Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 7, No.

3, 1978

Self-Esteem and Delinquency

Florence R. Rosenberg 1 and Morris Rosenberg 2

Received February 14, 1978

Cross-lagged panel correlation technique is used to examine whether self-esteem

has a greater effect on delinquency than delinquency has on self-esteem. Analysis
o f a nationwide study o f tenth-grade boys shows that self-esteem is the more
powerful causal factor, even when initial levels o f delinquency are hem constant.
This result, however, is found to be stronger in the lower class than in the upper
class. These data are interpreted as lending greater support to Kaplan's theory
o f the self-enhancing nature o f delinquent behavior than to the idea o f reflected
appraisals.

INTRODUCTION

Does self-esteem cause delinquency or delinquency self-esteem? Although

a number of studies, summarized in Kaplan's b o o k (1975), have shown these
variables to be empirically associated, what remains unknown is the predominant
direction o f influence. In presenting an overview o f the literature in this area,

The research reported in this article was funded by a grant from the National Institute of
Mental Health (MH27747), which is gratefully acknowledged. The data and tabulations
utilized in this article were made available (in part) by the Institute for Social Research
Social Science Archive. The data were originally collected by Dr. Jerald G. Bachman,
Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Neither
the original collector of the data nor the archive bears any responsibility for the analyses or
interpretations presented here.
This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern
Sociological Society, Philadelphia, April 2, 1978.
1Lecturer, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland~ College Park, Maryland.
Received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland and is interested particularly in the
social influence on the self-concept.
2Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Received his Ph.D. from Columbia University and is interested in the structure and develop-
ment of the self-concept.
279
0047-2891/78/0900-0279505.00/0 9 1978 Plenum Publishing Corporation
280 Rosenberg and Rosenberg

Jensen (1972) observes: "Self-concept variables are sometimes treated as in-

dependent and sometimes as dependent variables, with some theorists and re-
searchers focusing on the consequences of deviance for one's self-image, others
focusing on the consequences of one's self-image for deviance, and others focus-
ing on both."
A major reason for the uncertainty surrounding this question is that most
studies are based on data collected at a single point in time, whereas information
on change is necessary to establish the causal nexus. This article examines changes
in both delinquency and self-esteem in an effort to determine which factor has
the greater effect.
One complicating element is that discussions in the literature frequently
intertwine two rather different aspects of the self-concept. One of these refers
to a specific component of the content (Gordon, 1968) of the self-concept-one's
view of oneself as a delinquent. This aspect of the self-concept was what Reckless
e t al. (1956, 1957) had in mind when, in their seminal articles, they advanced
the view that the self-concept could serve as an insulator against the surrounding
forces pressing the youngster toward delinquency. Their original article has been
the source of considerable subsequent research and debate (Schwartz and Tangri,
1965; Tangri and Schwartz, 1967; Dinitz e t al., 1969; Reckless and Dinitz,
1967). The heart of the argument was the boys who saw themselves as "good"
or conformist were, by virtue of these self-concepts, less likely to yield to the
pressures toward delinquency.
A different aspect of the self-concept is global self.esteem- an overall
positive or negative attitude toward the self. The connection between the specific
perception of oneself as a delinquent and one's overall feeling of self-worth is
still an open question. As Jensen (1972) and Tangri and Schwartz (1967) have
observed, Reckless's "good" boys do not necessarily hold positive attitudes
toward themselves, nor is a "delinquent" self-concept necessarily reflected in low
self-esteem.
It is important to highlight this distinction because the theoretical bases
for expecting an association between perception of oneself as a delinquent and
delinquent behavior are different from those underlying an association between
global self-esteem and delinquent behavior. The former expectation is based on
self-consistency theory (Lecky, 1945; Jones, 1973; Secord and Baclanan, 1961 ;
Backman and Secord, 1962), the latter on self-esteem theory (James, 1950;
Maslow, 1954; Rosenberg and Simmons, 1972; Kaplan, 1975; McDougall, 1932).
The former holds that people behave in a fashion consistent with their self-
definitions, the latter that they behave in a fashion designed to maximize their
self-esteem. In this article we shall focus on the relationship of global self-esteem -
the individual's overall positive or negative self-attitude - to delinquent behavior.
Whether perception of oneself as a delinquent would yield similar results is
unknown.
Self-Esteem and Delinquency 281

As matters now stand, there is ample theoretical justification for expect-

ing delinquency to affect self-esteem and for expecting self-esteem to affect
delinquency. The chief theoretical underpinning for the expectation that de-
linquency will affect self-esteem is probably labeling theory (Schur, 1971) with
its further implications for reflected appraisals (Mead, 1934). Labeling, of
course, does not focus on the deviant individual, but on societal reaction to
deviance. The theory of reflected appraisals, however, holds that the individual,
taking the role of the other, sees himself through the eyes of particular others or
from the perspective of the generalized other. He tends not only to internalize
the negative attitudes of particular other people toward the self but also, feeling
that he violates the basic values of the society, comes to share society's negative
attitudes toward himself (i.e., to develop low self-esteem).
A rather different theoretical orientation holds that youngsters adopt
deviant reference groups for the purpose of enhancing self-esteem. According
to Kaplan's conceptualization (1975), three basic mechanisms are involved in
the search for self-enhancement through deviant behavior.
1. Avoidance - the individual seeks to avoid self-devaluing experiences and
attitudes associated with predeviant membership and reference groups.
2. A t t a c k - t h e individual seeks to undermine or attack the normative
structure of these groups.
3. Substitution - the individual substitutes new groups with different nor-
mative structures in the hope that his self-esteem will be enhanced.
Frequently these new groups will be "deviant" according to the basic
normative system of the society.
In other words, in order to re-establish his impaired self-esteem, the
adolescent rejects the society or groups which have derogated him and turns
to delinquent subcultures which admire his delinquent activities and grant him
respect and approval. The low self-esteem person thus engages in delinquency
both in order to retaliate against the society which disdains him and in order
to gain a much needed feeling of self-esteem.
Thus, there are theoretical grounds for expecting delinquency to affect
self-esteem and to expect self-esteem to affect deliquency. Although one may
agree with Jensen (1972) that "the relation is most appropriately viewed as one
of interdependence," learning which has the greater effect on the other has both
theoretical and policy implications. Policies predicated on one assumed causal
sequence will be very different from those predicated upon the other.
In order to determine the causal sequence of apparently reciprocal rela-
tions, panel data are obviously indispensable. Although there are competing
methods for ferreting out the causal sequence in reciprocal relations, there are
no established methods (all methods require actual or estimated information on
two variables at two points in time). The most commonly recognized methods
282 Rosenberg and Rosenberg

are Lazarsfeld's 16-fold table (Lazarsfeld, 1948, 1968, 1972; Rosenberg and
Thielens, 1952; Rosenberg, 1957; Lipset et al., 1954; Barton and Lazarsfeld,
1962), Coleman's continuous time Markov process model (Coleman, 1964,
1968; McDill and Coleman, 1963 ; Anderson, 1953), the cross-lagged panel cor-
relation (Campbell, 1963; Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Pelz and Andrews,
1964; Rozelle and Campbell, 1969), and path analysis (Heise, 1970).
It would lead us too far astray to consider the strengths, weaknesses, and
assumptions of each procedure, and we have opted here for the cross-lagged
panel correlation. Since the technique is not widely used, Figure 1 shows the
components of this procedure. A1B1 and A2B2 are synchronous correlations,
A1A2 and B1B2 are auto-correlations, and A~B2 and B1A2 are cross-lag-
ged correlations, l f A ~B2 > BIA2, then A is said to have a greater effect on B
than the other way around; ifBaA2 > A ~B2, then the reverse interpretation is
made.
The data for this analysis are drawn from Youth in Transition, a study direc-
ted by Jerald G. Bachman at the Institute for Social Research at the University
of Michigan (Bachman et al., 1972). Thus far, five waves over an eight-year
span have been completed. Wave I, conducted in the fall of 1966, involved a
probability sample of 2213 tenth-grade boys in 87 high schools throughout
the country; 1886 of these subjects participated in the second data collection
phase (Wave II) in the spring of 1968. The data analysis in this paper will be
confined to the first two waves.
Self-esteem consists of a 10-item score based on two previous studies -
6 items are from the Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale, 4 from a study of indi-
viduals changing jobs (Cobb et al., 1966). It is important to stress that these
items are general and content-free, i.e., they explicitly avoid reference to any
specific aspect of the self, such as delinquency. (Typical items: "I take a positive
attitude toward myself. .... I feel that I have a number of good qualities.")
These interviews include material on a wide variety of delinquent be-
havior. In most cases a number of items have been combined to form different
indexes of delinquency. We have examined five indexes of delinquency:
1. Delinquent behavior in school (e.g., "damaged school property on pur-
pose," "hit a teacher").
2. Frequency of delinquent behavior (e.g., how often "run away from home,"
"taken part in a fight where a bunch o f your friends are against another
bunch").
3. Seriousness of delinquent behavior (e.g., "hurt someone badly enough to
need bandages or a doctor," "used a knife or g u n . . , to get something
from a person").
4. Theft and vandalism combines several items from the above indexes (e.g.,
"taken something from a store without paying for it," "set fire to some-
one else's property on purpose").
 Self-Esteem and Delinquency 283

A1 auto-correlatlon A2

~oug
l;o/ y
synchro- ~ synchro-
nou8

BILM" ~.m 2
auto-correistiou
Fig. 1. Cross-lagged panel model.

5. Total delinquency combines all the above items plus several additional
ones (e.g., "got into trouble with the police because of something you
did").
All these items are measured in terms of frequency of occurrence. Figure 2 pre-
sents the cross-lagged panel correlations between global self-esteem and each of
the five measures of delinquency. An analysis of the correlations in these dia-
grams indicates the following:
(1) There are strong auto-correlations for each of the variables between time
1 and time 2. The correlations for self-esteem over time is r = 0.536. Cor-
relations for each of the delinquency indexes over time range from r =

D1 - -.594
. '~ D 2 bI .502 "D 2 DI - .422 "v 2

Delinquent School Frequency of Serlousness of

Behavior Dellnquenc 7 Dellnquency

SE~_.I~1"536~ SE2 sEl~.-.-.s36 --..~s'~2

I -.175\ ~ I
-.161 ~ -,123 -,187 ~ --,142

I; "~ I ; =o
DI~ .442 D2 D1 I ~ ,565 ~D2
Theft and Total
Vandalism Delinquency
Fig. 2. Cross-lagged and other correlations between self-esteem and delinquency.
284 Rosenberg and Rosenberg

Table I. Relationship Between Self-Esteem and Delinquency At

Time 1 (1966) and Time 2 (1968) a
Time 1 Time 2
Delinquency indexes rSE1D 1 rSE2D 2

Delinquent school behavior -0.174 -0.152

Frequency of delinquency -0.t 70 -0.107
Seriousness of delinquency -0.147 -0.116
Theft and vandalism -0.161 - 0.123
Total delinquency -0.187 -0.142

aAll correlations are significant at the 0.001 level.

0.422 (seriousness) to r = 0.594 (delinquent behavior in school). This is

a rather good level o f consistency in both variables over an 18-month span.
(2) At each point in time, there are modest but consistent negative synchron-
ous correlations a between self-esteem and the indexes of delinquency
(Table I). These data are in agreement with most other studies (see liter-
ature summary in Kaplan, 1975) which indicate that delinquents are less
likely to have high self-esteem but that the association is not a strong one.
(3) With regard to the central question of this article, the critical correlations
are the cross-lagged panel correlations (diagonal lines). While the syn-
chronous correlations between self-esteem and delinquency cannot show
direction of causality, a comparison of the cross-lagged correlations can
suggest which variable is the stronger one. Table II presents a comparison
of the correlations between (a) self-esteem at time 1 and each delinquency
index at time 2, and (b) each index of delinquency at time 1 and self-
esteem at time 2. These data indicate which variable at the earlier time is
the better subsequent predictor of the other. Table II indicates that, in
each case, self-esteem at time 1 (column I) is more strongly associated
with delinquency at time 2 than vice versa (column III).
These data, then, are consistent with Kaplan's evidence (1975; 1976) that
self-esteem makes a more powerful contribution to delinquent behavior than
delinquency makes to self-esteem. It should be noted, o f course, that the correla-
tions are modest. Self-esteem is clearly not the only factor contributing to delin-
quency; in fact, it is not even a major one. But, in terms of comparative impact,
self-esteem apparently is the more powerful causal variable in explaining the as-
sociation between self-esteem and delinquency.

3Both Rozelle and Campbell (1969) and Kenny (1975) point to the importance of "sta-
tionarity" (i.e., similar synchronous correlations at both waves). Criteria are unavailable to
assess whether the decline in synchronous correlations in this case is so severe as to call
into question the cross-lagged data.
 Self-Esteem and Delinquency 285

Table 11. Cross-Lagged and Partial Cross-Lagged Panel Correlations Between

Self-Esteem and Delinquency a
(I) (II) (III) (IV)
Delinquency indexes rSE1D~ rSE1D ~. D 1 rDISE ~ rDISE ~9SE 1
Delinquent school behavior -0.186 -0.102 -0.101 -0.010 (n.s.)
Frequency of delinquency -0.142 -0.069 b -0.091 -0.005 (n.s.)
Seriousness of delinquency -0:140 -0.095 -0.085 -0.016 (n.s.)
Theft and vandalism -0.141 -0.087 -0.079 -0.001 (n.s.)
Total delinquency -0.175 -0.088 -0.110 -0.016 (n.s.)
aExcept when otherwise indicated,p < 0.001.
bp < 0002.

Before accepting this conclusion, however, we must consider the possible

spuriousness of each cross-lagged correlation. For example, as Pelz and Andrews
(1964) and Bohmstedt (1969) observe, the cross-lagged correlation rSE~D2 may
be due to the fact that for some reason SE1 is related t o D l and that D1 is related
to D2; the SEID2 relationship may be due to their c o m m o n association with D1.
In looking at rSE~D2, then, it is necessary to control for D1. The question
raised is whether, at equal levels o f delinquency at T1, low self-esteem youths
are more likely to be delinquent at 7"2. Conversely, at equal levels of self-esteem
at T1, are delinquent youths more likely to show lower self-esteem at T2? 4 The
results appear in Table II; a comparison of column II (rSE1D2.D1) with the
original cross-lagged correlation (rSE1D2) in column I reveals a reduction, but
not an elimination, of the original relationship. Even at equivalent delinquency
levels at T~, self-esteem at T~ continues to be related to delinquent behavior at
T2.
But what about the relationship between delinquency at T1 and self-esteem
at T2? Is this relationship affected by controlling on self-esteem at T~? Table II
shows that SEt not only affects the relationship but virtually eliminates it. At
equivalent self-esteem levels at T1, delinquency at T1 is a poor (nonsignificant)
predictor of self-esteem at T2 (column IV, Table II). Because of the vexing
multicollinearity problem, it may be extreme to say that rD~SE2 is entirely due
to SE~, but the latter is certainly a contributory factor.
In summary, adolescent boys with low self-esteem are somewhat more
likely than those with high self-esteem to manifest higher levels of delinquency,
irrespective of their original delinquency levels. On the other hand, delinquent
boys, unless they already manifest low self-esteem, are n o t more likely than non-
delinquents to develop lower self-esteem.

4 Partial correlation, of course, represents a statistical adjustment rather than a literal "hold-
ing constant," as in subgroup classification, but we have taken the liberty of applying
phraseology appropriate to the latter method in this discussion.
 GO

Table III. Conditional Cross-Lagged Panel Correlations Between Self-Esteem and Delinquency for Total Sample and for Lower
and Higher Socioeconomic Groups a

Total sample Lower SES Higher SES

Delinquency indexes rSE1D 2 rDtSE 2 Difference rSEID ~ rDISE 2 Difference rSEID 2 rDtSE 2 Difference
Delinquent school
behavior -0.186 b -0.101 0.085 -0.171 c -0.076 0.095 -0.175 -0.104 0.071
Frequency of
delinquency -0.142 d -0.091 0.051 -0.171 d -0.093 0.078 -0.119 -0.095 0.024
Seriousness of
delinquency -0.140 d -0.085 0.055 -0.172 d -0.086 0.086 -0.112 -0.086 0.026
Theft and
vandalism -0.141 c -0.079 0.062 -0.179 c -0.076 0.103 -0.111 -0.090 0.021
Total delinquency -0.175 c -0.110 0.065 -0.188 d -0.106 0.082 -0.163 -0.116 0.047

aAll correlations are significant at the 0.05 level.

bCorrelations differ significantly at the 0.01 level.
CCorrelations differ significantly at the 0.05 level.
dCorrelations differ significantly at the 0.10 level.

w
ga.
 Self-Esteem and Delinquency 287

CONDITIONAL CROSS-LAGGED CORRELATIONS

The data thus suggest that self-esteem has a stronger effect on delinquency
than the other way around. But while this condition may be true in general, it
need not necessarily be true, or true in equal measure, for all population sub-
groups. Since social class and delinquency are related, it is relevant to examine
these relationships within social class groups.
T a b l e III presents the cross-lagged correlations of self-esteem and the five
delinquency measures for the entire sample and separately for lower and higher
class boys. s As a crude measure of relative effect we have subtracted the cross-
lagged correlation rDISE2from the cross-lagged correlation rSEID2. A positive
figure indicates that self-esteem has the greater effect on delinquency than the
other way around. All 15 comparisons, it can be observed, are positive, which
indicates that self-esteem is more likely to be the causal variable both for the
entire sample and for each social class group on every delinquency index. For
the total sample, it may be noted, all the correlations are significantly different
at at least the 0.10 level.
It is noteworthy, however, that the differences between these correla-
tions are consistently larger in size, and more likely to be statistically significant,
in the lower class than in the higher class (Table III). In other words, although
in each case self-esteem has a greater effect on delinquency than the converse,
this is more the case among lower than higher socioeconomic class adolescents.
It is interesting to examine the basis of this difference. Consider first
rDISE2in both social classes. With regard to three delinquency measures, the
relationship is stronger in the higher socioeconomic class and in the other two
cases it is equal. Thus, to the extent that delinquency has any effect on self-
esteem, this effect is stronger in the higher than in the lower class. In other
words, the fact of delinquency will damage a higher SES youth's self-esteem more
than a lower SES youth's.
Now consider rSEID2. In four out of five cases, Table III reveals, these
correlations are appreciably stronger in the lower than in the higher socio-
economic class, and the fifth case is about equal. Thus, the effect of self-esteem
on delinquency appears to be greater in the lower than in the higher socio-
economic class. Low self-esteem, it would appear, is more likely to drive the
lower class adolescent to delinquency than the higher class youngster.
The upshot is that, in the lower socioeconomic class, self-esteem has a
stronger effect on delinquency, while delinquency has a weaker effect on self-
esteem than in the higher class. Hence, self-esteem affects delinquency more

s Socioeconomic status is measured by a six-item score including father's occupation,

parents' education, and characteristics of the home. The sample is divided at the mean
into "lower" and "higher" SES groups.
288 Rosenberg and Rosenberg

than the other way around to a greater extent in the lower than in the higher
socioeconomic class. 6
Why should this be so? The chief reason, we believe, is to be found in
Kaplan's theory (1975) of reference group identification. According to this
theory certain youths, because of societal rejection, develop low self-esteem.
In order to restore their damaged self-esteem, they turn to delinquent groups
which share and reinforce their animus toward the larger society and which
grant them respect for delinquent behavior - a respect which the larger society
denies.
What is of particular interest in the present regard is that this theory is
more persuasive for the lower than for the higher socioeconomic class. In a lower
class environment in which delinquency is more common, the low self-esteem
youth is more likely to fred companions who will respect and admire delinquent
behavior. He gains kudos and social acceptance for daring feats of nonconformity
and illegality. Furthermore, the severity of condemnation may be weaker and
the general level of acceptance of delinquent behavior stronger in environments
in which such behavior is more widespread. Finally, there are probably fewer al-
ternative ways for the lower class youngster to command social respect, e.g.,
acquiring a car, stereo, clothes. The reverse applies to the higher class youngster
with low self-esteem. The higher socioeconomic class- contains fewer delinquent
groups which can serve as sources of status; general social condemnation of
delinquency in this environment may be more intense (e.g., middle class girls
may be less willing to associate with the delinquent youth); and the youth may
have other ways of gaining self-esteem. These factors may help to explain our
finding that low self-esteem at a given time is more likely to be associated with
subsequent delinquency in the lower than in the higher crass.
But the same normative factors may also explain why delinquency affects
self-esteem to a greater extent in the higher than in the lower class. Whatever
factors draw the higher class youth to delinquency in the first place, the result
is more likely to be severe social condemnation in his environment. This may
take the form of horrified reactions on the part of his parents, and he may be
shunned by the predominantly "straight" boys and girls in his environment. If
this social disapproval is more likely to characterize higher than lower class en-
vironments, then it is understandable, from the perspective of Mead's theory
(1934) of reflected appraisals, that delinquency should more strongly affect
self-esteem in the higher than in the lower class.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

In advancing explanations for the observed relationship between delin-

quency and self-esteem, two broad theories have been advanced. Kaplan's refer-

6When these data are examined by means of partial correlation (rSE1D 2. D~ and rD~ SE 2.
SEt), the pattern of relationships is maintained for each socioeconomiclevel.
Self-Esteem and Delinquency 289

ence group theory holds that self-esteem is primarily responsible for delin-
q u e n c y - that youngsters with damaged self-esteem seek to restore their self-
respect by aligning themselves with deviant groups which accord them the ap-
proval denied by the rest of society. The theory of reflected appraisals, on the
other hand, assigns causal priority to delinquency or, to be more exact, societal
reaction to deviance. Whatever the initial cause of delinquency, society's con-
demnation of the behavior and the individual's internalization of others' at-
titudes toward him will lead to low self-esteem.
In this study of high school boys, the weight of evidence is in the direc-
tion of Kaplan's speculations. For the sample as a whole, and for the lower and
higher socioeconomic classes separately, the analysis of cross-lagged panel cor-
relations suggests that self-esteem has a stronger effect on delinquency than
delinquency has on self-esteem. And this is especially tree in the lower class
where the social support for such activity may be stronger and the social con-
demnation weaker. For the same reason, delinquency appears to damage the
self-esteem of the higher SES youngster more than of the lower SES boy.
Obviously, self-esteem is but one of many factors affecting delinquency
and is certainly not the most important. Nevertheless, if it is the case, as our
data suggest, that adolescent boys may turn to delinquent subgroups in order
to restore their shattered self-esteem, then one might consider the advisability
of providing alternative activities or reference groups (e.g., athletics, jobs, music)
which can help restore their feeling of self-respect. For one thing is certain:
Everyone -delinquent or nondelinquent, upper class or lower c l a s s - prefers
to think well of himself, to feel self-respect, to be a person of worth in his own
eyes. No one accepts low self-esteem with equanimity. If a youngster must have
recourse to deviant behavior in order to burnish his tarnished self-image, he will
do so. The society which disdains a youngster as stupid, bad, or incompetent
should not be surprised when he turns his energies into deviant channels in order
to acquire what everyone w a n t s - "the sentiment of self-regard" (McDougall,
1932).
The data presented in this paper are little more than an introduction to a
complex topic. Is delinquency carried on in a group context - where the delin-
quent act excites approval and a d m i r a t i o n - or is it conducted in i s o l a t i o n -
where the individual attempts to gain self-respect by measuring up to certain
inner standards of courage, cunning, and ruthlessness? Although there is abundant
research on delinquency, we still need to learn more about the phenomenology
of the delinquent act and its place in a motivational system.
Finally, it is plain that the relative effects of self-esteem and delinquency
may not be the same for girls as for boys. Perhaps girls gain none of the social
approval that boys get from engaging in delinquent acts, in which case delin-
quency would not be a device to restore lowered female self-esteem. At the same
time the girl's deviance might be more strongly condemned in the group, thereby
damaging her self-esteem. It is possible that the successful gang leader is admired
by some girls, but the successful prostitute is not admired by boys. In tiffs case,
290 Rosenbexg and Rosenberg

delinquency w o u l d have a stronger effect o n self-esteem among girls than the

o t h e r way around.

REFERENCES
Anderson, T. (1953). Markov chains and panel analysis. In Lazarsfeld, P. F., (ed.), Mathe-
matical Thinking in the Social Sciences, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.
Bachman, J. G., Kahn, R. L., Mednick, M. T., Davidson, T. N., and Johnston, L. D. (1972).
Youth in Transition, Volume L Blueprint for a Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Boys, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor.
Backman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. (1962). Liking, selective interaction, and misperception
in congruent interpersonal relations. Sociometry 25 : 325-335.
Barton, A. H., and Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1962). Methodology of quantitative social research.
In Varma, B. N. (ed.), A New Survey of the Social Sciences, Asia Publishing House,
New York.
Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1969). Observations on the measurement of change. In Borgatta, E. F.
(ed.), Sociological Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 113-133.
Campbell, D. (1963). From description to experimentation. In Harris, C. W. (ed.), Prob-
lems in Measuring Change, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Campbell, D., and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs.
In Gage, N. L. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Cobb, S., Brooks, G. H., Kasl, S. V., and Connelly, W. E. (1966). The health of people
changing jobs: A description of a longitudinal study. Am. J. Pub. Hlth. 56: 1476-1481.
Coleman, J. S. (1964). Introduction to Mathematical Sociology, Free Press, New York.
Coleman, J. S. (1968). The mathematical study of change. In Blalock, H., and Blalock, A.
(eds.), Methodology in SocialResearch. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dinitz, S., Dynes, R. R., and Clarke, A. C. (1969). Deviance: Studies in the Process of
Stigmatization and Societal Reaction, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gordon, C. (1968). Self-conceptions: Configurations of content. In Gordon, C., and Gergen,
K. (eds.), The Self in Social Interaction, Wiley, New York.
Heise, D. (1970). Causal inference from panel data. In Borgatta, E. F., and Bohrnstedt, G.
(eds.), SociologicalMethodology, Wiley, New York.
Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychol. Bull.
82: 887-903.
James, W. (1950). The Principles of Psychology, Dover, New York, (originally published
in 1890 by Henry Holt and Company).
Jensen, G. F. (1972). Delinquency and adolesce~at self-conceptions: A study of the personal
relevance of infraction. Soc. Probl. 20(1): 84-103.
Jones, S. C. (1973). Self- and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency
theories. Psychol. Bull 79: 185-199.
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-Attitudes and Deviant Behavior, Goodyear Publishing, Pacific
Palisades, Calif.
Kaplan, H. B. (1976). Self-attitudes and deviant response. Soc. Forces 54: 788-801.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1948). The use of panels in social research. Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc.
92: 405-410.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1968). Preface to the third edition. In Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B.,
and Gaudet, H., .The People's Choice, Columbia University Press, New York.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1972). Mutual relations over time of two attributes: A review and integra-
tion of various approaches. In Hamner, M. et al. (eds.), Psychopathology, Wiley,
New York, pp. 461-479.
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-Consistency: A Theory of Personality, Island Press, New York.
Lipset, S. M.,Lazarsfeld, P. F., Barton, A. H., and Linz, J. (1954). The psychology of voting:
An analysis of political behavior. In Lindzey, G. (ed.), Handbook o f SocialPsychol-
ogy, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1150-1164.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality, Harper, New York.
Self-Esteem and Delinquency 291

McDill, E. L., and Coleman, J. S. (1963). High school social status, college plans, and aca-
demic achievement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 28: 905-918.
McDougall, W. (1932). The Energies o f Men, Methuen, London.
Mead, G. H., (1934). Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Pelz, D. C., and Andrews, F. M. (1964). Detecting causal priorities in panel data. Am.
Sociot. Rev. 29: 836-848.
Reckless, W. C., and Dinitz, S. (1967). Pioneering with the self-concept as a vulnerability
factor in delinquency. J. Crim. Law, Criminol. Police Sci. 58:515-523.
Reckless, W. C., Dinitz, S., and Murray, E. (1956). Self-concept as an insulator against delin-
quency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 21: 744-746.
Reckless, W. C., Dinitz, S., and Murray, E. (1957). The "good" boy in a high delinquency
area. J. Crim. Law, Criminol. Police Sci. 58: 18-26.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and Values, The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-linage, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N.J.
Rosenberg, M., and Simmons, R. G. (1972)..Blacktand White Self-Esteem, American Sociol-
ogical Association, Washington, D.C.
Rosenberg, M., and Thielens, W. (1952). The panel study. In Jahoda, M.,Deutsch, M., and
Cook, S. W., (eds.), Research Methods in Social Relations, Vol. II, Dryden Press,
New York, pp. 588-609.
Rozelle, R. M., and Campbell, D. T. (1969). More plausible rival hypotheses in the cross-
lagged panel correlation technique. Psychol. Bull 71 : 74-80.
Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications, Harper and
Row, New York.
Schwartz, M., and Tangri, S. (1965). A note on self-concept as an insulator against delin-
quency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 30: 922-926.
Secord, P. F., and Backman, C. W. (1961). Personality theory and the problem of stability
and change in individual behavior: An interpersonal approach. Psychol. Rev. 68:
21-32.
Tangri, S. S., and Schwartz, M. (1967). Delinquency and the self-concept variable. J. CrirrL
Law, Criminol. Police ScL 58: 182-190.

COMMENTS ON "SELF-ESTEEM AND DELINQUENCY"

Joan M c C o r d I

The preceding article by Florence Rosenberg and Morris Rosenberg is an

important contribution to the literature on the relationship between self-esteem
and delinquency. First, it supplies a clear and necessary distinction between the
global concept o f self-esteem and content-specific definitions o f self, e.g., as
delinquent. Second, Rosenberg and Rosenberg's use o f cross-lag analyses on
longitudinal data provides information about the relative impact o f low self-
esteem on later delinquency as compared with the impact of delinquency on
later low self-esteem.
Their most interesting findings show that (1) in higher social classes, delin-
quency more strongly affects self-esteem, whereas in lower social classes, the

Department of Psychology and Sociology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Received her Ph.D. from Stanford University. Current research interests are related to a
longitudinal study of personality development.
292 Rosenberg and Rosenberg

impact of low self-esteem on delinquency is stronger. (2) In both higher and

lower social classes, comparisons of correlations indicate that low self-esteem
precedes delinquency.
Rosenberg and Rosenberg conclude that their evidence supports a view
that individuals who have low self-esteem turn to delinquent subcultures which
grant respect and approval denied by the larger culture. They go on to suggest
that "one might consider the advisability of providing alternative activities or
reference groups (e.g., athletics, jobs, music) which can help restore their feel-
ing of self-respect."
I believe that these conclusions and recommendations are p r e m a t u r e -
and probably wrong. In order to establish a causal link between low self-esteem
and delinquency, one ought to be able to show that low self-esteem precedes
delinquency and that the relationship is not due to some third condition which
causes both low self-esteem and delinquency.
The Rosenbergs addressed the question of a spurious relationship by con-
sidering the possibility that delinquency at time 1 generates both low self-esteem
at time 1 and delinquency at time 2. They performed a partial correlation,
statistically controlling delinquency scores at time 1, while measuring the rela-
tionship between self-esteem at time 1 and delinquency at time 2. Because the
partial correlations remain statistically significant, they conclude that low self-
esteem at time 1 causes delinquency at time 2. Their procedure, however, does
not address the issues.
Consider two classes of subjects at time 1 : those low in delinquency and
those high in delinquency. The hypothesis that low self-esteem causes delin-
quency predicts that among those low in delinquency at time 1, self-esteem
scores should be negatively correlated with delinquency.
Assuming that delinquency scores remain relatively c o n s t a n t - and the
data reported by Bachman et al., (1971) indicate that this assumption is true -
the theory proposed by Rosenberg and Rosenberg should lead to a contrary ex-
pectation among those high in delinquency at time 1. If participation in delin-
quent activities bolsters self-esteem, one would expect a positive correlation
between self-esteem at time 1 and continued delinquency as measured at time 2.
The Bachman (1971) data (used by Rosenberg and Rosenberg) show that
both self-esteem and delinquency are quite strongly related to how well a boy
gets along with his parents. Self-esteem was correlated with family relations 0.36;
and delinquency was correlated with family relations 0.33. Bachman (1970)
describes family relations as the most important predictor of both self-esteem
(p. 126) and of delinquency (p. 165). The relationships suggest an alternative
interpretation of the data analyzed by Rosenberg and Rosenberg: Bad family
relations cause both low self-esteem and delinquency. If this interpretation is
correct, then programs designed to provide ego support as a means to preventing
delinquency would be useless, at best.
I suspect that the problem is worse. Perhaps we can afford to provide use-
less programs. It seems possible, however, that by increasing the self-confidence
Self-Esteem and Delinquency 293

of those inclined toward delinquency, we may increase their proclivity toward

crime (McCord, 1978). My own longitudinal study (McCord, 1977) of the re-
lationship between behavior during primary grades and later delinquency in-
dicates that young children who were shy or who lacked self-confidence (as
reported by their teachers) were less likely to commit serious crimes during
later years.

References
Bachman, J. G. (1970). Youth in Transition, Vol. 2, Institute for Social Research, Ann
Arbor.
Bachman, J. G., Green, S., and Wirtanen, I. D. (1971). Youth in Transition, V01. 3, insti-
tute for Social Research, Ann Arbor.
McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. Am. Psychologist 33(3):
284-289.
McCord, J. (1977). A life history approach to criminal behavior. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, November 16-20.

REPLY TO JOAN MCCORD'S COMMENT

Florence R. Rosenberg
Morris R osenberg

In her comment, Dr. McCord points out that the correlation between self-
esteem and delinquency may be due to "some third condition." We are cer-
tainly aware of the danger that extraneous factors may underly zero-order rela-
tionships (see Rosenberg, 1968). But it is precisely this danger that makes the
cross-lagged panel correlation such a valuable technique. If, as is usually the case,
we were restricted to the examination of a static relationship between self-esteem
and delinquency, we might indeed suspect that both were outcomes of some
common cause, e.g., parental status or family background. But family back-
ground does not explain why self-esteem predicts changes in delinquency be-
tween the tenth and eleventh grades. Family background might explain an initial
relationship, but how does it explain how one variable is associated with change
in another? The problem of extraneous variables in survey research must always
be considered (Hirschi and Selvin, 1973; Rosenberg, 1968), but the problem is
substantially reduced through use of the cross-lagged panel method. McCord
has elected to attack one of the distinctive strengths of the study.
We must acknowledge bafflement at McCord's observation that "the
hypothesis that low self-esteem causes delinquency predicts that among those
low in delinquency at time 1, self-esteem scores should be negatively correlated
with delinquency." What can this statement mean? McCord seems to be suggest-
ing that we examine the relationship between self-esteem and delinquency,
controlling on delinquency. The logic of such a procedure eludes us. If, in fact,
she meant (but neglected to state) that "self-esteem scores should be negatively
294 Rosenberg and Rosenberg

correlated with delinquency" at time 2, then she is simply predicting what we

reported in our article: There is a negative correlation between self-esteem at
time 1 and delinquency at time 2, when delinquency at time 1 is controlled. This
is consistent with Kaplan's finding (1975; 1976) among nondelinquents at time
I that those with low self-esteem are more likely than those withhigh self-esteem
to become delinquent at time 2.
Space limitations prevent us from discussing McCord's following paragraph
except to say that its reasoning is equally questionable and that the hypothesis
that delinquent activities (the cause) bolster self-esteem (the effect) cannot be
studied by examining the relationship between the putative effect at an earlier
point in time (time 1) and the putative cause at a later point in time (time 2) -
unless one happens to believe that cause follows effect.
McCord is persuaded that her data contradict our reported findings, since
she has evidence that "young children who were shy or who lacked self-con-
fidence (as reported by their teachers) were less likely to commit serious crimes
during later years." The only point is that self-confidence is not self-esteem and
that delinquency is not the same as "serious crimes." Self-esteem refers to a feel-
ing of self-respect, the view that one is a person of worth, whereas self-confidence
refers to the assurance that one can succeed in tasks undertaken or can affect
events in accordance with one's wishes (Rosenberg, 1976). Similarly, most of the
Bachman indicators of delinquency (cited by McCord) cannot remotely be con-
sidered serious crimes. It is meaningless to ask whether disagreement exists, since
McCord and we are talking about different things.
In speculating on some of the implications of the data, we suggest the pos-
sibility that programs to improve self-esteem in the lower classes might help.
McCord's observation that "these conclusions and recommendations are prema-
ture" is entirely justified. But it is apparent that we advanced the idea as one
worth considering; the data are not remotely strong enough to serve as a basis
for policy. At this point, however, we must await evidence indicating that it is
wrong.
It is hard to understand why the main point of our paper has been ignored
by this critique. Since delinquency and self-esteem affect one another, the
question is whether one can specify which variable has the greater effect on the
other, and whether these relative effects vary for different groups. We have cer-
tainly attempted to be explicit on this point.

REFERENCES

Hirschi, T., and Selvin, H. (1973). Principles of Survey Analysis, Free Press, New York.
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Increase in self-rejection as an antecendent of deviant responses. J.
Youth Adoles. 4(3): 281-292.
Kaplan, H. B. (1976). Self-attitudes and deviant response. Soc. Forces 54(4): 788-801.
Rosenberg, M. (1968). The Logic of Survey Analysis, Basic Books, New York.
Rosenberg, M. (1976). Beyond self-esteem. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, New York, August.