FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 1

Family Environment and Self-Esteem Development in Adolescence:

A Replication and Extension

Samantha Krauss and Ulrich Orth

Department of Psychology, University of Bern

© 2024 Elsevier Inc. This article has been accepted for publication but has not been through the
copyediting, typesetting, pagination, and proofreading process. This article may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version published in the journal. It is not the copy of record. Please
cite this article as follows:

Krauss, S., & Orth, U. (2024). Family environment and self-esteem development in adolescence: A
replication and extension. Journal of Research in Personality, 111(104511), 1−11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104511

Author Note
Samantha Krauss https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0124-347X
Ulrich Orth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4795-515X
The present research has been preregistered at https://osf.io/6m5tb. Data and codebook
including all measures are available at
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/26721. The ICPSR policy does not allow
us to redistribute the data and codebook on the Open Science Framework. Analytic methods and
code are available at https://osf.io/smd6p.
S. Krauss and U. Orth conceptualized the present research. S. Krauss analyzed the data
and interpreted the findings, supported by U. Orth. S. Krauss wrote the first draft of the
manuscript, and U. Orth critically edited it. All authors approved the final version of the paper for
submission. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samantha Krauss,
Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Email:
[email protected]
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 2

Abstract

A study by Krauss et al. (2020) suggested that the family environment (e.g., parental warmth,

economic conditions of family) plays an important role for self-esteem development in

adolescence. The present research sought to closely replicate and extend the study, using 4-wave

longitudinal data from the Iowa Youth and Families Project, including 451 families. To replicate

the prior study, we conducted the same set of analyses with similar measures and multi-informant

assessments of mothers, fathers, and children from the same families. To extend the previous

study, we tested novel aspects (i.e., controlling for prior exposure and testing the effect of the

quality of sibling relationships). Overall, the findings provide no evidence for prospective effects

between family environment and self-esteem in adolescence.

Keywords: family environment, self-esteem, adolescence, longitudinal, replication

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 3

1 Family Environment and Self-Esteem Development in Adolescence:

A Replication and Extension

The family environment is a central environment of children and adolescents and,

consequently, might shape the development of their self-esteem (Harter, 2012). The family

environment includes multiple relevant factors. First of all, parenting may have an important

influence on the development of children’s self-esteem (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Maccoby,

2000, 2007). In general, parenting can be contextualized along two dimensions: parental

responsiveness and parental demandingness (Baumrind, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Parental responsiveness refers to parents responding promptly, reliably, and with empathy to the

needs of their child and supporting the child’s individual development in a loving and attentive

way. Parental demandingness refers to parents setting rules and boundaries to make the child

conform to societal and parental expectations. These two orthogonal dimensions result in four

different parenting styles: authoritative (responsive and demanding), indulgent/permissive

(responsive and undemanding), authoritarian (unresponsive and demanding), and neglectful

(unresponsive and undemanding). The literature suggests that authoritative and indulgent

parenting might have positive effects on children’s psychosocial development (Chen et al., 2024;

Fuentes et al., 2022; Lamborn et al., 1991; Martinez-Escudero et al., 2020; Pinquart & Gerke,

2019; Steinberg et al., 1994).

In the following, we introduce three theoretical frameworks suggesting that parenting may

affect the development of children’s self-esteem. First, the theory of symbolic interactionism

(Blumer, 1986; Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934) posits that social interactions drive the development

of the self throughout the life course. Individuals tend to interpret social interactions as a

reflection of how much others appreciate them, which affects their self-worth. In early life, most

of the social interactions occur in the family environment, particularly with the parents (Alcaide
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 4

et al., 2023). Second, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) proposes that a child’s

secure attachment to the parents contributes to the development of a positive internal

representation of the self (e.g., being accepted and valuable). A secure attachment can be fostered

by sensitive and responsive parenting (Cassidy, 2008), which is why parenting may be an

important factor for children’s self-esteem. Third, sociometer theory (Leary, 2012) suggests that

self-esteem is part of a psychological system that constantly monitors social acceptance and

inclusion. The subjective perception of how much an individual is socially valued affects their

self-esteem. Feeling valued by close others such as the parents may positively affect the child’s

self-esteem development.

Research on child temperament suggests not only that parenting influences the child’s

temperament but also that the child’s temperament may have an effect in the reverse direction,

that is, on mother’s and father’s parenting behavior (Atherton & Schofield, 2021; Bates et al.,

2012; Sameroff, 2009, 2010). Given that self-esteem is correlated with temperamental factors

such as positive affectivity (Coffey & Warren, 2020; Robins et al., 2001), children with high self-

esteem might elicit more parental warmth and less parental hostility than children with low self-

esteem.

In addition to parenting, other characteristics of the family environment potentially affect

children’s self-esteem, such as the quality of the relationship between the parents (Doyle &

Markiewicz, 2005), the mental health of mother and father (Goodman et al., 2011; Sweeney &

MacBeth, 2016), and the financial situation of the family (Conger et al., 1994).

A study by Krauss et al. (2020) examined prospective effects between family environment

and self-esteem from age 10 to 16 years. The analyses were based on longitudinal data from the

California Families Project (CFP), including 674 Mexican-origin families living in the United

States. The findings suggested that multiple characteristics of the family environment
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 5

significantly predicted self-esteem development. Given the theoretical and practical significance

of the topic, the present research replicated the study by Krauss et al. (2020) as closely as

possible and extended that study in important ways, using data from another family study from

the United States, specifically, the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP; Conger et al., 2011).

In the following, we describe the main aspects of the methods and results of Krauss et al.

(2020), who examined parenting behaviors (i.e., warmth, hostility, monitoring, involvement in

child’s education) as well as other characteristics of the family environment (i.e., quality of

parental relationship, family values of mother and father, maternal and paternal depression,

economic conditions of the family, and presence of father). For many of the family environment

variables, Krauss et al. (2020) used a multi-informant approach (i.e., reports from children,

mothers, and fathers from the same families). This approach made it possible to construct latent

variables that were controlled for the influence of response biases unique to individual raters

(Bagozzi & Yi, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012). The prospective effects

between family environment and children’s self-esteem were tested with two types of

longitudinal models, specifically cross-lagged panel models (CLPMs; Finkel, 1995) and random

intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs; Hamaker et al., 2015).

Results from the CLPMs indicated that a number of family environment variables had

significant prospective effects on children’s self-esteem. Specifically, the results showed that

parental warmth, parental monitoring, and the presence of father positively predicted subsequent

child self-esteem, whereas depression of mother and economic hardship negatively predicted

subsequent child self-esteem. 1 Regarding the reverse direction of the relation (i.e., the effect of

child self-esteem on family environment), the results showed only two significant effects, namely

1
Krauss et al. (2020) also tested whether parental monitoring had a curvilinear effect on child self-esteem such that
the effect declines and becomes negative at very high levels of monitoring. However, there was no evidence of a
curvilinear effect.
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 6

that child self-esteem positively predicted subsequent family values of mother and father. The

magnitude of the significant prospective effects ranged from .06 to .15 in absolute values,

corresponding to medium to large effect sizes (Orth et al., 2024). Moreover, longitudinal

mediation analyses suggested that the prospective effect of economic hardship on child self-

esteem was partially mediated by parental warmth and by parental monitoring (accounting for

20% and 17% of the total effect, respectively). Results from the RI-CLPMs evidenced a similar

pattern, in terms of point estimates, compared to the results from the CLPMs. However, although

the point estimates were roughly of the same magnitude, the RI-CLPMs yielded only two

significant prospective effects: a negative effect of maternal depression on child self-esteem and a

positive effect of child self-esteem on family values of father. In all models (i.e., CLPMs and RI-

CLPMs), the prospective effects did not differ significantly between boys and girls, or across

ages 10 to 16 years.

2 The Present Research

The present research replicated the study by Krauss et al. (2020) as closely as possible,

using 4-wave longitudinal data from the IYFP. Importantly, the IYFP is highly similar to the CFP

with regard to study design (i.e., multi-informant assessment of many constructs, by assessing of

mothers, fathers, and children from the same families) and available measures (i.e., self-esteem,

parenting behavior, and other characteristics of the family environment). To replicate the

analyses by Krauss et al. (2020) as closely as possible, we tested the same types of models and

conducted the same set of analyses. However, it has to be noted that the present replication is not

a direct replication, given that there were important differences between the IYFP and CFP (for a

comparison of demographic and methodological aspects, see Table 1). For example, whereas the

CFP includes a sample of Mexican-origin families living in California, the IYFP includes a

sample of White families living in rural Iowa. Also, whereas the CFP assessments used by Krauss
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 7

et al. (2020) were separated by 2 years, the IYFP data available for the present research include

1-year time lags. Moreover, three variables that were tested by Krauss et al. (2020) could not be

examined in the present research, specifically parents’ involvement in the child’s education (in

the IYFP, the variable was assessed at Wave 3 only), family values of mother and father

(variables not assessed at all), and presence of father (all families were two-parent families at

Wave 1).
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 8

Table 1
Demographic and Methodological Comparison of the IYFP and CFP
Characteristic IYFP CFP
Grade at Time 1 7th grade 5th grade
Age at Time 1 12.7 years 10 years
Age at Time 1 15.7 years 16 years
Ethnicity/culture White/European Hispanic
Family income at Time 1 $33,700 (corresponding to $32,500b
$54,789a in 2006)
Education of parents 13.5 years 9 years
Place of data collection Iowa, USA California, USA
Time of data collection 1989 – 1992 2006 – 2012
Number of waves 4 waves 4 waves
Time lag between waves 1 year 2 years
Sample size at Time 1 451 674
Sample size at Time 4 404 607
Attrition rate 10.4% 9.9%
Sources of information child, mother, father, sibling child, mother, father
Note. The information on the CFP is taken from Krauss et al. (2020). IYFP = Iowa Youth and
Families Project; CFP = California Families Project.
a
Calculated with: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com
b
Midpoint of the range reported in Krauss et al. (2020)

The present research extends Krauss et al. (2020) by testing two novel aspects that were

not included in the analyses by Krauss et al. (2020). First, we tested CLPMs that include lag-2

effects (i.e., CLPM-L2, Lüdtke & Robitzsch, 2022). In the CLPM-L2, prospective effects

between constructs are controlled for the effects of prior exposure (e.g., effects from Time 2 to

Time 3 are controlled for exposure at Time 1), which increases the validity of conclusions by

controlling for unmeasured confounders (Lüdtke & Robitzsch, 2022; VanderWeele et al., 2020).
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 9

Second, the present research examined an additional characteristic of the family environment,

that is, the quality of the sibling relationship (i.e., between the target child and a sibling). Theory

suggests that sibling relationships are an important influence on children’s development (Brody,

2004; McHale et al., 2012; Whiteman et al., 2011), but strong longitudinal evidence with regard

to self-esteem is lacking.

As in Krauss et al. (2020), we additionally tested whether parental monitoring has a

curvilinear effect on child self-esteem and whether the effects of family environment on

children’s self-esteem become smaller with children’s age.

The following main hypotheses are based on the findings from Krauss et al. (2020) and

other previous research. Regarding parenting behavior, we expected positive effects of parental

warmth and parental monitoring on children’s self-esteem (Brummelman et al., 2015; Fuentes et

al., 2022; Harris et al., 2017; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Khaleque, 2013; Martinez-Escudero et al.,

2020) and a negative effect of parental hostility (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996; Fuentes et al.,

2022; Khaleque, 2017; Martinez-Escudero et al., 2020). Regarding the other family environment

variables, we expected positive effects of quality of parental relationship and quality of sibling

relationship (Li & Warner, 2015; Milevsky, 2005; Orth, 2018) and negative effects of maternal

depression, paternal depression, and poor economic conditions of the family (Goodman et al.,

2011; Orth, 2018; Sweeney & MacBeth, 2016). With regard to the reverse direction of the

relation, we expected that children’s self-esteem has a positive effect on parental warmth and a

negative effect on parental hostility (Pinquart & Gerke, 2019). However, we expected no effects

of children’s self-esteem on any of the other family environment variables.

We had several additional hypotheses, which are also based on Krauss et al. (2020). First,

we expected no curvilinear effect of monitoring on children’s self-esteem because monitoring (in

contrast to parental control) is a positive parenting behavior that expresses interest in (rather than
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 10

control of) the child’s activities. Second, we expected that the effects of family environment

variables on children’s self-esteem can be constrained to be equal across age, consistent with

Krauss et al. (2020). Third, if any of the other family environment variables (i.e., besides

parenting behavior) has a significant effect on children’s self-esteem, we expected that this effect

is mediated, at least partially, by parenting behavior (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Krauss et al.,

2020; Orth, 2018).

All hypotheses apply to all three types of models (i.e., we did not have differential

hypotheses for the CLPM-L2s, RI-CLPMs, and CLPMs). However, we expected that the effect

sizes are slightly smaller for the CLPM-L2s compared to the CLPMs (given that the CLPM-L2s

control for lag-2 effects, in contrast to the CLPMs). For the CLPMs and RI-CLPMs, we expected

approximately the same effect sizes, consistent with empirical benchmarks for these models (Orth

et al., 2024). In the present research, the main focus was on the CLPM-L2s and the RI-CLPMs.

Analyses with the CLPM were conducted for reasons of completeness and comparability with the

study by Krauss et al. (2020).

3 Method

The present research used anonymized data and therefore was exempt from approval by

the Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution (Faculty of Human Sciences, University of

Bern), in accordance with national law.

3.1 Transparency and Openness

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all

manipulations, and all measures in the study, and we follow the Journal Article Reporting

Standards (Appelbaum et al., 2018). Data and codebook including all measures are available at

https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/26721. The ICPSR policy does not allow

us to redistribute the data and codebook on the Open Science Framework (OSF). Analytic
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 11

methods and code are available at https://osf.io/smd6p. The present research has been

preregistered on OSF (https://osf.io/6m5tb). Since we preregistered analyses with existing data,

we briefly describe our familiarity with the data before registering the analyses. The first author

had not yet conducted any analyses with data from the IYFP. The second author had conducted

two studies with data from the IYFP (Orth, Clark, et al., 2021; Orth et al., 2018). These studies

involved analyses with self-esteem and depression (as well as positive affect, which is not

included in the present research); however, the second author had not conducted analyses with

any of the other variables examined in the present research.

3.2 Participants and Procedures

We used 4-wave longitudinal data from the IYFP

(https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/26721), which is an archival study of 451

families from rural Iowa, United States. From each family, mother, father, one target child, and

one sibling participated in the study. Only two-parent families with both biological parents living

in the same household as the target child and with a sibling within four years of age of the target

child were eligible to participate. At Wave 1, all target children were in the 7th grade (mean age =

12.7 years; 52% female). Participants were assessed annually at four waves in 1989, 1990, 1991,

and 1992. The families were predominantly White and from the middle class. Families resided on

farms (34%), in nonfarm rural areas (12%), and in towns with a population under 6,500

inhabitants (54%). The annual income of the family ranged from $0 to $135,000, with a median

family income of $33,700. The parents’ average education was about 13.5 years. The data were

collected by field interviewers, who visited the families in their homes.

3.3 Measures

For measures for which high values indicate low levels of the construct, we recoded the

responses for the analyses. Thus, in our results, high values represent high levels of the construct
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 12

for all measures. All of the following child self-esteem and family environment measures were

assessed at all four waves.

3.3.1 Self-esteem

In the IYFP, self-esteem was measured with the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

(RSE; Rosenberg, 1965). Item examples are “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I

feel that I have a number of good qualities.” Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (1 =

strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral/mixed; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). In Krauss et al.

(2020), two measures of self-esteem were available (i.e., the RSE and the General Self scale from

the Self-Description Questionnaire II short-form; Marsh et al., 2005) and used as indicators of

self-esteem. However, in the IYFP, only the RSE is available.

3.3.2 Warmth

Like in Krauss et al. (2020), parental warmth towards the child was assessed with two

measures, which were both originally developed for the IYFP. The first measure was the 8-item

subscale from the Behavioral Affect Rating Scale (BARS). The child was instructed to assess the

parental behavior within the past month. Item examples are “During the past month, how often

did your [mom/dad] listen carefully to your point of view?” and “During the past month, how

often did your [mom/dad] let you know that [she/he] appreciates you, your ideas or the things you

do?” Responses were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = not too often;

4 = about half of the time; 5 = fairly often; 6 = almost always; 7 = always). The second measure

consisted of 10 items from two subscales measuring parents’ child rearing practices (for reasons

of consistency, we refer to this measure as Iowa Parenting Scale [IPS], as in Krauss et al., 2020).

Warmth was measured with items assessing communication (e.g., “When you do something your

[mom/dad] likes or approves of, how often does [she/he] let you know [she/he] is pleased about

it?”) and induction (e.g., “How often does your [mom/dad] give you reasons for [her/his]
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 13

decisions?”). Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = about

half the time; 4 = almost always; 5 = always). For the IPS, the parents’ report on their own

parenting behavior was also available. Items for the parent report were appropriately modified

(e.g., “When your 7th grader has done something you like or approve of, how often do you let

[her/him] know you are pleased about it?”).

3.3.3 Hostility

Like in Krauss et al. (2020), parental hostility towards the child was assessed with

subscales from the BARS and IPS. The BARS assessed hostility with 12 items. The child was

instructed to assess the parental behavior within the past month. Item examples are “During the

past month, how often did your [mom/dad] get angry at you?” and “During the past month, how

often did your [mom/dad] shout or yell at you because [she/he] was mad at you?” Again,

responses were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = not too often; 4 =

about half of the time; 5 = fairly often; 6 = almost always; 7 = always). In the IPS, hostility was

measured with four items assessing harsh discipline, for example, “When you do something

wrong, how often does your [mom/dad] spank or slap you?” and “When you do something

wrong, how often does your [mom/dad] tell you to get out or lock you out of the house?”

Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = about half the

time; 4 = almost always; 5 = always). For the IPS, the parents’ report on their own parenting

behavior was also available. Items for the parent report were appropriately modified (e.g., “How

often do you spank or slap your 7th grader when [she/he] does something wrong?”).

3.3.4 Monitoring

Parental monitoring of the child was assessed with a 6-item subscale from the IPS.

Reports by multiple raters were available, specifically the child’s reports on their mother’s and

father’s behavior as well as the parents’ report on their own parenting behavior. The items for the
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 14

child reports are “In the course of a day, how often does your [mom/dad] know where you are?”,

“How often does your [mom/dad] know who you are with when you are away from home?”,

“How often does your [mom/dad] talk with you about what is going on in your life?”, “How

often do you have a set time to be home or in bed on weekend nights?”, “How often does your

[mom/dad] know if you came home or were in bed by the set time?”, and “How often is your

[mom/dad] too busy or unavailable to do things with you?” (reversed item). The parents reported

on the corresponding items, for example, “In the course of a day, how often do you know where

your 7th grader is?” and “How often do you know who your 7th grader is with when he or she's

away from home?” Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 =

about half the time; 4 = almost always; 5 = always).

3.3.5 Quality of parental relationship

The quality of parental relationship was assessed with two items that were developed for

the IYFP and with a 5-item measure assessing marital instability (Booth et al., 1983). Reports

were provided by mothers and fathers. The first item was “The numbers represent different

degrees of happiness in your marital relationship. Indicate how happy you are, all things

considered, with your marital relationship.” Responses were measured on a 6-point scale (0 =

extremely unhappy; 1 = fairly unhappy; 2 = a little unhappy; 3 = happy; 4 = very happy; 5 =

extremely happy). The second item was “All in all, how satisfied are you with your marriage?”

Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all satisfied; 2 = not very satisfied; 3 =

somewhat satisfied; 4 = very satisfied; 5 = completely satisfied). Item examples from the 5-item

measure on marital instability are “Has the thought of getting a divorce or separation crossed

your mind?” and “Have you or your [husband/wife] ever seriously suggested the idea of

divorce?” Responses were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = yes, within the last 3 months; 2 =

yes, within the last 3 years; 3 = yes, prior to the last 3 years; 4 = never).
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 15

3.3.6 Maternal and paternal depression

Maternal and paternal depression were assessed with 13 items from the Symptom

Checklist (SCL-90; Derogatis & Cleary, 1977). Mothers and fathers were instructed to assess

several symptoms with regard to the past week. Item examples are “Feeling everything is an

effort” and “Feeling lonely.” Responses were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 2 = a

little bit; 3 = a moderate amount; 4 = quite a bit; 5 = extremely).

3.3.7 Economic hardship

Like in Krauss et al. (2020), economic hardship of the family was assessed with three

subscales measuring economic pressure (see Conger et al., 2002; Items were adpated from

Pearlin et al., 1981). The subscale Material Needs included seven items, the subscale Can’t Make

Ends Meet included three items, and the subscale Financial Cutbacks twenty-two items. Ratings

were provided by both mothers and fathers. All items were assessed with regard to the past year.

An item example of the subscale Material Needs is “We have enough money to afford the kind of

food we should have,” with responses measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree;

3 = neutral/mixed; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree). An item example of the subscale Can’t

Make Ends Meet is “Our income never seems to catch up with our expenses,” with responses

measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral/mixed; 4 = agree; 5

= strongly agree). An item example of the subscale Financial Cutbacks is “Changed food

shopping or eating habits to save money?” For the subscale Financial Cutbacks, responses were

measured on a dichotomous scale (1 = no; 2 = yes).

3.3.8 Quality of sibling relationship

The quality of the relationship between the target child and the participating sibling was

assessed with two measures that were developed for the IYFP. The first measure assessed

closeness between target child and sibling and was reported by target children, siblings, mothers,
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 16

and fathers. The child version of the measure (i.e., for the target child and sibling) included six

items and the parent version included five items. An item example from the child version is

“How often does your brother or sister who is in the study make you feel you can count on him or

her when you really need him or her?” An item example from the parent version is “Please take a

moment to think about the relationship between your 7th grader and your other child who is in

the study. How often would you say that the two of them enjoy doing things together?” In both

the child and parent version, responses were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3

= sometimes; 4 = often). The second measure assessed the quality of the relationship between the

siblings with three items that were rated only by the target child and sibling. An item example is

“How satisfied are you with your relationship with your brother or sister in the study?”

Responses were measured on a 4-point scale (1 = very unsatisfied; 2 = fairly unsatisfied; 3 =

fairly satisfied; 4 = very satisfied).

3.4 Statistical Analyses

Analyses of structural equation models were conducted with the Mplus program (Muthén

& Muthén, 2017). To deal with missing values, we employed full information maximum

likelihood estimation to fit models directly to the raw data (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Model fit

was assessed with the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI;

Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger,

1990). Good fit is indicated by values equal to or higher than .95 for CFI and TLI, and equal to or

less than .06 for RMSEA (Hu & Bentler, 1999). When models showed convergence issues, we

used 20 sets of starting values, which facilitates convergence of complex models. Model

comparisons were made by using the test of small difference in fit (MacCallum et al., 2006,

Program C). To assess the reliability of the measures, we used coefficient omega (Revelle &
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 17

Zinbarg, 2009). Omega was computed with the “psych” package (Revelle, 2021) in R (R Core

Team, 2021).

We used multiple indicators to measure the constructs as latent variables, which allowed

us to control for measurement error and systematic bias included in the measures (for testing the

RI-CLPM with multiple indicators see Mulder & Hamaker, 2021). Wherever possible, we used

the ratings by mothers, fathers, and children as indicators, thereby controlling for the unique rater

biases of family members. To fully control for bias due to specific raters, the residuals between

appropriate indicators were correlated (e.g., between the child report on mother and the child

report on father). Furthermore, the residuals of identical indicators were correlated across waves,

to control for additional bias due to indicator-specific variance (Cole & Maxwell, 2003).

Child self-esteem was measured by three parcels from the RSE, based on the balancing

technique (Little et al., 2002; Little et al., 2013). Parental warmth and parental hostility each was

measured by six indicators: Two indicators from the BARS (i.e., child report on mother’s

behavior and child report on father’s behavior) and four indicators from the IPS (i.e., child report

on mother’s behavior, child report on father’s behavior, mother report on her own behavior, and

father report on his own behavior). Parental monitoring of the child was measured by four

indicators from the IPS. Quality of parental relationship was measured by six indicators, namely

mother and father reports on marital instability, happiness, and satisfaction. Maternal depression

and paternal depression were each measured by three parcels (again using the balancing

technique) from the depression subscale of the SCL-90. Economic conditions of the family were

measured by six indicators, namely mother and father report on material needs, making ends

meet, and financial cutbacks. Sibling relationship was measured by six indicators, namely four

indicators measuring closeness (i.e., reports by target children, siblings, mothers, fathers) and two

indicators measuring quality (i.e., reports by target children and siblings).

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 18

We computed the power for testing the models’ goodness of fit based on the test of not-

close fit (MacCallum et al., 1996) and the power for testing differences between models based on

the test of small difference in fit (MacCallum et al., 2006) using the R package “semTools”

(Jorgensen et al., 2021). The power for testing the models’ goodness of fit (> .99) and for testing

differences between models (> .95) was high.

4 Results

The reliability of study variables across waves is reported in Table 2. Intercorrelations for

each wave among child’s self-esteem and all family environment characteristics (averaged across

raters) can be found in Supplemental Tables S1 to S4.

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 19

Table 2
Reliability of Study Measures
Number Coefficient omega
Measure of items Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Child self-esteem 10 .89 .89 .92 .93
Warmth
Child rates mother (BARS) 8 .93 .93 .94 .96
Child rates father (BARS) 8 .95 .95 .96 .96
Child rates mother (IPS) 10 .86 .90 .91 .91
Child rates father (IPS) 10 .89 .91 .93 .91
Mother rates mother (IPS) 10 .86 .87 .88 .89
Father rates father (IPS) 10 .87 .88 .87 .88
Hostility
Child rates mother (BARS) 12 .92 .92 .92 .93
Child rates father (BARS) 12 .89 .92 .95 .93
Child rates mother (IPS) 4 .69 .77 .76 .76
Child rates father (IPS) 4 .73 .77 .80 .80
Mother rates mother (IPS) 4 .67 .62 .75 .62
Father rates father (IPS) 4 .34 .61 .65 .61
Monitoring
Child rates mother (IPS) 6 .76 .81 .84 .87
Child rates father (IPS) 6 .83 .86 .85 .89
Mother rates mother (IPS) 6 .70 .73 .77 .82
Father rates father (IPS) 6 .76 .81 .80 .84
Parental relationship
Mother rates instability 5 .89 .93 .92 .91
Father rates instability 5 .86 .92 .91 .90
Mother rates happiness 1 ― ― ― ―
Father rates happiness 1 ― ― ― ―
Mother rates satisfaction 1 ― ― ― ―
Father rates satisfaction 1 ― ― ― ―
Depression of mother 13 .90 .91 .93 .93
Depression of father 13 .89 .90 .94 .93
Economic hardship
Mother rates subscale A 7 .93 .94 .94 .94
Mother rates subscale B 3 .84 .84 .84 .87
Mother rates subscale C 22 .85 .85 .87 .85
Father rates subscale A 7 .92 .94 .94 .94
Father rates subscale B 3 .83 .82 .84 .81
Father rates subscale C 22 .86 .85 .87 .85
Sibling relationship
Child rates closeness 6 .79 .78 .83 .84
Sibling rates closeness 6 .76 .84 .85 .87
Mother rates closeness 5 .83 .85 .85 .84
Father rates closeness 5 .77 .81 .83 .82
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 20

Child rates quality 3 .74 .83 .84 .87

Sibling rates quality 3 .77 .79 .84 .86

Note. Dash indicates that omega was not applicable because the measure was based on a single
item. BARS = Behavioral Affect Rating Scale; IPS = Iowa Parenting Scale; Subscale A =
Material Needs; Subscale B = Can’t Make Ends Meet; Subscale C = Financial Cutbacks.

4.1 Measurement Invariance

For each construct, we tested whether longitudinal metric measurement invariance was

supported by the data (Widaman et al., 2010). To test for measurement invariance, we compared

the fit of two measurement models. In the first model, factor loadings were constrained to be

equal across time, whereas in the second model, factor loadings were free to vary. For all

constructs, the test of small difference in fit indicated that the constraints did not significantly

decrease model fit, supporting metric measurement invariance. Consequently, we used these

constraints in the remainder of the analyses.

4.2 Main Analyses

To test prospective effects between self-esteem and family environment, we used CLPM-

L2s and RI-CLPMs with latent measurement of the constructs (for generic illustrations, see

Figures 1 and 2).

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 21

Figure 1

Cross-Lagged Panel Model With Lag-2 Effects (CLPM-L2) of a Family Environment Factor and
Child Self-Esteem

d1 d3 d5
Family Family Family Family
Environment Environment Environment Environment
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

d2 d4 d6
Child Child Child Child
Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Self-Esteem
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Note. Residual variances (i.e., disturbances) are indicated by d1 to d6. Only latent constructs are
shown (i.e., observed variables are omitted).
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 22

Figure 2

Random Intercepts Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM) of a Family Environment Factor and
Child Self-Esteem

FE
Intercept

1 1
1 1

Family Family Family Family

Environment Environment Environment Environment
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

1 1 1 1

e1 e3 e5
FEr1 FEr2 FEr3 FEr4

e2 e4 e6
SEr1 SEr2 SEr3 SEr4

1 1 1 1

Child Child Child Child

Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Self-Esteem
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

1 1
1 1

SE
Intercept
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 23

Note. Error terms are indicated by e1 to e6. Only latent constructs are shown (i.e.,

observed variables are omitted). FE = family environment; SE = self-esteem; FEr = family

environment residualized; SEr = self-esteem residualized. © 2020 by the American Psychological

Association (APA). Reproduced with permission. Krauss, S., Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2020).

Family environment and self-esteem development: A longitudinal study from age 10 to 16.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 457–478.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000263

Due to the large number of constructs examined in the present research, each of the family

environment variables was tested in a separate model. We constrained prospective effects to be

equal across time (e.g., the Time 1–Time 2 autoregressive effect of self-esteem was set equal to

the Time 2–Time 3 and Time 3–Time 4 autoregressive effects of self-esteem). In the CLPM-L2s,

a special characteristic was that the first interval was excluded from the cross-time equality

constraints on lag-1 effects, because the lag-1 effects in the first interval are not controlled for

lag-2 effects, in contrast to lag-1 effects in later intervals (see Figure 1). In addition, the CLPM-

L2s also included cross-time equality constraints on lag-2 effects. In the CLPM-L2s, the

coefficients of interest were the lag-1 effects (i.e., the lag-2 effects were included only to allow

for stronger control of confounding; Lüdtke & Robitzsch, 2022; VanderWeele et al., 2020).

Overall, the fit of the models was good. The fit was similarly good for the CLPM-L2s

(Table 3) and the RI-CLPMs (Table 4), with the CLPM-L2s showing slightly better fit values.

The standardized coefficients and standard errors of the cross-lagged effects, stability effects, and

the Time 1 correlations are shown in Table 5 for the CLPM-L2s and in Table 6 for the RI-

CLPMs.
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 24

Table 3
Fit of Cross-Lagged Panel Models With Lag-2 Effects (CLPM-L2) of the Relation Between Self-
Esteem and Family Environment Variables
Family environment variable χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI]
Parenting behaviors
Warmth 1050.1* 521 .96 .95 .047 [.043, .052]
Hostility 1093.6* 521 .95 .94 .049 [.045, .053]
Monitoring 406.7* 303 .99 .98 .028 [.020, .034]
Family characteristics
Parental relationship 1361.8* 521 .92 .91 .060 [.056, .064]
Depression of mother 272.6* 212 .99 .99 .025 [.015, .033]
Depression of father 355.2* 212 .98 .98 .039 [.032, .046]
Economic hardship 989.8* 521 .97 .96 .045 [.040, .049]
Sibling relationship 899.1* 537 .97 .96 .039 [.034, .043]
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error
of approximation; CI = confidence interval.
* p < .05
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 25

Table 4
Fit of Random Intercepts Cross-Lagged Panel Models (RI-CLPM) of the Relation Between Self-
Esteem and Family Environment Variables
Family environment variable χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI]
Parenting behaviors
Warmth 1085.4* 526 .96 .95 .049 [.044, .053]
Hostility 1125.2* 526 .94 .93 .050 [.046, .054]
Monitoring 432.6* 308 .98 .98 .030 [.023, .036]
Family characteristics
Parental relationship 1385.6* 526 .92 .91 .060 [.056, .064]
Depression of mother 299.4* 217 .99 .99 .029 [.020, .037]
Depression of father 337.4* 217 .99 .98 .035 [.028, .042]
Economic hardship 1006.4* 526 .97 .96 .045 [.041, .049]
Sibling relationship 923.8* 542 .96 .96 .040 [.035, .044]
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error
of approximation; CI = confidence interval.
* p < .05
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 26

Table 5
Results of Cross-Lagged Panel Models With Lag-2 Effects (CLPM-L2) of Self-Esteem and Family Environment
Cross-lagged effects Stability effects
Family environment rX,S XS SX XX SS
variable (X) Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE
Parenting behaviors
Warmth .68* .045 .07 .096 −.02 .071 .73* .123 .29 .060
Hostility −.57* .047 .12 .109 .03 .066 .77* .150 .57* .058
Monitoring .56* .065 .09 .084 −.01 .060 .66* .166 .49* .047
Family characteristics
Parental relationship .23* .055 −.11 .071 −.02 .043 .70* .089 .48* .041
Depression of mother −.23* .052 .05 .038 .03 .044 .51* .038 .52* .040
Depression of father −.09 .054 −.01 .038 .00 .048 .41* .042 .50* .040
Economic hardship −.25* .051 .15 .080 .06 .030 .77* .060 .45* .041
Sibling relationship .28* .054 .02 .065 .00 .037 .70* .054 .47* .041
Note. The table shows standardized coefficients and standardized SEs. For the CLPM-L2, rX,S is the correlation between the latent
constructs at Time 1. Lagged effects were set equal across intervals; given that standardized estimates may differ slightly, they were
averaged across intervals. S = self-esteem; SE = standard error.
* p < .05
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 27

Table 6
Results of Random Intercepts Cross-Lagged Panel Models (RI-CLPM) of Self-Esteem and Family Environment
Cross-lagged effects Stability effects
Family environment rX,S XS SX XX SS
variable (X) Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE
Parenting behaviors
Warmth .57* .074 .13 .115 .02 .098 .64* .157 .38* .138
Hostility −.54* .089 .15 .120 .03 .114 .61* .160 .61* .097
Monitoring .45* .088 .02 .073 −.06 .093 .54* .179 .49* .106
Family characteristics
Parental relationship .34* .119 −.16* .069 −.04 .056 .53* .100 .48* .101
Depression of mother −.47* .125 .13* .054 .11 .067 .28* .069 .52* .083
Depression of father −.10 .085 .07 .045 .01 .073 .09 .053 .50* .101
Economic hardship −.65* .343 .30* .074 .17* .052 .70* .084 .45* .079
Sibling relationship .44* .098 .08 .070 −.02 .048 .65* .075 .47* .100
Note. The table shows standardized coefficients and standardized SEs. For the RI-CLPM, rX,S is the correlation between the random
intercepts. Lagged effects were set equal across intervals; given that standardized estimates may differ slightly, they were averaged across
intervals. S = self-esteem; SE = standard error.
* p < .05
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 28

Overall, the results for both types of models did not support the hypothesis that the family

environment influences children’s self-esteem. In the CLPM-L2s, the effects ranged from .01 to

.15 in absolute values; however, none of the effects was statistically significant. In the RI-

CLPMs, three of the eight tested effects were significant: a negative effect of the quality of

parental relationship (−.16), a positive effect of depression of mother (.13), and a positive effect

of economic hardship (.30). Importantly, however, these effects were opposite to the

theoretically hypothesized direction.

Regarding the reverse direction of effects, that is, of child self-esteem on family

environment, almost all effects were nonsignificant. In the CLPM-L2s, the effects ranged from

.00 to .06 in absolute values with none of the effects being statistically significant. In the RI-

CLPMs, only one significant effect emerged, namely a positive effect of self-esteem on

economic hardship (.17). Again, this effect contradicted the theoretically hypothesized direction.

The autoregressive effects of family environment and child self-esteem were moderate to

high across both types of models. For the CLPM-L2s, the effects ranged from .29 to .77, and for

the RI-CLPMs, from .09 to 65. The family environment variables were substantially correlated

with child self-esteem at Time 1 with moderate to large effect sizes; importantly, all of these

correlations were in the theoretically expected direction. Thus, the present study shows that

family environment and self-esteem are associated in meaningful ways. However, the present

study provides no evidence that the family environment prospectively predicts children’s self-

esteem and, vice versa, that children’s self-esteem prospectively predicts their family

environment.

4.3 Additional Analyses

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 29

To examine whether parental monitoring had a curvilinear effect on child self-esteem, we

tested the effect of the squared latent variable (using the XWITH option in Mplus), over and

above the effect of the non-squared latent variable. The CLPM-L2 did not converge properly.

The RI-CLPM showed a significant quadratic effect with self-esteem declining at very high

levels of monitoring.

In addition, we tested whether the effects of the family environment variables on child

self-esteem differed across age, by comparing models with versus without cross-wave constraints

on structural coefficients. For each family environment variable, the test of small difference in fit

indicated that cross-wave constraints on structural coefficients did not significantly decrease

model fit, suggesting that the participants’ age did not moderate the effects of the family

environment on their self-esteem. 2 Given that none of the parenting behaviors showed a

significant effect on child self-esteem, we did not conduct any mediation analyses.

For reasons of completeness and comparability with the study by Krauss et al. (2020), we

conducted all analyses also with the traditional CLPM (for a generic illustration, see

Supplemental Figure S1). Overall, the fit of the CLPMs was good (Supplemental Table S5). The

standardized coefficients and standard errors of the cross-lagged effects, stability effects, and the

Time 1 correlations are shown in Supplemental Table S6. The effects of family environment on

child self-esteem ranged from .00 to .10 in absolute values, with one effect being statistically

significant (i.e., the effect of sibling relationship on later self-esteem with .10). The effects of

child self-esteem on family environment ranged from .00 to .08 in absolute values and two

significant effects emerged: a positive effect of self-esteem on hostility (.08) and a negative

2
A deviation from the preregistration was that we did not test for child gender as a moderator in the additional
analyses because the variable gender was not included in the unrestricted dataset available on the ICPSR
(https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/26721).
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 30

effect on monitoring (−.06). However, these two effects contradicted the theoretically

hypothesized direction. For monitoring, the CLPM showed no significant quadratic effect.

Moreover, children’s age did not significantly moderate the effects of family environment on

self-esteem. 3

5 Discussion

The present research aimed at closely replicating and extending the study by Krauss et al.

(2020), which had suggested that the family environment has an important influence on the

development of children’s self-esteem. We used four-wave longitudinal data from the IYFP,

including multi-informant assessments from children, mothers, and fathers from 451 families

from rural Iowa. Overall, the findings from Krauss et al. (2020) did not replicate in the present

study. We based our conclusions on the findings from two types of longitudinal models: CLPM-

L2s and RI-CLPMs. Both models provided little evidence for prospective effects between family

environment and self-esteem. The CLPM-L2s showed no significant effects at all. The RI-

CLPMs showed few significant effects; however, all of these effects contradicted the

theoretically hypothesized direction. Consequently, we interpreted these effects as lack of

support for our hypotheses. We also tested whether the effects of the family environment

variables on child self-esteem differed across age, which was not the case. When tested with the

RI-CLPM, parental monitoring showed a curvilinear effect on child self-esteem, suggesting that

self-esteem declines at very high levels of monitoring. However, when testing the same effect

with the CLPM-L2, the model did not converge properly. Thus, more research is needed to better

understand the possible nonlinear effect of parental monitoring on child self-esteem.

3
As described in the preregistration, we tested whether the effects of family environment on children’s self-esteem
held when controlling for mothers’ and fathers’ self-esteem. These analyses are reported in the Supplemental
Material.
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 31

Given that the present research and the previous study by Krauss et al. (2020) showed

discrepant results, it may be helpful to consider the similarities and differences of the studies in

more detail. Clearly, the two studies are similar in many important ways, such as measures used,

multi-informant assessment of the family environment, statistical models used, number of waves,

and sample size. However, there were also differences between the studies. One important

difference is that whereas Krauss et al. (2020) used data from Mexican-origin families living in

California, the present research used data from a White sample from Iowa. It is possible that the

family environment has a bigger impact on children’s self-esteem development in cultures,

where the family plays a central role. In Hispanic culture, familism (capturing the importance of

and the commitment to the family) is very present (Knight et al., 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2007).

Moreover, whereas the sample in Krauss et al. (2020) was from urban areas, in the present

research the sample came from a rural setting. Also, the socioeconomic status of the sample in

Krauss et al. (2020) was higher than in the sample of the present study. Another important

difference is the stability of both the self-esteem and family environment constructs (see

Supplemental Table S7). Stability coefficients were higher in the IYFP than in the CFP,

corresponding to the fact that the time lag was shorter in the IYFP (1 year) than in the CFP (2

years). Especially the stability of self-esteem differed between the IYFP (around .73) and the

CFP (around .60). When stability in self-esteem is high, the range of effects that other constructs

may have on self-esteem is theoretically limited. This may partly explain why no prospective

effects of family environment variables on self-esteem could be found. Thus, it is possible that

these demographic and methodological differences contributed to the differences in the findings.

In addition to replicating the analyses of the previous study, the present study focused

also on two novel aspects. First, we tested a type of statistical model that was not included in the
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 32

previous study, specifically CLPM-L2s. In these models, prospective effects between constructs

are controlled for the effects of prior exposure, which increases the validity of conclusions by

controlling for unmeasured confounders (Lüdtke & Robitzsch, 2022; VanderWeele et al., 2020).

Second, the present research also provided novel information about the role of the quality of

sibling relationships. The findings suggested that the quality of sibling relationships did not

shape children’s self-esteem development.

The present research shares limitations with the original study that have also been

discussed in Krauss et al. (2020). First, a limitation that merits consideration is that the present

research does not provide a test of causality, given the non-experimental design of the study. As

with all observational studies, it is possible that the effects may be confounded by third variables

that were not controlled for, such as environmental factors outside of the family (Little et al.,

2007). However, it should be noted that the CLPM-L2s and, even more, the RI-CLPMs do

provide some control of third variables, specifically with regard to unmeasured confounders that

are stable across the observed study period (Andersen, 2022; Murayama & Gfrörer, 2023).

Second, it is possible that the power was not sufficient to detect cross-lagged effects of

small to medium size (i.e., if there are true effects of this size in the population). Although the

sample size was large enough for testing the models’ goodness of fit and for comparing models

(i.e., power > .95; see the information reported in the Method section), it is possible that the

sample size for testing cross-lagged effects would need to be larger, especially for complex

models such as the CLPM-L2 and RI-CLPM. The standard errors of the cross-lagged effects

provide insight into the precision of the estimates. The average standard errors in the CLPM-L2s

(.061) and in the RI-CLPMs (.076) were larger than the average standard errors in the CLPMs

(.025). This indicates that the cross-lagged effects in the CLPM-L2s and RI-CLPMs are
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 33

estimated with less precision than in the CLPMs, which is explained by the higher complexity of

CLPM-L2s and RI-CLPMs compared to CLPMs (see Orth, Clark, et al., 2021; Usami et al.,

2019). Based on the average standard errors, cross-lagged effects could be expected to become

significant at about .12 in the CLPM-L2s, .15 in the RI-CLPMs, and .05 in the CLPMs (although

these values likely vary across variables). In future research, it would be desirable to test cross-

lagged effects in complex models such as the CLPM-L2 and the RI-CLPM with larger samples.

Lastly, another limitation concerns the generalizability of the findings. As discussed

above, the present research, which used data from White families living in rural Iowa, suggests a

different pattern of results than previous research using Mexican-origin families living in urban

California. However, it is not possible to unequivocally determine whether the findings of the

previous research failed to replicate or failed to generalize. Since we compare findings from two

studies only, it is impossible to test whether the differences in the findings are due to chance

(indicating a failure to replicate) or accounted for by specific known or unknown differences

between the samples (indicating a failure to generalize). Thus, meta-analytic research with data

from multiple studies is needed to empirically test whether specific differences between studies

moderate the prospective effects between family environment and children’s self-esteem.

Important strengths of the present research include the prospective longitudinal design,

the availability of multiple waves of data, the systematic control of previous levels of the

outcomes and control of stable unmeasured confounders, and the multi-informant assessment of

the family environment variables. The analysis of latent variables that are free, at least

theoretically, from the confounding influence of rater biases among children, mothers, and

fathers is a particularly strong characteristic of the approach.

In future research, it would be worthwhile to examine not only the relation of the family
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 34

environment with global self-esteem but also with multidimensional self-esteem. Self-

evaluations in domains such as physical appearance, academic abilities, and social acceptance

are also referred to as domain-specific self-esteem (Orth, Dapp, et al., 2021; Rentzsch &

Schröder-Abé, 2018). Empirical findings suggest that global and domain-specific self-esteem

mutually affect each other (Dapp et al., 2023; Rentzsch & Schröder-Abé, 2022). Moreover,

domain-specific self-esteem shows a degree of rank-order stability over time that is similar to

global self-esteem (Dapp & Orth, 2024). Several studies suggest that parenting is associated with

children’s domain-specific self-esteem, including their academic, social, and physical self-

esteem both in Western (Climent-Galarza et al., 2022; Fuentes et al., 2022; Martinez-Escudero et

al., 2020) and non-Western cultures (Chen et al., 2024). However, more longitudinal research is

needed, which should examine not only the influence of parenting, but also of other

characteristics of the family environment. For example, it is possible that the quality of the

parents’ relationship affects the child’s later self-esteem in the domain of romantic relationships,

or that the family’s economic conditions influence the child’s self-evaluation of social

acceptance.

In conclusion, the present research found no evidence of prospective effects between

family environment and self-esteem development in adolescence. However, these constructs are

clearly interrelated, as indicated by moderate to large concurrent correlations. Because of the

theoretical and practical importance of the present research questions, we believe that there is a

strong need for further research to better understand the link between family environment and

self-esteem. Future studies may benefit from even larger sample sizes, a larger number of waves,

and also shorter time intervals between assessments. If future research supports that the family

environment influences self-esteem development in adolescence, then this has important

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 35

practical implications. For example, effective interventions to improve children’s and

adolescents’ self-esteem could target relevant factors in the family environment. Parenting

behavior may be a particularly promising target, given the availability of suitable interventions

(e.g., Sanders et al., 2014).

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 36

References

Alcaide, M., Garcia, O. F., Queiroz, P., & Garcia, F. (2023). Adjustment and maladjustment to

later life: Evidence about early experiences in the family. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1-

13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1059458

Andersen, H. K. (2022). Equivalent approaches to dealing with unobserved heterogeneity in

cross-lagged panel models? Investigating the benefits and drawbacks of the latent curve

model with structured residuals and the random intercept cross-lagged panel model.

Psychological Methods, 27(5), 730-751. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000285

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018).

Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA

Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1),

3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191

Atherton, O. E., & Schofield, T. J. (2021). Personality and parenting. In O. P. John & R. W.

Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4th ed., pp. 352-366).

Guilford Press.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal

of Consumer Research, 17(4), 426-439. https://doi.org/10.1086/208568

Bates, J. E., Schermerhorn, A. C., & Petersen, I. T. (2012). Temperament and parenting in

developmental perspective. In M. Zentner & R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of

temperament (pp. 425-441). Guilford Press.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In R. L. J. Brooks-Gunn, &

A. C. Petersen (Ed.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746-758). Garland.

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 37

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California

Press.

Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 45(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/351516

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.

Brody, G. H. (2004). Siblings’ direct and indirect contributions to child development. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 124-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-

7214.2004.00289.x

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S. A., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., &

Bushman, B. J. (2015). Origins of narcissism in children. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(12), 3659-3662.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420870112

Cassidy, J. (2008). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook

of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 3–22). Guilford Press.

Chen, F., Garcia, O. F., Alcaide, M., Garcia-Ros, R., & Garcia, F. (2024). Do we know enough

about negative parenting? Recent evidence on parenting styles and child maladjustment.

European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 16(1), 37-48.

https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2024a4
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 38

Climent-Galarza, S., Alcaide, M., Garcia, O. F., Chen, F., & Garcia, F. (2022). Parental

socialization, delinquency during adolescence and adjustment in adolescents and adult

children. Behavioral Sciences, 12(11), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12110448

Coffey, J. K., & Warren, M. T. (2020). Comparing adolescent positive affect and self-esteem as

precursors to adult self-esteem and life satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 44(5), 707-

718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09825-7

Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data:

Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 112(4), 558-577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558

Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic

context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175-199.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Jr., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress,

coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development,

65(2), 541-561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00768.x

Conger, R. D., Lasley, P., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R., Whitbeck, L. B., Elder, G. H., & Norem, R.

(2011). Iowa Youth and Families Project, 1989-1992 [Data file and codebook]. Inter-

University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26721.v2

Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. H. (2002).

Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the

family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 179-193.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 39

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Dapp, L. C., Krauss, S., & Orth, U. (2023). Testing the bottom-up and top-down models of self-

esteem: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 124(5), 1111-1131. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000444

Dapp, L. C., & Orth, U. (2024). Rank-order stability of domain-specific self-esteem: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000497

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.

Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among

African American and European American mothers: Links to children's externalizing

behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.32.6.1065

Derogatis, L. R., & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the SCL‐

90: A study in construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 981-989.

https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197710)33:4<981::AID-JCLP2270330412>3.0.CO;2-

Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2005). Parenting, marital conflict and adjustment from early-to

mid-adolescence: Mediated by adolescent attachment style? Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 34(2), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-3209-7

Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Sage.

Fuentes, M. C., Garcia, O. F., Alcaide, M., Garcia-Ros, R., & Garcia, F. (2022). Analyzing when

parental warmth but without parental strictness leads to more adolescent empathy and
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 40

self-concept: Evidence from Spanish homes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-15.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1060821

Goodman, S. H., Rouse, M. H., Connell, A. M., Robbins Broth, M., Hall, C. M., & Heyward, D.

(2011). Maternal depression and child psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical

Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-010-

0080-1

Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged

panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889

Harris, M. A., Donnellan, M. B., Guo, J., McAdams, D. P., Garnier‐Villarreal, M., &

Trzesniewski, K. H. (2017). Parental co-construction of 5- to 13-year-olds' global self-

esteem through reminiscing about past events. Child Development, 88(6), 1810-1822.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12944

Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations

(2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2021). semTools:

Useful tools for structural equation modeling (Version R package 0.5-5). Retrieved from

https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of

adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.

Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 41

Khaleque, A. (2013). Perceived parental warmth, and children’s psychological adjustment, and

personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(2),

297-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9579-z

Khaleque, A. (2017). Perceived parental hostility and aggression, and children’s psychological

maladjustment, and negative personality dispositions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child

and Family Studies, 26(4), 977-988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0637-9

Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S., Bonds, D. D., German, M., Deardorff, J., Roosa, M.

W., & Updegraff, K. A. (2010). The Mexican American Cultural Values scales for

Adolescents and Adults. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(3), 444-481.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609338178

Krauss, S., Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2020). Family environment and self-esteem development:

A longitudinal study from age 10 to 16. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

119(2), 457-478. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000263

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of

competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,

indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01588.x

Leary, M. R. (2012). Sociometer theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.

Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 141-159). Sage.

Li, Y., & Warner, L. A. (2015). Parent–adolescent conflict, family cohesion, and self‐esteem

among Hispanic adolescents in immigrant families: A comparative analysis. Family

Relations, 64(5), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12158

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 42

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to

parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2),

151-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1

Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. (2007). New developments in latent

variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 31(4), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077757

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus

parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285-300.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266

Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2022). A comparison of different approaches for estimating cross-

lagged effects from a causal inference perspective. Structural Equation Modeling, 29(6),

888-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2065278

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Cai, L. (2006). Testing differences between nested

covariance structure models: Power analysis and null hypotheses. Psychological

Methods, 11(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.19.supp

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and

determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,

1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: On reading and misreading

behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1-27.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.1
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 43

Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In J. E. Grusec

& P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 3-

32). Guilford Press.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child

interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-101).

Wiley.

Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L. A., Parada, R. H., Richards, G., & Heubeck, B. G. (2005). A short

version of the Self Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form

evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological

Assessment, 17(1), 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.81

Martinez-Escudero, J. A., Villarejo, S., Garcia, O. F., & Garcia, F. (2020). Parental socialization

and its impact across the lifespan. Behavioral Sciences, 10(6), 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10060101

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and

influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913-

930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press.

Milevsky, A. (2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood:

Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression and life satisfaction. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 743-755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056447

Mulder, J. D., & Hamaker, E. L. (2021). Three extensions of the random intercept cross-lagged

panel model. Structural Equation Modeling, 28(4), 638-648.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 44

Murayama, K., & Gfrörer, T. (2023). Thinking clearly about time-invariant confounders in cross-

lagged panel models: A guide for choosing a statistical model from a causal inference

perspective. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bt9xr

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

Orth, U. (2018). The family environment in early childhood has a long-term effect on self-

esteem: A longitudinal study from birth to age 27 years. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 114(4), 637-655. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000143

Orth, U., Clark, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in

longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013-1034.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000358

Orth, U., Dapp, L. C., Erol, R. Y., Krauss, S., & Luciano, E. C. (2021). Development of domain-

specific self-evaluations: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 120(1), 145-172. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000378

Orth, U., Erol, R. Y., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2018). Codevelopment of well-being and self-

esteem in romantic partners: Disentangling the effects of mutual influence and shared

environment. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 151-166.

https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000400

Orth, U., Meier, L. L., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Krauss, S., Messerli, D., & Robins, R. W.

(2024). Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects. Psychological Methods, 29(2),

421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000499
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 45

Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process

[Empirical Study; Longitudinal Study]. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(4),

337-356. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2136676

Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D. C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in

children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28,

2017-2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social

science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of

Psychology, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation

for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Rentzsch, K., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2018). Stability and change in domain-specific self-esteem

and global self-esteem. European Journal of Personality, 32(4), 353-370.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2167

Rentzsch, K., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2022). Top down or bottom up? Evidence from the

longitudinal development of global and domain-specific self-esteem in adulthood.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(4), 714-730.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000393
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 46

Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research (Version

2.1.9). https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych

Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments

on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z

Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2001). Personality

correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 463-482.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324

Rodriguez, N., Mira, C. B., Paez, N. D., & Myers, H. F. (2007). Exploring the complexities of

familism and acculturation: Central constructs for people of Mexican origin. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1-2), 61-77.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

Sameroff, A. (Ed.). (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts

shape each other. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11877-

000

Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and

nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2009.01378.x

Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). The Triple P-Positive

Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of

parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(4), 337-357.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.

Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147-177.

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 47

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation

approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-

Time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative,

authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65(3), 754-770.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1131416

Sweeney, S., & MacBeth, A. (2016). The effects of paternal depression on child and adolescent

outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 205, 44-59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.073

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor

analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170

Usami, S., Todo, N., & Murayama, K. (2019). Modeling reciprocal effects in medical research:

Critical discussion on the current practices and potential alternative models. PLOS ONE,

14, e0209133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209133

VanderWeele, T. J., Mathur, M. B., & Chen, Y. (2020). Outcome-wide longitudinal designs for

causal inference: A new template for empirical studies. Statistical Science, 35(3), 437-

466. https://doi.org/10.1214/19-STS728

Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Soli, A. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on sibling

relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3(2), 124-139.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00087.x

Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal

structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM 48

Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-

8606.2009.00110.x