Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS)

Abstract

The Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS) is a psychometric instrument designed to measure the domains in which individuals base their feelings of self-worth. Developed by Jennifer Crocker and colleagues, the scale operationalizes the theoretical concept that self-esteem is not a stable global trait but rather fluctuates based on success or failure in specific, personally valued life domains. The CSWS identifies seven distinct domains, providing a nuanced understanding of how individuals derive their sense of value and how these contingencies impact psychological outcomes, such as vulnerability to distress and motivation.

Keywords

Contingencies of Self-Worth, CSWS, Self-Esteem, Self-Worth, Academic Competence, Virtue, Appearance, Competition, Family Support, God’s Love, Approval from Others, Psychological Assessment

Authors

Jennifer Crocker, Connie T. Wolfe, Riia K. Luhtanen, Marion L. Cooper, Amber Bouvrette

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CSWS is to provide a reliable and valid measure of the domains—or contingencies—upon which an individual’s sense of self-worth is staked. The scale aims to move beyond unidimensional measures of global self-esteem by identifying the specific external or internal sources that dictate how good or bad a person feels about themselves. This specificity allows researchers and clinicians to examine the psychological consequences associated with basing one’s value on different sources, such as external approval versus internal moral standards.

By assessing these seven domains, the CSWS allows for the differentiation between individuals who hold relatively stable self-worth (potentially based on internal factors like virtue) and those whose self-worth is highly volatile (often based on external factors like appearance or competition). Understanding these specific contingencies is crucial for predicting motivational patterns, responses to failure, and overall psychological adjustment, particularly in demanding environments like college settings.

Construct

The CSWS measures the psychological construct of Contingencies of Self-Worth (CSW), which posits that self-esteem is regulated by success and failure in areas of life that individuals deem important. The theoretical framework identifies seven distinct domains serving as potential contingencies:

• Academic Competence: Self-worth tied to performance and success in school or intellectual tasks.
• Appearance: Self-worth tied to physical attractiveness and body image.
• Approval from Others: Self-worth tied to receiving positive feedback, acceptance, and validation from peers or society.
• Competition: Self-worth tied to outperforming others in tasks, sports, or achievements.
• Family Support: Self-worth tied to the quality of relationships and feeling loved and accepted by family members.
• God’s Love: Self-worth tied to feeling a connection to a higher power or adhering to religious beliefs.
• Virtue: Self-worth tied to adhering to personal moral and ethical standards.

These domains represent varied sources—some internal (Virtue, God’s Love) and some external (Appearance, Approval from Others, Competition)—highlighting the multi-faceted nature of self-evaluation. The scale’s utility lies in measuring the relative importance of these domains for an individual, rather than just measuring the level of global self-esteem.

Validity

The validity of the CSWS has been extensively supported through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, confirming the hypothesized seven-factor structure. Construct validity is demonstrated by showing that scores on the CSWS subscales correlate predictably with related psychological measures. For example, individuals highly contingent on Academic Competence show higher anxiety related to exams, while those contingent on Appearance often report greater body image concerns and eating disorder symptoms.

Furthermore, predictive validity has been established by demonstrating that specific contingencies predict relevant outcomes. For instance, high contingency on Approval from Others predicts greater vulnerability to social anxiety and difficulty handling rejection. The scale’s ability to reliably distinguish between these distinct domains, even while measuring the broader construct of self-worth regulation, reinforces its strong psychometric foundation.

Reliability

The CSWS demonstrates strong internal consistency across its seven subscales, indicating high reliability. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each domain based on the original validation studies:

• God’s Love: Alpha = 0.96 (Excellent)
• Competition: Alpha = 0.87 (Very Good)
• Family Support: Alpha = 0.84 (Good)
• Appearance: Alpha = 0.83 (Good)
• Virtue: Alpha = 0.83 (Good)
• Academic Competence: Alpha = 0.82 (Good)
• Approval from Others: Alpha = 0.82 (Good)

These high reliability coefficients confirm that the items within each respective subscale consistently measure the same underlying construct, suggesting that the CSWS is a stable and trustworthy instrument for assessing the specific sources of self-worth.

Factor Analysis

The development of the CSWS involved rigorous factor analysis procedures to confirm the theoretical structure proposed by Crocker and colleagues. The results consistently supported a seven-factor model, corresponding exactly to the seven hypothesized domains: Academic Competence, Appearance, Approval from Others, Competition, Family Support, God’s Love, and Virtue. Each factor is comprised of five items, resulting in the 35-item final scale.

This empirical confirmation of the distinct factors is critical because it validates the scale’s fundamental premise: that self-worth can be regulated by several independent domains. The clear factor loading ensures that the scores derived for, say, Appearance contingency, are distinct from those derived for Academic Competence contingency, allowing researchers to study the unique effects of each domain on behavior and well-being.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychometric Scale

Format: 35 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale

Language Available: Primarily English, though translations may exist in subsequent research.

Population Group: General population, widely used with college students.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 18+)

Population Details: The initial validation studies focused heavily on college students, examining how contingencies of self-worth relate to academic, social, and financial problems specific to this demographic.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with each statement using a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Scoring involves calculating the mean score for the five items within each of the seven subscales. Items 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 23, and 30 are reverse-scored before calculation.

Keywords

Psychology, Measurement, Self-worth, CSW, Personality, Social Psychology, Assessment, College Students, Reliability, Validity

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence generally directed to Jennifer Crocker (The Ohio State University at the time of publication).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The CSWS is typically made available for academic research and educational use without a fee by the authors. The full instrument and associated information can often be found on the lead author’s institutional website: http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/crocker/lab/csw.php. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/crocker/lab/documents/CSWscale.pdf.

The foundational theoretical work was published in 2001, and the primary measurement validation was published in 2003.

Reference’s

• Crocker, J. & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593-623.
• Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908.
• Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K. (2003). Level of Self-Esteem and Contingencies of Self-Worth: Unique Effects on Academic, Social, and Financial Problems in College Students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 701-12.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The CSWS consists of 35 items distributed across seven subscales (5 items per subscale). Responses are measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 7=Strongly Agree). Items 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 23, and 30 are reverse-scored (R).

The seven subscales and their corresponding item numbers are:

• Family Support: items 7, 10 (R), 16, 24, and 29.
• Competition: items 3, 12, 20, 25, and 32.
• Appearance: items 1, 4 (R), 17, 21, and 30 (R).
• God’s Love: items 2, 8, 18, 26, and 31.
• Academic Competence: items 13 (R), 19, 22, 27, and 33.
• Virtue: items 5, 11, 14, 28, and 34.
• Approval from Others: items: 6 (R), 9, 15 (R), 23 (R), and 35.

1. When I think I look attractive, I feel good about myself.
2. My self-worth is based on God’s love.
3. I feel worthwhile when I perform better than others on a task or skill.
4. My self-esteem is unrelated to how I feel about the way my body looks.
5. Doing something I know is wrong makes me lose my self-respect.
6. I don’t care if other people have a negative opinion about me.
7. Knowing that my family members love me makes me feel good about myself.
8. I feel worthwhile when I have God’s love.
9. I can’t respect myself if others don’t respect me.
10. My self-worth is not influenced by the quality of my relationships with my family members.
11. Whenever I follow my moral principles, my sense of self-respect gets a boost.
12. Knowing that I am better than others on a task raises my self-esteem.
13. My opinion about myself isn’t tied to how well I do in school.
14. I couldn’t respect myself if I didn’t live up to a moral code.
15. I don’t care what other people think of me.
16. When my family members are proud of me, my sense of self-worth increases.
17. My self-esteem is influenced by how attractive I think my face or facial features are.
18. My self-esteem would suffer if I didn’t have God’s love.
19. Doing well in school gives me a sense of self-respect.
20. Doing better than others gives me a sense of self-respect.
21. My sense of self-worth suffers whenever I think I don’t look good.
22. I feel better about myself when I know I’m doing well academically.
23. What others think of me has no effect on what I think about myself.
24. When I don’t feel loved by my family, my self-esteem goes down.
25. My self-worth is affected by how well I do when I am competing with others.
26. My self-esteem goes up when I feel that God loves me.
27. My self-esteem is influenced by my academic performance.
28. My self-esteem would suffer if I did something unethical.
29. It is important to my self-respect that I have a family that cares about me.
30. My self-esteem does not depend on whether or not I feel attractive.
31. When I think that I’m disobeying God, I feel bad about myself.
32. My self-worth is influenced by how well I do on competitive tasks.
33. I feel bad about myself whenever my academic performance is lacking.
34. My self-esteem depends on whether or not I follow my moral/ethical principles.
35. My self-esteem depends on the opinions others hold of me.