Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale

Abstract

The Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS) is a 35-item psychological instrument designed to measure the specific domains or areas upon which an individual stakes their self-esteem. Developed by Crocker and colleagues, the scale operates on the premise that contingent self-worth is not a monolithic trait but is instead domain-specific. The CSWS assesses seven distinct domains hypothesized to serve as internal and external sources of self-worth: others’ approval, physical appearance, outdoing others in competition, academic competence, family love and support, being a virtuous or moral person, and God’s love. Convergent results confirm that the measure exhibits strong reliability and validity, with subscales predicting domain-specific behaviors and psychological outcomes.

Keywords

Self-worth, contingent self-worth, self-esteem, academic competence, physical appearance, morality, competition, domain-specific, psychometrics, Crocker.

Authors

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (CSWS) is to provide a detailed, multidimensional assessment of how individuals derive their feeling of self-worth. Unlike earlier measures that focused solely on whether self-esteem was generally contingent or noncontingent, the CSWS allows researchers to identify the specific domains that act as crucial internal or external validation sources for the individual.

This specificity is vital for understanding motivation and behavior, as research has demonstrated that relying on certain contingencies (e.g., academic competence) predicts domain-relevant actions (e.g., studying hours), while reliance on other contingencies (e.g., appearance) predicts distinct behaviors (e.g., grooming or exercising hours). By assessing these seven domains, the CSWS offers a nuanced picture of the psychological mechanisms driving self-regulation and emotional responses to success and failure.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the CSWS is the domain-specificity of contingent self-worth. The scale is grounded in the theory that an individual’s sense of self-worth is staked on performance or outcomes in specific life domains. These domains are categorized along a continuum ranging from internal sources to external sources of validation.

The seven domains assessed are:

• Others’ Approval: External validation based on the positive opinions of other people.
• Physical Appearance: External validation based on perceived attractiveness or body image.
• Outdoing Others in Competition: External validation based on competitive success and superiority.
• Academic Competence: Internal/External validation based on performance in school or intellectual endeavors.
• Family Love and Support: Internal/Relational validation based on the quality of familial relationships.
• Being a Virtuous or Moral Person: Internal validation based on adherence to ethical and moral principles.
• God’s Love: Internal/Spiritual validation based on feeling accepted or loved by a higher power.

Studies using the CSWS indicate that external contingencies (such as appearance or competition) are often negatively correlated with overall well-being, whereas internal contingencies (such as morality or family support) tend to be unrelated or positively related to psychological health.

Validity

The CSWS demonstrates strong evidence for its validity, particularly its predictive and convergent validity, confirming that the subscales accurately measure and predict domain-specific outcomes. The academic subscale, for instance, has been extensively validated in college student populations.

Specific findings supporting the validity of the academic contingency subscale include its ability to predict:

• The magnitude of changes (increases or decreases) in college seniors’ self-esteem in direct response to receiving acceptances or rejections from graduate schools (Crocker, Sommers, & Luhtanen, 2002).
• Significant decreases in self-esteem following the receipt of unexpectedly poor grades (Crocker & Luhtanen, 2003).
• The reported experience of academic stress, including factors such as time pressure and conflicts with professors, particularly during the freshman year of college (Crocker & Luhtanen, 2003).

Furthermore, convergent results across various investigations have confirmed the empirical distinctiveness and predictive power of all seven subscales, showing that they differentially predict relevant behaviors and affective states associated with their respective domains.

Reliability

The reliability of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale is supported by internal consistency data across the seven subscales, as documented in the foundational research. The items within each factor demonstrate high coherence, ensuring that each subscale reliably measures its intended domain of self-worth contingency. The convergent validity evidence also reinforces the overall psychometric soundness of the instrument, suggesting stable and consistent measurement properties across different samples and contexts.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the CSWS was rigorously tested using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). These analyses provided compelling support for the proposed theoretical model, indicating that a seven-factor structure offered a superior fit to the data compared to a simpler, one-factor model of general contingent self-worth. This finding empirically validates the central theoretical claim of the scale: that self-worth is derived from multiple, distinct, and domain-specific sources rather than a single global contingency.

The seven factors identified correspond precisely to the hypothesized domains: Others’ Approval, Physical Appearance, Competition, Academic Competence, Family Support, Virtue/Morality, and God’s Love. The observed correlations among these contingencies suggest that they align along a theoretical continuum, ranging from highly external sources of validation to highly internal sources.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire / Psychological Assessment Scale

Format: 35 items, typically administered using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree).

Language Available: Primarily English (Original version), but has been translated and validated in multiple languages for cross-cultural research.

Population Group: General population, primarily validated in academic settings.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically college students and older).

Population Details: Initial validation studies focused heavily on college student populations (e.g., freshman and senior undergraduates), demonstrating applicability in high-stakes academic environments.

Test Methodology: Pen-and-paper or digital administration. Scores are calculated by averaging the items belonging to each of the seven subscales, providing seven distinct scores representing the strength of each contingency.

Keywords

Psychological measurement, self-regulation, motivation, personality, self-esteem, neuroticism, narcissism, academic success, social psychology, domain specificity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2003 (Year of primary publication and validation).

Permissions: The scale is widely used in academic research. Researchers should consult the primary author, Jennifer Crocker, or the journal publisher (American Psychological Association) regarding formal permissions for commercial or clinical use.

Fee: Generally available for non-commercial academic research use, though specific usage rights may require formal inquiry.

Reference’s

• 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., Sommers, S. R., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth and self-esteem stability. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
• Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth and academic outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.

Items of the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale

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

INSTRUCTIONS: Please respond to each of the following statements by circling your answer using the scale from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “7 = Strongly agree.” If you haven’t experienced the situation described in a particular statement, please answer how you think you would feel if that situation occurred.

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.