem in specific domains will reflect the gender Jaberg, 2001). More than 90% anorexia and bulimia sufferers are
differences in performance within those domains. female (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Overall, the
In some cases, the reflected appraisals and competencies models high societal standards for female appearance mean that many
can compliment each other and work together. For example, peo- women will not attain the promoted ideal. Thus, it is likely that
ple may appraise a woman’s athletic ability differently because females will have lower appearance self-esteem than males.
they realize that on average, men’s strength and speed are greater
(applying shifting standards: Biernat & Manis, 1994). Similarly,
people might appraise a good athlete as such because he truly is Athletics
competent in that area. Thus, in some cases the two models will Although girls are now more likely to participate in sports than
make similar predictions. In others, however, they will predict they once were, athletic activity is still more emphasized for boys.
different results because the appraisal and the competence of males Even among children who play sports, boys have higher athletic
versus females in certain areas are discrepant—that is, the view of self-esteem (e.g., Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993;
others and actual competence do not agree. Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002). Boys also
This meta-analysis includes studies that administered one of believe they are more competent in athletics (Bosacki, 2003;
the four most widely used scales of multifaceted self-esteem: Klomsten, Skaalvik, & Espnes, 2004; Wu & Smith, 1997). An
the Harter Self-Perception Profile (Harter), the Self-Description assessment of the aspects of physical self-concept found that boys
Questionnaire (SDQ), the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale scored higher than girls in eight of nine subdomains, including
(TSCS), or the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale (Piers-Harris). appearance, body fat, coordination, and endurance (Klomsten et
Among them, these scales tap 10 domains of self-esteem: al., 2004). The gender gap in athletic self-esteem widens during
physical appearance, athletic, academic, social acceptance, adolescence. Although physical self-concept decreases from ele-
family, behavioral conduct, affect, personal self, self- mentary to secondary school for both genders, the drop is more
satisfaction, and moral-ethical. We review previous research on pronounced for girls (Klomsten et al., 2004). Both theoretical
gender differences in each of these domains and outline what models suggest that males will score higher than females on
each theory (reflected appraisals or competencies) would pre- measures of athletic self-esteem; the competencies model favors
dict for gender differences in that area. males for their measurably higher performance in most athletic
36 GENTILE ET AL.

domains, and reflected appraisals value these skills more in males found that across elementary, middle school, and high school
than in females. samples, girls had more previous friendships that had ended, and
At first, it may seem paradoxical that males are held to higher current friendships that were shorter than those of boys. When
standards in athletics and females in physical appearance, yet we asked to imagine their closest friendships ending, girls believed
predict higher self-esteem for males in athletics and lower self- they would be more distressed. In adulthood, women are more
esteem for females in physical appearance. By this assumption, likely than men to respond to rejection cues by becoming more
self-esteem should be low when expectations are high. However, self-critical (Baldwin, Granzberg, Pippus, & Pritchard, 2003).
athletics and physical appearance, though both involving the body, Given that women focus on maintaining relationships, the compe-
have a crucial difference: Athletics is about doing, and physical tencies model would predict that they would have higher self-
appearance is about being looked at (Fredrickson & Roberts, esteem in this area. However, the reflected appraisals model sug-
1997). One is active (and thus may led to self-esteem and good gests that this advantage may be eliminated by the critical nature
mental health) and the other is passive, and thus may lead to of some of these relationships. Thus, gender differences in social
lowered self-esteem through rumination and eventual depression acceptance self-esteem may be influenced by opposing forces, with
(Nolen-Hoeksema, Larson, & Grayson, 1999). Especially for ad- relationships causing both higher and lower self-esteem in girls
olescents, athletic standards are also more attainable than the more and women. These influences might well cancel each other out,
unrealistic standards set for appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts, leading to null or small gender differences in social acceptance
1997). self-esteem.

Academics
Family
Females perform better academically and receive better grades
The family can act as a source of support and help affirm a
than their male peers (Pomerantz, Altermatt, & Saxon, 2002;
child’s beliefs about his or her self-worth. Familial relationships
Stetsenko, Little, Gordeeva, Grasshof, & Oetlingen, 2000). How-
have a significant impact on female self-esteem and levels of
ever, this does not always result in girls and women having higher
depression, a result not seen in males (Colarossi & Eccles, 2000).
academic self-esteem. When males outperform females in academ-
However, this influence can have both positive and negative ram-
ics, female self-esteem suffers, but when females perform at a
ifications. Girls with strong familial relationships have higher
higher level, their self-esteem does not increase (Eccles et al.,
levels of self-esteem and lower levels of depression; however,
1993; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990; Jacobs et al., 2002;
parents gave girls more negative feedback than they give boys
Stetsenko et al., 2000; Weiss, Kemmler, Deisenhammer, Fleis-
(Lundgren & Rudawsky, 1998) even when their performances
chhacker, & Delazer, 2003). Even among academically gifted
were the same (Lewis, Allesandri, & Sullivan, 1992). When con-
adolescents, females are more self-critical of their abilities (Lus-
sidered together, this creates a detrimental combination for girls’
combe & Riley, 2001). This may occur because teachers give less
self-esteem if they are simultaneously highly influenced and highly
positive and more negative feedback to girls than to boys (Dweck &
criticized. Reflected appraisals would predict a male advantage on
Leggett, 1988; Eccles & Blumenfeld, 1985). Thus, the competencies
this scale; because there are no established gender differences in
model predicts a female advantage in academic self-esteem, but the
closeness to family, the competencies model predicts no differ-
reflected appraisals model predicts a male advantage or no gender
ence. Given this mixed picture, we predict null or very small
difference.
gender differences in family self-esteem.

Social Acceptance
Behavioral Conduct
Friendships, peer relationships, and social approval are impor-
tant for self-esteem (Leary & Downs, 1995). People with higher Behavioral conduct self-esteem measures an individual’s per-
self-esteem have closer personal relationships (Lundgren & ception of how socially acceptable his or her behavior is. People
Rudawsky, 1998). However, high self-esteem may have more with high behavioral conduct self-esteem view their behavior as
bearing on females’ relationships. Josephs, Markus, and Tafarodi appropriate (Haynes, 1990). Behavioral conduct is particularly
(1992) found that men, but not women, with high self-esteem important in school. Haynes (1990) found that behavioral conduct
differentiated themselves from others. As children, girls play in self-esteem was a significant predictor of classroom behavior,
smaller groups and maintain more emotionally intimate and less group participation, and attitudes toward authority in middle
competitive relationships than boys (Lever, 1978). In adolescence, school children. Girls generally perceive themselves as better
females use more expressive pathways to increase intimacy with behaved than boys do (e.g., Bosacki, 2003; Cole et al., 2001; Wu
friends, whereas males use expressive and instrumental pathways & Smith, 1997). Boys’ problems tend to manifest in the form of
equally (Radmacher & Azmitia, 2006). During adulthood, women externalizing disorders and girls’ in internalizing disorders
report that their friendships are more focused on sharing informa- (Wicks-Nelson & Israel, 2003). Perhaps as a result, boys are more
tion and communicating than men’s friendships are (Sheets & likely to be punished or reprimanded because of their behavior.
Lugar, 2005). Both competencies and reflected appraisals predict a female ad-
However, girls’ social relationships can also be problematic. vantage, as girls and women have less problematic behavioral
Werner and Crick (2004) showed that girls reacted to social conduct and are recognized for this good behavior by others. Thus,
rejection by retaliating; boys did not. This creates an element of the gender difference in behavior self-esteem is likely to favor girls
fragility in females’ friendships. Benenson and Christakos (2003) and women.
 GENDER DIFFRENCES IN DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 37

Affect Moral–Ethical Self-Concept

Feeling happy, satisfied, and free from anxiety are all elements Moral– ethical self-concept is a measure of one’s perceptions of
of emotional well-being. In contrast, negative emotions are related moral– ethical attributes and satisfaction with one’s religion or lack
to depression and low self-esteem. In childhood, girls and boys are of it (Haynes, 1990). Among Christian populations, women are
equally likely be depressed, but in early adolescence female de- more religious than men on every measure of religiosity (Walter &
pression rates begin to rise and by late adolescence females are Davie, 1998). However, there is little gender difference in religi-
twice as likely as males to be depressed (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001; osity among Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim adherents (Loewenthal,
Twenge & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002). This incidence rate remains MacLeod, & Cinnirella, 2002).
high throughout adulthood. This large gender difference has been Women are also more likely to focus on caring for others when
attributed to many sources, including chronic strain, rumination, faced with moral dilemmas (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988; Wark &
and unequal status at home and work (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1999). Krebs, 1996). Females also exhibit more moral maturity than males
Because women experience more sexist incidents than men, they (Wark & Krebs, 1996); however, no gender differences have been
were subsequently more likely to report feeling angry, anxious, found for moral judgment stage scores (Lifton, 1985). Both compe-
and depressed (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001). Further- tencies and reflected appraisals recognize that females value this area
more, being a member of a devalued social group increases one’s more. Thus, we expect that the gender difference in moral– ethical
risk for emotional distress (Katz, Joiner, & Kwon, 2002). Women self-esteem will favor girls and women.
are also more likely to be anxious. Two meta-analyses found that
women score higher in anxiety than men do, with an effect size Overview
around d ⫽ 0.24 (Feingold, 1994; Twenge, 2000). However, the
gender difference in positive affect also favors women. When only This meta-analysis aims to determine the size and significance of
positive emotions are measured, women report slightly greater gender differences in specific domains of self-esteem. The small
happiness and life satisfaction than men (Wood, Rhodes, & gender differences found in global self-esteem (Kling et al., 1999;
Whelan, 1989). Women are also more gregarious, trusting, and Major et al., 1999; Twenge & Campbell, 2001) may be masking
tender-minded than men (Feingold, 1994). Thus, the gender differ- larger differences among specific domains. It is also not clear which
ence in affect self-esteem might be null, because women’s higher specific facets favor men and which favor women, and how large any
negative affect may be cancelled out by their higher positive affect. differences are. There may also be significant moderators of the
Both competencies and reflected appraisals recognize the gender effects. The current meta-analysis examines gender differences in
difference in emotionality in both positive and negative affect and are self-esteem based on appearance, athletics, academics, social accep-
thus in agreement with the prediction for no or only small gender tance, family, behavioral conduct, affect, personal self, self-
differences. satisfaction, and moral-ethical self.

Personal Self Moderator Variables

Personal self-concept is a measure of one’s evaluation of per- The meta-analytic design also allows us to examine moderator
sonality apart from the physical body or relationship to others variables of gender differences in specific self-esteem. For example,
(Haynes, 1990). Research on personal self-esteem is limited and does the gender difference in appearance self-esteem grow larger
conflicting. One study found that females score significantly higher during adolescence? We can also examine changes over time to see
than males (Gadzella & Williamson, 1984); however, personal whether gender differences in specific self-concept have changed
self-esteem overlaps with global self-esteem, which usually favors from the 1970s to the present. In addition, because we are using
males. This suggests that the gender difference will slightly favor several measures of specific self-concept, we can also examine how
males. Reflected appraisals also suggests a male advantage, be- consistent gender differences are across the four measures.
cause men are usually seen as more autonomous and assertive; the
competencies model predicts no differences, because gender dif-
Method
ferences in agentic traits have disappeared (Twenge, 1997, 2001).
Measures of Self-Esteem
Self-Satisfaction
We focused on studies that used the four most widely used
Self-satisfaction is also a measure of happiness with oneself as scales of multifaceted self-esteem: the Harter, the SDQ, the TSCS,
a person (Stringer, Reynolds, & Simpson, 2003). Women have and the Piers-Harris, each of which demonstrates high reliability
been shown to have higher life satisfaction than men (Wood et al., and validity (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Of course, reliability
1989), but little research has investigated self-satisfaction. One and validity differs by population. These scales appear to be
study found that women score significantly higher on this subscale equally valid for males and females, although they differ in age
(Gadzella & Williamson, 1984). On the other hand, self- group targeted. The Harter, SDQ, and Piers-Harris scales are
satisfaction, like personal self-esteem, overlaps considerably with intended for children and are more valid for that age group,
global self-esteem. This suggests that the gender difference will whereas the TSCS were intended for adolescents and adults (Blas-
slightly favor males. Similar to personal self, reflected appraisals covich & Tomaka, 1991). These scales are the most popular
would favor males, whereas competencies would predict no dif- measures of specific self-esteem and thus have the most samples
ferences. available for analysis. Of note, each of these scales assesses
38 GENTILE ET AL.

physical appearance self-esteem, which we hypothesize to be one Final Sample of Studies

of the most important facets for gender differences.
Three of these scales (the SDQ, the TSCS, and the Piers-Harris) The search and review procedures led to a final sample of 115
use a similar format, with respondents asked to note if they agree articles and dissertations. These studies included 32,486 partici-
or disagree with simple first-person statements such as “I am pants and yielded 428 effect sizes (most studies included multiple
good-looking,” “I am well-behaved in school,” “I am a member of effect sizes, as the self-esteem measures all include multiple do-
a happy family,” “I am a good athlete,” or “I am satisfied with my mains of self-esteem.) A table with a list of the studies included in
moral behavior.” The Harter, intended for young children, instead the meta-analysis and their reference list can be obtained from
either the first or second author.
uses pictures of children performing various activities— one who
is good at the activity (“This boy isn’t very good at numbers”) and
one who isn’t (“This boy is pretty good at numbers”). Children are Calculation of Effect Sizes
then asked if they are good at that activity (“Are you: Not too good
Formulas for the effect size, d, and homogeneity tests were
at numbers OR sort of good, pretty good, OR really good at
taken from Hedges and Becker (1986). When means and SDs were
numbers”).
available, the effect size was computed as the mean self-esteem
score for males minus the mean self-esteem score for females,
Locating Studies divided by the pooled SD. When means and SDs were not avail-
able, the effect size was calculated from reported t or F tests. When
We searched the Web of Science by Thompson Scientific (previ- t or F was reported, d was calculated by using the formula
ously known as the Science and Social Sciences Citation Index), a provided by Hedges and Becker (1986).
comprehensive database that includes both major and minor journals Because effect sizes tend to be upwardly biased when based on
from all fields in science and social science. We searched for articles small sample sizes, effect sizes were corrected for bias in the
that cited the original sources for the four scales (Fitts, 1965; Harter, estimation of population effect sizes using the formula provided by
1985; Marsh & O’Neill, 1984; Marsh, Relich, & Smith, 1983; Hedges (1981). All effect size analyses were weighted analyses
Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1983; Piers, 1969, 1984; Piers & Harris, (i.e., each effect size was weighted by an inverted variance;
1969; Roid & Fitts, 1988). Hedges & Versa, 1998; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
We also conducted a search for dissertations using the database To conduct the meta-analyses, we used mixed-effects models,
which assume that effect size variance can be explained by both
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. We searched for the keywords
systematic and random components (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
“Harter Self-Perception Profile,” “Self-Description Question-
In mixed-effects models, certain identifiable study characteris-
naire,” “Tennessee Self-Concept Scale,” and “Piers-Harris.” An
tics may act as moderator variables that are associated with
initial search yielded a prohibitively high number of dissertations.
systematic differences among effect sizes at the same time that
We examined a subsample of the available dissertations, locating
a random component of residual variance remains after the
those published in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and systematic portion is accounted for. The mixed-effects model is
2005. preferable in this case because a fixed-effects model assumes
We included in the meta-analysis studies that met the fol- that the only source of variation is from systematic variation,
lowing criteria: (1) the study did not preselect participants on and the random effects model assumes none of the variation is
any relevant variable (e.g., extreme depression scores, at-risk from systematic sources. Mixed-effects models assume the ef-
status, alcoholics, learning-disabled students, etc.); (2) the study fects of between-study variables are systematic, but that there is
involved at least 10 participants; and (3) the authors reported the a remaining unmeasured random effect in the effect size distri-
domain-specific self-esteem scores broken down by gender. Fi- bution in addition to sampling error. As is done in random
nally, studies had to report data in such a way that an effect size effects models, a random effects variance component (derived
could be calculated (see following section on the calculation of from the residual homogeneity value after the moderators are
effect sizes). taken into account) is estimated and added to the standard error
associated with each effect size and inverted variance weights
are calculated.
Coding of Studies
Studies were coded for the following variables: (a) age or age Results
group of respondents, (b) year of data collection, coded as two
Mean Effect Sizes
years prior to the date of publication unless another year was noted
in the article (following Oliver & Hyde, 1993), (c) ethnicity/racial Mean effect sizes were calculated for each of the self-esteem
breakdown of the sample, and (d) measure of self-esteem used. domains. The results are reported in Table 1. The number of
Not enough studies reported data on socioeconomic status to code samples (k), the weighted d, the 95% confidence interval for d, and
this variable. Most studies reported region, but there were not the total homogeneity statistic (QT) for each self-esteem domain
enough studies conducted outside the United States to analyze this are reported. To address outlier data points, we eliminated effect
variable. Studies reporting statistics separately for different age sizes more than 2 SDs above or below the mean (Lipsey & Wilson,
groups, self-esteem measures, or ethnic groups were coded as 2001). Out of 428 effect sizes, this procedure identified 20 total
separate data points. outliers that were eliminated from further analyses (4 for physical
 GENDER DIFFRENCES IN DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 39

Table 1 tus, and the higher effect sizes for dissertations argue against the
Summary of Main Effects for Gender Differences in Domain- possibility of a file-drawer problem.
Specific Self-Esteem
Moderator Analyses
Self-esteem domain k d 95% CI QT
Physical appearance 76 .35 .31, .40 288.07ⴱⴱⴱ Physical appearance. Homogeneity analyses using procedures
Athletic 68 .41 .36, .46 322.33ⴱⴱⴱ specified by Hedges and Becker (1986) and Lipsey and Wilson (2001)
Academic 75 .04 .00, .08 155.60ⴱⴱⴱ indicated that the set of 76 effect sizes was significantly heteroge-
Social acceptance 81 .04 ⫺.02, .10 109.84ⴱ neous, QT ⫽ 288.07, ␹2(75) ⫽ 118.60, p ⬍ .001. The significant
Family 21 ⫺.02 ⫺.07, .04 20.41
between-groups homogeneity statistics for age, ␹2(4) ⫽ 13.28, p ⬍
Behavioral conduct 56 ⫺.17 ⫺.28, ⫺.06 88.85ⴱⴱ
Affect 17 .11 .04, .19 19.18 .01, data collection year ␹2(3) ⫽ 16.27, p ⬍ .001, and measure,
Personal self 9 .28 .11, .45 23.82ⴱⴱ ␹2(3) ⫽ 7.82, p ⬍ .05 suggest that there is a significant difference in
Self-satisfaction 10 .33 .18, .49 58.78ⴱⴱⴱ the magnitude of the effect sizes as a function of these moderator
Moral–ethical 15 ⫺.38 ⫺.48, ⫺.29 59.47ⴱⴱⴱ variables. As can be seen from Table 3, gender differences in physical
appearance self-esteem were largest during adulthood. However, that
Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ effect size; CI ⫽ confidence interval;
QT ⫽ total homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
effect size was based on only two samples. Of the age groups with
a negative d indicates that females scored higher. more samples, the largest gender difference in appearance self-esteem
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. occurred during early adolescence, consistent with the idea that the
standards of others for a sexualized adult female appearance is at the
root of the difference (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
appearance, 3 for athletic, 3 for academic, 2 for social accep- Time period also moderated the effect; there was not a significant
tance, 1 for family, 4 for behavioral conduct, 1 for affect, 1 for gender difference during the 1970s, but beginning in the 1980s
personal self, and 1 for self-satisfaction). women scored significantly lower than men in physical appearance
Significant mean effect sizes ranged from ⫺0.17 to 0.41 (see self-esteem. There are also slight differences based on measure, with
Table 1). As expected, males scored higher than females on the smallest differences on the Harter and the largest on the TSCS.
physical appearance, athletic, personal, and self-satisfaction self- Athletic. Homogeneity analyses showed that the set of 68
esteem, but females scored significantly higher than males on effect sizes was significantly heterogeneous. As shown in Table 4,
behavioral conduct and moral– ethical self-esteem. Academic, af- measure is the only significant moderator variable, with effect
fect, social acceptance, and family self-esteem did not show signifi- sizes for the Harter and the TSCS moderate and comparable but
cant gender differences, because their 95% confidence intervals in- the effect size for the SDQ near zero.
cluded zero (or nearly included zero, in the case of affect). Table 2 Academic. The set of 75 effect sizes was significantly heteroge-
compares the predictions from the reflected appraisals and com- neous, QT ⫽ 155.60, ␹2(74) ⫽ 117.35, p ⬍ .001. As shown in Table
petencies models with the results of the analyses. Overall, the 5, age is a significant moderator. While there are no significant
reflected appraisals model receives more support. differences between males and females on academic self-esteem at
Only six out of the 10 domains included enough datapoints from most ages, a small difference emerges during adulthood favoring
dissertations to compare unpublished versus published data. Of females.
these, four showed no significant differences by publication status. Social acceptance. Homogeneity analyses indicated that the
Unpublished dissertations produced a higher effect size (d ⫽ 0.72, set of 81 effect sizes was significantly heterogeneous, QT ⫽
k ⫽ 4) than published journal articles (d ⫽ 0.33, k ⫽ 72), 109.84, ␹2(80) ⫽ 101.88, p ⬍ .05. As shown in Table 6, year was
␹2(2) ⫽ 16.02, p ⬍ .001, for physical appearance, and dissertations a significant moderator, with the effect closer to zero during the
showed a higher effect size (d ⫽ 0.70, k ⫽ 3) than published 1980s and very small during the other eras.
articles (d ⫽ 0.18, k ⫽ 7), ␹2(2) ⫽ 8.91, p ⬍ .05 for self- Family. Homogeneity analyses indicated that the set of 21
satisfaction. Thus, there were few differences by publication sta- effect sizes was not heterogeneous, QT ⫽ 20.41, ␹2(20) ⫽

Table 2
Comparison of the Model Predictions and Actual Outcomes
Reflected appraisals model Competencies model
Self-esteem domain predictions predictions Actual findings
Physical appearance Males higher Females higher/no difference Males higher
Athletic Males higher Males higher Males higher
Academic Males higher/no difference Females higher No difference
Social acceptance No difference Females higher No difference
Family Males higher No difference No difference
Behavioral conduct Females higher Females higher Females higher
Affect No difference No difference No difference
Personal Males higher No difference Males higher
Self-satisfaction Males higher No difference Males higher
Moral–ethical Females higher Females higher Females higher
40 GENTILE ET AL.

Table 3
Moderating Variables in Physical Appearance Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
ⴱⴱ
Age group 17.13
Elementary school (ages 5–10) 24 0.30 0.22, 0.38 102.92ⴱⴱⴱ
Junior high (ages 11–13) 25 0.41 0.33, 0.49 57.47ⴱⴱⴱ
High school (ages 14–17) 14 0.30 0.19, 0.42 59.71ⴱⴱⴱ
College (ages 18–22) 8 0.25 0.10, 0.40 17.53ⴱ
Adult (ages 23–58) 5 0.73 0.51, 0.96 33.31ⴱⴱⴱ
Year 32.14ⴱⴱⴱ
1970–1979 8 0.09 ⫺0.09, 0.28 14.39ⴱ
1980–1989 22 0.33 0.25, 0.41 50.24ⴱⴱⴱ
1990–1999 34 0.38 0.31, 0.46 70.74ⴱⴱⴱ
2000–2006 11 0.32 0.20, 0.45 120.54ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-Esteem measure 9.15ⴱ
Piers-Harris 10 0.39 0.24, 0.54 41.69ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-Description Questionnaire 13 0.33 0.23, 0.43 61.14ⴱⴱⴱ
Harter Self-Perception Profile 15 0.21 0.09, 0.32 70.09ⴱⴱⴱ
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale 38 0.41 0.34, .047 106.00

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence interval; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

31.41, p ⬍ .05. Thus, no moderator variable analyses were ␹2(14) ⫽ 36.12, p ⬍ .001. The female advantage in moral-ethical
conducted. self-esteem gets increasingly larger over time and is larger in
Behavioral conduct. The set of 56 effect sizes was significantly studies that employ the SDQ rather than the Piers-Harris (see
heterogeneous, QT ⫽ 88.85, ␹2(55) ⫽ 82.29, p ⬍ .01. As shown in Table 9).
Table 7, age is a significant moderator, with the female advan- Overall. If we make the assumption that global self-esteem
tage in behavioral conduct self-esteem increasing as youth get equals the sum of all domains of specific self-esteem, we can
older. Year is also a moderator, with the female advantage estimate the gender difference for global self-esteem here as
increasing until the 1990s and then reversing in the 2000s. d ⫽ 0.10. This is smaller than the effect size for measures of global
Affect. Homogeneity analyses indicated that the set of 17 effect self-esteem (d ⫽ 0.15: Kling et al., 1999), perhaps because appear-
sizes was not heterogeneous, QT ⫽ 19.18, ␹2(16) ⫽ 26.30, p ⬍ .05. ance plays a disproportionate role in determining global self-esteem
Thus, no moderator variable analyses were conducted. (Harter, 1993), especially among younger people. Thus, this estimate
Personal self. Homogeneity analyses indicated that the set of 9 must be considered only a rough approximation, as it does not weight
effect sizes was significantly heterogeneous, QT ⫽ 23.82, the domains of self-esteem.
␹2(8) ⫽ 20.09, p ⬍ .01. However, none of the moderator variable
analyses reached significance. Discussion
Self-satisfaction. The set of 10 effect sizes was significantly
heterogeneous, QT ⫽ 58.78, ␹2(9) ⫽ 27.88, p ⬍ .001. Not all This study used meta-analytic techniques to investigate 428
groups had 2 or more studies, which restricted moderator analyses. effect sizes of gender differences in specific domains of self-
It appears that gender differences in self-satisfaction self-esteem esteem. Males scored significantly higher than females on physical
are largest during high school versus college and are larger in the appearance (d ⫽ 0.35), athletic (d ⫽ 0.41), personal self
most recent decade in comparison to the 1970s (see Table 8). (d ⫽ 0.28), and self-satisfaction (d ⫽ 0.33) self-esteem. Females
Moral– ethical. Homogeneity analyses indicated that the set scored higher than males on behavioral conduct (d ⫽ ⫺0.17) and
of 15 effect sizes was significantly heterogeneous, QT ⫽ 59.47, moral– ethical self-esteem (d ⫽ ⫺0.38). No significant gender dif-

Table 4
Moderating Variables in Athletic Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
Self-Esteem measure 37.60ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-Description Questionnaire 12 0.06 ⫺0.05, 0.17 48.01ⴱⴱⴱ
Harter Self-Perception Profile 12 0.58 0.45, 0.71 70.49ⴱⴱⴱ
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale 44 0.48 0.41, 0.54 166.23ⴱⴱⴱ

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence interval; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
***
p ⬍ .001.
 GENDER DIFFRENCES IN DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 41

Table 5
Moderating Variables in Academic Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
ⴱ
Age group 10.25
Elementary school (ages 5–10) 30 0.10 0.04, 0.16 74.92ⴱⴱⴱ
Junior high (ages 11–13) 30 0.01 ⫺0.05, 0.07 50.26ⴱ
High school (ages 14–17) 8 0.00 ⫺0.15, 0.15 1.91
College (ages 18–22) 5 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.24, 0.10 17.01ⴱⴱ
Adult (ages 23–58) 2 ⫺0.21 ⫺0.45, 0.04 1.25

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence interval; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

ferences appeared in academic, social acceptance, family, and affect adulthood, but rather increased from childhood to junior high, then
self-esteem. Most of the significant gender differences are moderate in decreased throughout high school and college before rising again
size (between .20 and .40 SDs). Nevertheless, the differences in in adulthood. These results are consistent with research showing
appearance, athletic, self-satisfaction, and moral– ethical self- that female body satisfaction decreases during adolescence while
esteem are larger than the established gender differences in verbal males’ stabilizes or increases (Hargreaves & Tiggemann, 2002;
abilities, empathy, and adult aggression (Ashmore, 1990) and the Harter, 1990, 1993). It is also consistent with studies showing that
White-Asian difference in self-esteem (Twenge & Crocker, 2002). female body dissatisfaction persists during adulthood (Forbes et
Thus, the results challenge the idea that self-esteem differences al., 2001; Tiggemann & Rothblum, 1997). Prior to adulthood, the
between men and women are small. It is more accurate to say that largest gender gap occurs during junior high school. This may
the difference varies depending on the specific domain. Within reflect the fact that females begin puberty earlier than males and
some domains, such as physical appearance, athletic, and moral- thus may show more concern over their development compared
ethical self-esteem, the gender differences are more than double with their male peers, whose development is more delayed. This is
those found with general self-esteem measures. consistent with the traditional theory that lower self-esteem in
Overall, the results favor the reflected appraisals model. Both
females is related to the physical changes of puberty (Rosenberg,
models made correct predictions in 4 domains (athletic, behavioral
1986).
conduct, affect, moral-ethical); competencies were correct and
The gender difference in appearance self-esteem was not sig-
reflected appraisals wrong in 1 (family); and reflected appraisals
nificantly different from zero during the 1970s. After 1980, the
were right and competencies wrong in 5 (physical appearance,
difference rose to about a third of a SD and stayed there. This may
academics, social acceptance, personal, and self- satisfaction). If
people evaluated their abilities based on objective competence, have been caused by the increasing media focus on appearance
males would score higher on athletic self-esteem, females would during the 1980s and afterward. As Fredrickson and Roberts’
score higher on academic, social acceptance, behavioral conduct, (1997) objectification theory would predict, this may have led to
and moral-ethical self-esteem, and there would be no gender lowered appearance self-esteem for women through reflected ap-
differences in the other domains. However, one of the largest gender praisals.
differences was in physical appearance, a domain where competen- There were no significant gender differences on academic self-
cies predicted no differences or even a female advantage but re- esteem. Given that females show higher academic performance,
flected appraisals correctly predicted a considerable male advan- this is consistent with research showing that females may discount
tage. Competences and reflected appraisals apparently canceled their academic abilities even when they excel (Eccles et al., 1993;
each other out in the domains of academics and social acceptance. Hyde et al., 1990; Jacobs et al., 2002; Pomerantz et al., 2002;
The male advantage in physical appearance self-esteem was Stetsenko et al., 2000; Weiss et al., 2003). In this case, actual
significant at all ages but was most pronounced during adulthood. competencies are washed out by reflected (or perhaps self-) ap-
The gender gap did not increase consistently from childhood to praisals.

Table 6
Moderating Variables in Social Acceptance Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
Year 16.51ⴱⴱⴱ
1970–1979 8 0.12 ⫺0.11, 0.34 7.85
1980–1989 19 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.13, 0.11 20.28
1990–1999 36 0.07 ⫺0.03, 0.16 34.16
2000–2006 17 0.09 ⫺0.04, 0.22 31.04

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence interval; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
***
p ⬍ .001.
42 GENTILE ET AL.

Table 7
Moderating Variables in Behavioral Conduct Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
ⴱ
Age group 10.09
Elementary school (ages 5–10) 19 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.29, 0.09 47.13ⴱⴱⴱ
Junior high (ages 11–13) 26 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.39, ⫺0.08 25.27
High school (ages 14–17) 7 ⫺0.25 ⫺0.55, 0.06 5.62
College (ages 18–22) 3 ⫺0.27 ⫺0.73, 0.20 0.74
Year 14.18ⴱⴱ
1970⫺1979 7 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.42, 0.24 3.42
1980⫺1989 9 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.37, 0.13 3.34
1990⫺1999 30 ⫺0.30 ⫺0.45, ⫺0.15 32.21
2000⫺2006 9 0.22 ⫺0.05, 0.49 35.70

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence interval; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

Females scored significantly higher on behavioral conduct self- Implications

esteem. This reflects research showing that females behave better
(e.g., Bosacki, 2003; Cole et al., 2001; Wu & Smith, 1997), An influential review (Baumeister, Campbell, Kruger, & Vohs,
whereas males tend to act out more (Wicks-Nelson & Israel, 2003) found that global self-esteem was linked to happiness, but
2003). This difference grows as children grow older, suggesting had few benefits for academic achievement, work performance, or
that experience in school reinforces these beliefs. Moral– ethical healthy behaviors. In contrast, domain-specific measures of self-
self-esteem was significantly higher in females, supporting previ- esteem are consistently correlated with performance within that
ous research finding greater religiosity among women (at least in domain, apparently in a reciprocal process in which each causes
Christian populations). The gender difference is largest during the other (Marsh & Craven, 2006). These results are explained by
high school; thus females may mature faster in their morality than the specificity matching hypothesis, which contends that the most
males (Wark & Krebs, 1996). The difference has grown over the meaningful linkages are between attitudes and behavior within the
decades; there was no significant gender difference in the 1970s, same domain. Nevertheless, many interventions for girls and
but the effect size now exceeds half a SD. women conflate domain-specific self-esteem with general self-
Males scored significantly higher than females on the personal esteem (e.g., the Dove Self-Esteem Fund, which opines that “Too
self and self-satisfaction subscales. Personal self and self- many girls develop low self-esteem from hang-ups about looks
satisfaction are similar to global self-esteem (they all measure and, consequently, fail to reach their full potential in later life.”)
happiness with oneself as a person). The differences here are Research on global vs. domain-specific self-esteem suggests in-
higher than those in the previous meta-analyses on global self- stead that most girls with “low self-esteem from hangups about
esteem, but are very close to the meta-analytic effect sizes for looks” will do just fine in reaching their potential (e.g., academi-
adolescents, who comprised the majority of the samples on these cally), but may continue to have low appearance self-esteem and
domains in this meta-analysis. might be at risk for eating disorders.

Table 8
Moderating Variables in Self-Satisfaction Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
ⴱⴱⴱ
Age group 50.32
High school (ages 14–17) 4 0.36 0.13 3.63
0.59
College (ages 18–22) 4 0.05 ⫺0.21 4.83
0.30
Year 14.20ⴱⴱⴱ
1970–1979 7 0.11 ⫺0.08 6.15
0.31
2000–2006 2 0.81 0.46 38.43
1.16

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence interval; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored higher;
a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
***
p ⬍ .001.
 GENDER DIFFRENCES IN DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 43

Table 9
Moderating Variables in Moral–Ethical Self-Esteem
Variable and class Between-groups H k d 95% CI for d Within-group H
ⴱⴱⴱ
Year 44.81
1970–1979 5 0.01 ⫺0.19, 0.21 6.01
1980–1989 5 ⫺0.40 ⫺0.57, ⫺0.24 8.40
1990–1999 3 ⫺0.68 ⫺0.91, ⫺0.46 0.25
Self-esteem measure 12.47ⴱⴱ
Piers-Harris 6 ⫺0.32 ⫺0.48, ⫺0.17 34.46ⴱⴱⴱ
Self-Description Questionnaire 8 ⫺0.50 ⫺0.63, ⫺0.37 12.54

Note. k ⫽ number of studies; d ⫽ difference in terms of SDs; CI ⫽ confidence intervals; H ⫽ homogeneity. A positive d indicates that males scored
higher; a negative d indicates that females scored higher.
**
p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

As appearance is an area in which “performance” is difficult to erate range. The differences obtained in this study were moderated
measure (and looking good may have come at the expense of an by variables such as age, year of data collection, and measure. Like
eating disorder) the consequences of low appearance self-esteem the meta-analyses of global self-esteem, these analyses do not find
are more difficult to quantify than the consequences of, for exam- extremely large gender differences in self-esteem. However, many
ple, low academic self-esteem. Outcomes linked to low appearance of the gender differences in specific domains of self-esteem are
self-esteem may be fueled by mediators such as objectification considerably larger than the d ⫽ 0.15 difference in global self-
(Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) and other risk factors for eating esteem. In some areas, like that of athletic ability, these gender
disorders. Thus any interventions designed to help girls and differences reflect actual gender differences in competence and
women avoid the negative consequences of low appearance self- performance. In other areas, such as physical appearance, women’s
esteem should be focused specifically on appearance and not on lower self-esteem derives not from actual deficits but from the
general self-esteem. An even more expeditious rotue might be to more critical reflected appraisals of others—including the larger
bypass appearance self-esteem and directly target the root causes “other” of idealized media images.
of negative outcomes such as eating disorders. Using the appraisals
model as a basis, such interventions might help girls and women References
develop a more objective view of how others see them rather than
relying on media images as universal standards. This may be more Allgood-Merten, B., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Hops, H. (1990). Sex differences
effective than self-esteem boosting efforts that fail to account for and adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 55– 63.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
this important social context. “You’re beautiful just for being you”
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
falls on deaf ears if girls believe that others will see them as Ashmore, R. D. (1990). Sex, gender, and the individual. In L. A. Pervin
beautiful only if they meet an impossible standard. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 486 –526).
New York: Guilford Press.
Measurement Effects and Limitations Baldwin, M. W., Granzberg, A., Pippus, L., & Pritchard, E. T. (2003).
Cued activation of relational schemas: Self-evaluation and gender ef-
The effect sizes were fairly consistent across the self-esteem fects. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35, 153–163.
measures used for most of the subscales, with few exceptions. A Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived
large gender difference favoring males was found on the athletic self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729 –735.
self-esteem subscale of the Harter and TSCS, compared with a Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680 –740).
difference of near zero on the SDQ. However, the SDQ showed a
New York: McGraw-Hill.
larger female advantage on moral– ethical self-esteem than the Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003).
Piers-Harris. One limitation is that age and measure were con- Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success,
founded, because adult samples completed the TSCS and child happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public
samples the other measures. In general, the biggest limitation of Interest, 4, 1– 44.
this analysis is the small number of samples from adult popula- Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
tions; the majority of the data here come from children and interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
adolescents. Future research should explore how gender differ- logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
ences in the domains of self-esteem change during the course of Benenson, J. F., & Christakos, A. (2003). The greater fragility of females’
adult life. versus males’ closest same-sex friendships. Child Development, 74,
1123–1129.
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based
Conclusions judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5–20.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P.
The current meta-analysis found that gender differences vary Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
widely across the subdomains of self-esteem, some showing no personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115–160). San Di-
difference at all, and others with gender differences in the mod- ego, CA: Academic Press.
44 GENTILE ET AL.

Bosacki, S. L. (2003). Psychological pragmatics in preadolescents: So- Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A.
ciomoral understanding, self-worth, and school behavior. Journal of (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and
Youth and Adolescents, 32, 141–155. domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Develop-
Colarossi, L. G., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). A prospective study of adoles- ment, 73, 509 –527.
cents’ peer support: Gender differences and the influence of parental James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.
relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 661– 678. Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and
Cole, D. A., Maxwell, S. E., Martin, J. M., Peeke, L. G., Seroczynski, self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391–
A. D., Tram, J. M., et al. (2001). The development of multiple domains 402.
of child and adolescent self-concept: A cohort sequential longitudinal Katz, J., Joiner Jr., T. E., & Kwon, P. (2002). Membership in a devalued
design. Child Development, 72, 1723–1746. social group and emotional well-being: Developing a model of personal
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: self-esteem, collective self-esteem, and group socialization. Sex
Scribner’s. Roles, 47, 419 – 431.
Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., & Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Self-esteem reac- Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender
tions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
days, people, and nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- 470 –500.
ogy, 95, 181–196. Klomsten, A. T., Skaalvik, E. M., & Espnes, G. A. (2004). Physical
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to self-concept and sports: Do gender differences still exist? Sex Roles, 50,
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 –273. 119 –127.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the
and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M. H.
elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830 – 847. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123–144). New
Eccles, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student York: Plenum Press.
gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In L. C. Wilkinson & Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., & Chokel, J. T. (1998).
C. B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influences in the classroom (pp. 79 –113). Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between interpersonal ap-
New York: Academic Press. praisals and the state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis.
Psychology, 74, 1290 –1299.
Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429 – 456.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Fitts, W. H. (1965). Manual for the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Nash-
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.
ville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests.
Journal of Personality Psychology, 68, 518 –530.
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., Rade, B., & Jaberg, P. (2001). Body
Lever, J. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and
dissatisfaction in women and men: The role of gender-typing and self-
games. American Sociological Review, 43, 471– 483.
esteem. Sex Roles, 44, 461– 484.
Lewis, M., Allesandri, S. M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1992). Differences in
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: To-
shame and pride as a function of children’s gender and task difficulty.
ward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks.
Child Development, 63, 630 – 638.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Lifton, P. D. (1985). Individual differences in moral development: The
Gadzella, B. M., & Williamson, J. D. (1984). Differences between men and
relation of sex, gender, and personality to morality. Personality, 53,
women on selected Tennessee Self-Concept Scales. Psychological Re-
306 –334.
ports, 55, 939 –942.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender
differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3), 223–237. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, D., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). The role of appearance sche- Loewenthal, K. M., MacLeod, A. K., & Cinnirella, M. (2002). Are women
maticity in the development of adolescent body dissatisfaction. Cogni- more religious than men? Gender differences in religious activity among
tive Therapy and Research, 26, 691–700. different religious groups in the UK. Personality and Individual Differ-
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. ences, 32, 133–139.
Denver, CO: University of Denver. Lundgren, D. C., & Rudawsky, D. J. (1998). Female and male college
Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global students’ responses to negative feedback from parents and peers. Sex
self-worth: A life Span perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. Roles, 39, 409 – 429.
(Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67–98). New Haven, CT: Yale Luscombe, A., & Riley, T. L. (2001). An examination of self-concept in
University Press. academically gifted adolescents: Do gender differences occur? Roeper
Haynes, N. M. (1990). Influence of self-concept on school adjustment Review, 24, 20 –22.
among middle School students. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, Major, B., Barr, L., Zubek, J., & Babey, S. H. (1999). Gender and
199 –208. self-esteem: A meta-analysis. In W. B. Swann Jr., J. H. Langlois, &
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The
size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 223–253). Washington, DC:
107–128. American Psychological Association.
Hedges, L. V., & Becker, B. J. (1986). Statistical methods in the meta- Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept
analysis of research in gender differences. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seduc-
(Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. tive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psycho-
14 –50). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. logical Science, 1, 133–163.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in Marsh, H. W., & O’Neill, R. (1984). Self-description questionnaire III: The
meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486 –504. construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late ado-
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, J. (1990). Gender differences in lescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 153–174.
mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., & Barnes, J. (1983). Multitrait-multimethod
107, 139 –155. analyses of the self-description questionnaire: Student-teacher agree-
 GENDER DIFFRENCES IN DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SELF-ESTEEM 45

ment on multidimensional ratings of student self-concept. American Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001).
Education Research Journal, 20, 333–357. Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
Chicago Press. 31–53.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1999). Gender differences in depression. In C. Ham- Tiggemann, M., & Rothblum, E. D. (1997). Gender differences in internal
men & I. Gotlib (Eds.), Handbook of depression. NY: Guilford. beliefs about weight and negative attitudes towards self and others.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2001). Gender differences in depression. Current Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 581–593.
Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 173–176. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time:
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.
gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety
Social Psychology, 77, 1061–1072. and neuroticism, 1952–1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A ogy, 79, 1007–1021.
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29 –51. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differ-
Piers, E. V. (1969). Manual for the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept ences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and
Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Social Psychology Review, 5, 321–344.
Piers, E. V. (1984). Revised manual for the Piers-Harries Children’s Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analysis
Self-Concept Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. comparing Whites, Backs, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians.
Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1969). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Psychological Bulletin, 128, 371– 408.
Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Twenge, J. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socio-
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. economic status, and birth cohort differences on the Children’s Depres-
New York: Ballantine Books.
sion Inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111,
Polce-Lynch, M., Myers, B. J., Kilmartin, C. T., Forssmann-Falck, R., &
578 –588.
Kliewer, W. (1998). Gender and age patterns in emotional expression,
Walter, T., & Davie, G. (1998). The religiousity of women in the modern
body image, and self-esteem: A qualitative analysis. Sex Roles, 38,
west. British Journal of Sociology, 49, 640 – 660.
1025–1048.
Wark, G. R., & Krebs, D. L. (1996). Gender and dilemma differences in
Pomerantz, E. M., Altermatt, E. R., & Saxon, J. L. (2002). Making the
real-life moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 32, 220 –230.
grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic perfor-
Weiss, E. M., Kemmler, G., Deisenhammer, E. A., Fleischhacker, W. W.,
mance and internal distress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
& Delazer, M. (2003). Sex differences in cognitive functions. Person-
396 – 404.
ality and Individual Differences, 35, 863– 875.
Radmacher, K., & Azmitia, M. (2006). Are there gendered pathways to
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (2004). Maladaptive peer relationships and
intimacy in early adolescents’ and emerging adults’ friendships? Journal
of Adolescent Research, 21, 415– 448. the development of relational and physical aggression during middle
Roid, G. H., & Fitts, W. H. (1988). Tennessee self-concept scale (TSCS), childhood. Social Development, 13, 495–514.
revised manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Wertheim, E. H., Paxton, S. J., Shultz, H. K., & Muir, S. L. (1997). Why
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through ado- do adolescent girls watch their weight? An interview study examining
lescence. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspec- sociocultural pressures to be thin. Journal of Psychosomatic Re-
tives on the self (pp. 107–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. search, 42, 345–355.
Sheets, V. L., & Lugar, R. (2005). Friendship and gender in Russia and the Wicks-Nelson, R., & Israel, A. C. (2003). Behavior disorders of childhood.
United States. Sex Roles, 52(1/2), 131–140. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sondhaus, E. L., Kurtz, R. M., & Strube, M. J. (2001). Body attitude, Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive
gender, and self-concept: A 30-year perspective. The Journal of Psy- well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psy-
chology, 135, 413– 429. chological Bulletin, 106, 249 –264.
Stetsenko, A., Little, T. D., Gordeeva, T., Grasshof, M., & Oettingen, G. Wu, Y., & Smith, D. E. (1997). Self-esteem of Taiwanese children. Child
(2000). Gender effects in children’s beliefs about school performance: A Study Journal, 27, 1–19.
cross-cultural study. Child Development, 71, 517–527.
Stringer, S. J., Reynolds, G. P., & Simpson, F. M. (2003). Collaboration
between Classroom teachers and a school counselor through literature Received December 10, 2007
circles: Building self-esteem. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30, Revision received July 21, 2008
69 –76. Accepted July 22, 2008 䡲

View publication stats