We return, building off of emotional neglect and somatic issues, to pick up on the path we didn’t take last time, though it is the community theme of the month!
Reminder, we’re doing a Worth Challenge in the Discord Community. Each week, setting a boundary and behavior with ourselves or others to confront our assumptions about what we’re allowed to do and start modifying the habitual patterns spawned from those beliefs.
We talk about our trials and observations on Wednesdays in the channel called Wednesday meets. Come join.
Today, let’s talk about worthlessness in the literature.
And I’ll be honest… if you’re like me, you’d think there would be a ton of research linking emotional abuse and neglect to low-self-worth… was sortof counting on it for this month…… but there is not.
So we’ll be covering three research papers today, sewing together a story from what I could find. How do we end up with negative beliefs about our value? What type of trauma, from whom, imparts it most strongly? And what can we do about it?
I want to remind everyone that we’re approaching the word “worth-less-ness” very literally. As in, believing we are “worth-less” than others, not fully devoid of worth. This connects with feeling useless, and/or feeling overburdened by responsibility because we must be, and/or accepting subpar treatment from others in all areas of life.
Worthlessness beliefs are sneaky, perhaps subconscious, and rather than exploring explicit thoughts of lesser-than-dom…. might need to be spotted through observing our historical actions and reactions, acceptance of low-quality environments, and magical ability to adapt to situations that suck butt, estimating that “it’s good enough for ME.”
So let’s start the conversation and see if it sparks anything for you. Community feedback always desired.
This is the geekaroo edition of the episode. For the main-concept-only report, check out the bite sized summary.
And one more reminder – tiers are changing in August. Don’t change your subscription if you like what you’re getting.
Now let’s get into the papers.
First up.
The Prospective Contribution of Childhood Maltreatment to Low Self-Worth, Low Relationship Quality, and Symptomatology Across Adolescence: A Developmental-Organizational Perspective
Megan Flynn 1, Dante Cicchetti 2, Fred Rogosch 3
Developmental Psychology
2014
Effects of Childhood Maltreatment across Developmental Domains
And we begin by talking about childhood maltreatment, a title that encompasses abuse as well as neglect. Abuse can fall into our usual domains of emotional, physical, and/or sexual mistreatment. Neglect can be physical – not tending to a child’s basic biological needs – or emotional – not acknowledging or providing support for their responses to the world. Both suggest to the child’s brain “you don’t matter. You aren’t worth protecting, caring for, listening to, treating kindly.”
This thought, over time and repeated confirmation, becomes a belief – a foundational understanding which all subsequent thought and behavior build off. Also known in the literature as a negative schema. The child might learn that they are worth-less – a negative self-schema. And also that they should anticipate corresponding treatment from others; cruelty, dismissal, betrayal; these are negative other-schemas.
These schema, together, can explain attachment patterns. If we anticipate negative treatment from others, we become anxious or avoidant about relationships. When we enter our first peer relationships with these beliefs already at the helm, we end up recreating the family dynamics that instilled the schema in the first place. We seek people who fit our working model of the world in which we are deplorable or lesser-than. Then we repeat the pattern again and again.
Childhood maltreatment involves diverse experiences of abuse (i.e., physical, sexual, emotional) and neglect imparted by a child's caregiver or other responsible adult. Maltreatment inherently reflects a critical malfunction of the caregiving environment in that children's essential needs for security and protection are not provided, thereby communicating to children that they lack value and worth (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1995).
In terms of interpersonal consequences, maltreatment likely engenders negative internal working models of self and others. Internal working models are theorized to represent interpersonal expectations, such as whether other people are generally caring, trustworthy, and supportive or, conversely, whether other people are generally hostile, untrustworthy, and unsupportive. Notably, compared to nonmaltreated samples, maltreatment predicts a lower likelihood of a secure attachment relationship and a higher likelihood of a disorganized attachment relationship from infancy through childhood (for a meta-analytic review, see Cyr, Euser, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van IJzendoorn, 2010).
Moreover, the negative internal models of attachment relationships in response to maltreatment are apt to generalize to peer relationships. Indeed, when compared to nonmaltreated children, maltreated children evince maladaptive representations of mothers that are, in turn, associated with peer rejection and aggression (Shields, Ryan, & Cicchetti, 2001). Broadly, maltreated youth experience greater negative peer relationship qualities (e.g., aggression, withdrawal, rejection; Alink, Cicchetti, Kim, & Rogosch, 2012; Kim & Cicchetti, 2010) and fewer positive peer relationship qualities (e.g., prosocial and socially competent behavior; Alink et al., 2012; Rogosch, Oshri, & Cicchetti, 2010) than nonmaltreated youth.
In this way, the family environment becomes reflected in the broader social environment. This causes low self-worth to become a permanent fixture, rather than something we grow out of.
And, it also corresponds with depression and addiction. Childhood maltreatment is correlated with inaccurate internalizing and externalizing behaviors used for self protection. In other words, to reduce cognitive dissonance and create a cohesive story about the world, we can either accept WE are terrible (everything is our fault; internalizing the treatment) or that the WORLD is terrible (nothing is our fault; externalizing the treatment). When we internalize, we often become depressed, since “we are the problem”. When we externalize, we often turn to drugs and other avoidance behaviors, since “no matter what we do, the world fucks us, why bother trying to regulate ourselves?”
Childhood maltreatment also confers vulnerability to both internalizing and externalizing dimensions of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence (e.g., Appleyard et al., 2010; Keiley, Howe, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2001; Lewis et al., 2011; Rogosch et al., 2010). In terms of internalizing symptoms, maltreatment predicts heightened symptoms of depression (e.g., Hankin, 2005; Shenk, Noll, & Cassarly, 2010) and anxiety (e.g., Shenk et al., 2010). In terms of externalizing symptoms, physically abused children received higher peer nominations of aggression and disruptive behavior than nonmaltreated children (Teisl & Cicchetti, 2008; Teisl, Rogosch, Oshri, & Cicchetti, 2012). In adolescent samples, maltreatment parameters are associated with delinquency (Kim, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Huang, 2009), alcohol use (Shin, Edwards, Heeren, & Amodeo, 2009), cannabis use (Oshri, Rogosch, Burnette, & Cicchetti, 2011; Rogosch et al., 2010), and cigarette use (Lewis et al., 2011). Thus, based on this collective body of research, we anticipated that childhood maltreatment parameters would simultaneously contribute to low self-worth, low quality parent and peer relationships, and both internalizing and externalizing symptoms during adolescence.
Summary and Hypotheses
Per these authors’ estimations, then, childhood maltreatment should correspond with low self-worth, poor relationships in and out of the family, and internalizing/externalizing inaccuracies.
In sum, we examined the contribution of childhood maltreatment parameters to low self-worth, low quality relationships, and internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescence. Further, the stability and cross-lagged effects of these sequelae of maltreatment were investigated over time. Specifically, we predicted:
- Hypothesis 1: Childhood maltreatment parameters will simultaneously predict low self-worth, low quality relationships with mothers and peers, and both internalizing and externalizing symptoms in early-mid adolescence.
- Hypothesis 2: Low self-worth, low quality relationships, and both symptom types will display stability and elicit cross-lagged effects from early-mid to mid-late adolescence.
- Hypothesis 3: The maltreatment sequelae in early-mid adolescence (i.e., low self-worth, low quality relationships, and symptoms) will partially mediate the effects of the childhood maltreatment parameters on low self-worth, low quality relationships, and both symptom types in mid-late adolescence.
What did they find?
Discussion
Well, those things appear to be true. And they appear to be stable over time. The childhood environment creates a mindset that corrupts later attempts at relationship, puts the individual at higher risk of depression and anxiety, and disrupts the ability to emotionally self-regulate. If we believe we are worth dirt as the basis for the rest of our thoughts, we have a hard time re-evaluating situations and bringing ourselves back to a neutral or positive emotional state.
The findings revealed that the number of maltreatment subtypes simultaneously predicted low self-worth, low maternal relationship quality, and internalizing and externalizing symptoms in early-mid adolescence. Moreover, the stability paths of low self-worth, low maternal relationship quality, and both symptom types were significant from early-mid to mid-late adolescence.These findings cohere with evidence that poor self-perceptions interfere with adaptive interpersonal functioning (e.g., Park, Crocker, & Vohs, 2006) and confer risk for symptoms of depression and anxiety (e.g., Ohannessian, Lerner, Lerner, & Eye, 1999)
They’re findings we might expect, logically. With one interesting detail to mention.
Specifically, it’s low-quality maternal relationships that seem to impart low self-worth and heighten internalizing/externalizing behaviors. The authors suggest these result from those negative self-beliefs we spoke of, and also that daily maltreatment interactions, themselves, increase negative self-valuations and internalizing responses. So we’re affected by our already-established beliefs and also directly by mothers’ ongoing behaviors, increasing hostility, which can be internalized or externalized. Corresponding with mental health challenges and emotional coping behaviors that can snowball into adolescent delinquency, drug use, and escapist relationships.
Notably, the significant effects of low maternal relationship quality on low self-worth and internalizing symptoms may result in part from negative intrapersonal and interpersonal representations established by maltreatment. However, everyday interactions between maltreating mothers and their offspring are also characterized by greater insensitivity and hostility relative to mother-child dyads without maltreatment histories (for a meta-analytic review, see Wilson, Rack, Shi, & Norris, 2008), and pervasive negativity in maternal relationships is apt to jointly contribute to low self-worth and internalizing symptoms during adolescence.
And that’s paper one for ya. Next up:
The Relationship Between Negative Self-Concept, Trauma, and Maltreatment in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis
Daniela M Melamed
1, Jessica Botting
1, Katie Lofthouse
1, Laura Pass
1, Richard Meiser-Stedman
1,
Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review
2024
And we begin by discussing self-concept; the cumulative thoughts, beliefs, and observations of oneself. Our identity, our image, our understanding of who we are in relation to the world and everyone in it. Self-concept might sound like no big deal or something we can “fake our way through,” but it’s deeply rooted in our subconscious psychology. We can’t simply override or replace it. In fact, it’s correlated with a large variety of psychopathologies. With negative self-schema, as we discussed already, we have limited ability to help ourselves when life is also negative. When we can’t correct our thoughts or change our emotions, we end up with mental illness and poor life outcomes. It should come as no surprise, then, that one of the three criteria for CPTSD is poor self-concept.
A particular outcome that has been explored in the literature is the relationship between exposure to childhood trauma and self-concept. The term self-concept is an umbrella term which refers to a collection of beliefs, ideas, and perceptions about oneself; it refers to one’s own self-image (Burnett, 1994). This umbrella term encompasses concepts, such as self-esteem and self-identity. Self-concept is additionally an important transdiagnostic concept in mental health, often linked to various psychopathologies (Zeigler-Hill, 2011). According to the International Classification of Diseases-11th version (ICD-11) (WHO, 2018), negative self-concept encompasses one of the three additional criteria needed to meet the diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
READ: The ICD-11 more specifically refers to this concept as beliefs about oneself as being worthless or diminished with accompanying feelings of guilt or shame (WHO, 2018).
As such, these authors set out to review prior studies connecting childhood trauma, maltreatment, and self-concept in the attempt to understand how large the effects of childhood events are and what factors are responsible, specifically, for creating the pipeline between traumas and feelings of worthlessness.
Some studies have explored self-concept as a moderator between trauma exposure and mental health outcomes, where self-concept has been found to significantly moderate the relationship between trauma exposure and PTSD (Salami, 2010).
Therefore, the aim of the current review was to systemically examine and meta-analyze studies to explore the relationship between exposure to traumatic events and maltreatment and its association with self-concept in children and adolescents. For this review, we used the DSM-5 PTSD (APA, 2013) definition of a traumatic event (i.e., an event that involved “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence”) and considered maltreatment to be any form of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect. We considered peer victimization to be a form of traumatic event (given the physical threat involved).
The main research questions are as follows:
- What is the size of the effect of the relationship between negative self-concept and exposure to trauma and maltreatment in children and adolescents?
- What factors moderate this relationship specifically?
And their review found?
DISCUSSION
Traumas correspond with poorer self-concept. Specifically, this relationship is boosted by factors of 1) trauma consistency, or number of traumatic exposures, and 2) the type of trauma exposure, with sexual trauma having the greatest negative impact. This fits with prior findings that sexual trauma generally correlates with more negative outcomes in life. Perhaps with negative self-concept from the abuse, as the driving cause.
Results from pooling 134 independent effect sizes from the same number of studies found a significant negative effect of the relationship between trauma exposure and self-concept; this size of the effect was found to be small (r = − 0.20) and in the expected direction, i.e., greater trauma exposure was associated with poorer self-concept. Analysis of moderators found that two study-level factors moderated this relationship: trauma exposure frequency (single vs repeated) and sexual abuse (vs other types of abuse).
results suggest that it is not only the amount of exposure to the trauma, but the nature of the trauma exposure that has a relationship with one’s self-concept; this is supported by findings in the adult literature that state that child sexual abuse is linked to worse outcomes later in life, relative to other trauma exposure types (Maniglio, 2009).
It also fits with the general finding that women exposed to trauma have poorer life outcomes compared to males. Female children report more sexual abuse; female adults report more negative life qualities. One might, then, believe that females may, in general, suffer from greater sense of worthlessness which mediates the relationship between the two points. However, this wasn’t supported by the current review. What WAS supported is the ubiquitous nature of this relationship; across gender, country, and economic quality of that country, the connection between childhood maltreatment and poor self-worth appears stable.
That no other study-level characteristics moderated the relationship between trauma exposure and negative self-concept also warrants comment. While females are more likely to be exposed to trauma and maltreatment (Gallo et al., 2018; Gwadz et al., 2007; Halpern et al., 2018) and previous research has found that females are more likely to experience negative outcomes following trauma exposure when compared to males (Holbrook et al., 2002), in the current meta-analysis, gender (whether 100% female or 50% female compared to a mix) did not moderate the relationship. This suggests that girls are no more likely than boys to have a worse impact on self-concept after exposure to trauma or vice versa. The relationship between trauma exposure and self-concept was found to be present in both low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries, stressing the global importance of this mechanism.
And that’s paper two. Bringing us to the paper we’ll spend the most time with today:
Family Environment and Self-Esteem Development: A Longitudinal Study from Age 10 to 16
Samantha Krauss 1, Ulrich Orth 1, Richard W Robins
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2019
And here, in a slight deviation from last time where we spoke about self-concept, we start by discussing self-esteem.
longitudinal studies indicate that high self-esteem prospectively predicts relationship satisfaction, job success, and physical health, and reduces the risk of depression (Marshall, Parker, Ciarrochi, & Heaven, 2014; Orth, Robins, & Widaman, 2012; Sowislo & Orth, 2013; Trzesniewski et al., 2006). Given the importance of self-esteem, it is critical to understand how individuals develop a positive self-image. Despite the voluminous literature on self-esteem, only a few influential factors have been identified. A review of the literature (Orth & Robins, 2019) indicated that there is now relatively strong evidence suggesting that stressful life events (Orth & Luciano, 2015) and relationships (Denissen, Penke, Schmitt, & van Aken, 2008; Gruenenfelder-Steiger, Harris, & Fend, 2016; Luciano & Orth, 2017; Mund, Finn, Hagemeyer, Zimmermann, & Neyer, 2015) lead to changes in people’s self-esteem. However, there remains a considerable lack of knowledge with regard to the question of why some individuals see themselves in a positive light while others suffer from feelings of inadequacy.
Research suggests strong self-esteem correlates with positive experiences in social life, career, bodily functioning, and mental wellness. One might say “lifetime satisfaction or destruction depends on esteem.” Within self-esteem is self-image. And we don’t know how positive image or esteem is developed. Why do some of us regard ourselves positively, and others, as if we are the scourge of the earth? Like worms, or the dirt where they wriggle? Why do some of us think we are “worth-less”?
Research focusing on early childhood has suggested that family environment is a crucial factor for the development of the self (Harter, 2015). A recent longitudinal study by Orth (2018) even suggested that the early childhood family environment has a long-term, and possibly enduring, effect on self-esteem that can still be observed in adulthood. In Orth (2018), the most important predictor was the quality of home environment, including quality of parenting and parental stimulation of learning. Moreover, the quality of the home environment partially mediated the effects of other characteristics of the family environment, such as the quality of parental relationship, maternal depression, presence of father, and poverty.
We know, family environment is strongly implicated. And unfortunately, as we spoke about earlier, we don’t outgrow the family home just because we fly the nest. Research tells us that the greatest influence on self-esteem is the quality of the home, which encapsulates the quality of parenting, parental depression, paternal inclusion, and financial state – all of which impact self-esteem from childhood into adulthood.
Therefore, these authors ran a longitudinal study across six years to examine qualities of the childhood home that reportedly affected esteem all the way through adolescence.
in the present research, we examined prospective effects of the family environment on children’s self-esteem, using data from a longitudinal study in which repeated assessments of both constructs were available over time. The goal of the research was to identify factors that affect the development of self-esteem in children and adolescents.
And they began by looking at:
Parenting Behavior and Children’s Self-Esteem
The theory of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1986; Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934) proposes that the self develops, and is continuously shaped throughout the life course, through social interactions. It is assumed that social interactions reflect how much others appreciate an individual. Therefore, the individual might then interpret these social interactions as symbolic for his or her self-worth. In early life, a large proportion of children’s social interaction occurs in the relationship with parents, so these interactions could be particularly formative. … Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) posits that a secure attachment to the caregiver contributes to the development of a positive internal working model in the child (i.e., the mental representation of being accepted and valuable). Empirical findings suggest that attachment security is related to higher self-esteem in children (Verschueren & Marcoen, 1999; Verschueren, Marcoen, & Schoefs, 1996) and adolescents (Arbona & Power, 2003; Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004; Wilkinson, 2004).
The prevailing theory of self development states that social interactions create our self-image. The way we are treated informs us of our value; our worth. Starting from 0 understanding of self, we first interact with our parents and family members, laying down the cement that becomes the foundation of our self-valuation. If we are interacted with and responded to in an easeful, appropriate, predictable, manner, this contributes to positive self-schema (self-beliefs) as well as secure attachment. We cannot separate self-esteem from attachment; understanding of self informs expectations of others.
For these reasons, the present study looked at parenting behaviors and qualities of the home environment as influences of esteem. Those behaviors and qualities were:
Parental warmth, parental hostility, parental monitoring, and parental involvement in the child’s education. Family values, maternal and paternal depression, economic hardship, and paternal presence.
And in the long nerd version of this show, we run through a description of each, along with the rationale behind its examination. Which we will do NOW, if you’re streaming it:
Parental Warmth
Research on the effects of parental warmth—which is characterized by love, support, nurturance, affection, involvement, responsiveness, and acceptance (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Schaefer, 1965)—shows that there is a positive association with children’s self-esteem (Rollins & Thomas, 1979).
Parental Hostility
Parental hostility is characterized by rejection, neglect, maltreatment, punishment, and verbal and physical aggression (Schaefer, 1965). When children are ignored, humiliated, or beaten by their parents, they may learn from their parents’ behavior that they are incompetent and worthless.
Parental Monitoring
Parental monitoring is characterized by awareness, attention, watchfulness, and tracking and supervision of children’s activities (e.g., Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Small & Kerns, 1993). Monitoring may contribute to setting appropriate boundaries that help parents in protecting the child from potentially harmful situations (including self-esteem threatening situations).
Parental Involvement in Child Education
Parental involvement in the child’s education represents a parenting behavior characterized by interest, participation, encouragement, and supervision of the child’s schoolwork (e.g., Cotton & Wikelund, 1989). Flouri (2006) argues that parents’ interest in their child’s education conveys respect that leads to a sense of personal significance and thus, to heightened feelings of self-esteem in the child. Also, parental involvement in the child’s education might lead to better learning conditions, improved school performance, and an increase in the child’s sense of competence.
Family Values
The concept of family values (also referred to as familism) captures the importance and centrality of the family, as perceived by the individual (Kuhlberg, Peña, & Zayas, 2010). Positive family values include a strong orientation towards the family, commitment to the family, and prioritizing the interests of the family over personal interests (e.g., Bush et al., 2004; Corona, Campos, & Chen, 2017).
Maternal and Paternal Depression
Another relevant characteristic of the family environment is the mental health of parents. Research focusing on maternal depression has reported consistent negative associations with children’s emotional and behavioral functioning (Goodman et al., 2011).
Economic Hardship
Poverty is a characteristic of the family environment that is associated with many problems in child development (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010; McLoyd, 1998). The family stress model of economic hardship suggests that poverty leads to parental emotional distress (e.g., depression), interparental conflict, impaired parenting behavior, and, in turn, to adjustment problems in children (e.g., Conger & Donnellan, 2007).
Presence of Father
Finally, an important objective characteristic in children’s family environment is whether the father is present (i.e., lives in the same household as mother and child). There are many reasons for why a father might be absent, for instance, due to divorce or separation, illness, death, work abroad, or because the mother was never in a committed relationship with the father.
One more interesting point they assessed? The vice-versa effect of child’s self-esteem on these family qualities. Research tells us that family dynamics are affected by all players in the system, so the authors also examined how the child’s self-understanding could affect family characteristics over time.
we examined the effects of parenting behaviors (such as warmth, hostility, monitoring, and involvement in child’s education) and other characteristics of the family environment (such as quality of parental relationship, family values, maternal and paternal depression, economic conditions of the family, and presence of father). Research from the broader field of child temperament suggests that self-esteem could show a reciprocal relation with parenting; that is, parenting behavior may lead to changes in children’s self-esteem, and children’s self-esteem may elicit changes in parenting behavior (Bates, Schermerhorn, & Petersen, 2012; Schofield & Atherton, in press). Consequently, we examined prospective effects in both directions, from parenting to self-esteem and from self-esteem to parenting.
And they found?
DISCUSSION
Positive influences on child self-esteem included parental warmth, monitoring, and paternal presence. Negative influences included economic disparity and maternal depression. Strong child self-esteem positively influenced family values. And low economic status had a negative effect… that seemed to be mediated by confounding factors of low parental warmth and monitoring.
Results indicated that a number of family environment variables affected child self-esteem. Specifically, parental warmth, parental monitoring, and presence of father positively predicted subsequent child self-esteem, whereas maternal depression and economic hardship negatively predicted subsequent child self-esteem. Regarding the opposite direction of the relation, the results suggested that child self-esteem positively shaped family values of mother and father. Moreover, longitudinal mediation analyses suggested that the effect of economic hardship on child self-esteem was partially mediated by parental warmth and by parental monitoring.
Let’s talk about each one in greater detail. For the greatest detail, get into that long-form ep.
In contrast to expectation, parental monitoring had a direct correlation with high child esteem, suggesting that even strongly surveilled children have better self-regard than those who are attentionally neglected. However, as they say, “monitoring needs to be clearly distinguished from control” – monitoring suggests that the parent is purely interested in the child, rather than interfering or reducing their autonomy.
Theory might suggest that very high levels of parental monitoring could have a negative effect on child self-esteem through compromising the development of the child’s autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Overly protective parents who frequently intervene in their children’s affairs and make all decisions for them are also called “helicopter parents” (Cline & Fay, 2014). Research suggests that high levels of psychological control and low levels of autonomy of the child are negatively associated with self-esteem (e.g., Bean et al., 2003). However, in the present research we did not find any evidence for a curvilinear effect that would qualify the positive effect reported above. Thus, the present findings indicate that even very high levels of monitoring promote children’s and adolescents’ self-esteem. In our opinion, the concept of monitoring as a parenting behavior needs to be clearly distinguished from the concept of parental control. If monitoring entails being aware of, and genuinely interested in, the child’s activities rather than interfering, then its positive effect on child self-esteem is no longer surprising.
Surprisingly, parental hostility and involvement in education did not have significant effects on the child’s esteem. That said, the correlation that was detected did move in the expected direction; which is to say, parental hostility reduced esteem and educational involvement improved it. Perhaps just not significantly – which may be an artifact of the study’s limitations. There were not many reported incidences of hostility, especially compared to parental warmth, which may skewing the research findings.
In contrast to our predictions, parental hostility and the parents’ involvement in the child’s education did not show prospective effects on children’s self-esteem. However, it is important to note that the concurrent relations between these family environment variables and child self-esteem were substantial and in the expected direction (as indicated by the Time 1 correlations between the constructs). Thus, even if no prospective effects emerged, the present findings do not suggest that hostility and involvement in the child’s education are unrelated to the child’s self-esteem. A possible explanation of the nonsignificant hostility effect, and potential limitation of the present research, is that the means of the hostility measures were relatively low (from the perspective of parents and children), suggesting that floor effects may have suppressed a negative effect of hostility. However, although floor effects are undesirable from a methodological perspective, in this particular case they are positive from a substantive perspective, because they indicate a low level of severe hostility in this sample. A similar, but slightly different explanation for the nonsignificant hostility effect might be that the effect of parenting behavior on child self-esteem depends on the predominant interaction style between parents and children. Thus, even if hostile interactions occur, if they are much less frequent than warm interactions, then these hostile interactions might not have a detrimental effect on children’s self-esteem.
Economic hardship negatively predicted child self-esteem, partially through corresponding parental behaviors. A stressed parent is not necessarily an attentive or warm parent, and authors suggest that low finances contribute to low esteem through degrading the parent-child relationship. Additionally, financial differences from peers may be an isolative factor that further damages self-esteem outside the home.
As hypothesized, family economic hardship had a negative prospective effect on child self-esteem, which was partially mediated by parental warmth and by parental monitoring. The mediation effects are consistent with the family stress model, which proposes that economic hardship initiates a sequential cascade of problems including disruptions in parenting, which in turn increase the risk for adolescent adjustment problems (e.g., Conger & Donnellan, 2007). in addition to parenting behavior, the effect could be accounted for by other mediators such as peer approval. If adolescents have much more limited financial resources than their peers, they cannot afford joining at least some social activities and may need to do without fashionable and popular products, such as clothes, smartphones, and so on. Consequently, economic hardship may compromise the popularity of adolescents among their peers, which in turn may compromise their self-esteem.
On the subject of parental warmth, the authors had more interesting things to say than you might expect. Of course, a coddled child is generally assumed to be a self-loving or even self-entitled child; as expected, high self-esteem was correlated with higher parental warmth. But the relationship seems to be more complicated than that due to the bidirectional nature of relationship dynamics. They say a child with high self-esteem is more likely to elicit and receive parental warmth. But a child with low self-esteem is likely to eventually spawn parental warmth when their challenges spawn compassion and care. So a parent who is warmly responsive can positively affect a child with low-esteem, even if their own prior hostility partially created the negative self-regard.
Based on research on the relation between child temperament and parenting behavior (Bates et al., 2012; Schofield & Atherton, in press), we hypothesized that child self-esteem prospectively predicts parental warmth (with a positive sign) and parental hostility (with a negative sign). However, the present findings did not support these hypotheses. With regard to parental warmth, it is possible that two different effects cancel each other out. First, the temperament literature suggests that positive affectivity of the child (which is related to high self-esteem) prospectively predicts parental warmth (Bates et al., 2012). Second, however, insecurity and anxiety (which is related to low self-esteem) frequently elicits compensatory soothing and protective parental behavior and, over time, also predicts parental warmth (Bates et al., 2012). Thus, if both mechanisms are present (i.e., high self-esteem leading to more parental warmth due to its relation to positive affectivity, and low self-esteem leading to more parental warmth due to its relation to insecurity and anxiety) and of similar size, then the resulting overall effect of self-esteem on parental warmth might be a null effect.
Now let’s talk about gendered differences.
Presence of father had a positive effect on child self-esteem.8 However, this finding should be interpreted only tentatively, because the model converged only when imposing additional constraints (see Footnote 4). The constraints could be removed in the mediation analyses, which, however, resulted in a nonsignificant total effect of presence of father on child self-esteem. We therefore concluded that the present evidence on the effect of presence of father is not sufficiently robust.
Originally, we stated that paternal presence predicted higher esteem. However, the authors note that this effect disappears during mediation analysis, resulting in a nonsignificant effect. So, in fact, paternal presence is NOT implicated as a strong factor in child esteem development; a controversial finding and one I would love to hear anecdotal evidence for or against. As a person with an absentee father…. I’m not sure I agree. What about you?
And in the case of the mother, depression was found to be a negatively impactful factor. But corresponding parental qualities (hostility, lack of monitoring) were not found to cause the effect. Instead, the authors suggest that an uncomfortable home environment might negatively impact child socializing or the mother’s depression, itself, might suggest to the child that they are not worthful. If they were, surely, mom would feel better. One might also think that genetics are to blame – and yet if this was the case, paternal depression should also correspond with low child esteem. Combined with our first study, it appears that the mother’s emotional and mental health, specifically, are tantamount to the child’s positive self-image and sense of worth. Dads in their stereotypical role? Maybe not so much. Something to get your wheels spinning if you suffer from low self-worth.
Consistent with our hypotheses, maternal depression negatively predicted child self-esteem. However, in contrast to our predictions, this effect was not mediated by parenting behavior, suggesting that other mechanisms might account for the effect. For example, maternal depression might result in a stressed and dismal atmosphere at home, which in turn might lead to a higher likelihood of social isolation of the child if he or she is hesitant to take peers and friends home. Another possible explanation for the nonsignificant mediation effect of parenting behavior is that maternal depression exerts a direct effect on child self-esteem. For example, the child might perceive him- or herself as less valuable because the mother frequently shows depressive symptoms. Still another possibility is that the effect of maternal depression on child self-esteem can be explained by underlying genetic effects. However, in the present case it is unlikely that genes account for the effect of maternal depression on children’s self-esteem, given that paternal depression did not show any effect. If the genetic explanation were correct, then we would expect that the depression levels of mothers and fathers show at least similar effects on the child’s self-esteem. For this reason, we believe that the effect of maternal depression should be explained by an environmental, not genetic, pathway. The environmental explanation is also consistent with the fact that, in most families, mothers spend more time with the child than fathers do (Phares, Fields, & Kamboukos, 2009), which could account for stronger effects of affective characteristics of mothers compared to fathers.
And lastly, on the backwards subject of child esteem affecting the family environment… they found that it influenced only one factor; family values. This is probably because a happy and healthy child suggests positive things about the parents and home, which improves THEIR esteem and commitment to the household.
The only significant effects from child self-esteem on family environment emerged for the family values of mother and father. A possible explanation for this effect is that children with high self-esteem may contribute to their parents’ feelings of pride about their family, which in turn may contribute to positive family values.
So? In this study’s:
CONCLUSION
Parental warmth, monitoring, and maternal mental wellness are highly implicated in positive child self-esteem. But being overly warm – inaccurately complimentary, for example – may actually diminish esteem. Monitoring with an iron fist may become controlling and abusive. And maternal wellness can’t come at the expense of child autonomy or social exploring.
The present research suggests that parental warmth and monitoring are key parenting behaviors for self-esteem development. Warmth can be realized for example by showing affection and care, accepting the child, helping, encouraging, and praising (Rollins & Thomas, 1979). In particular, contingent praise and attributional feedback effectively improve the self-esteem of children and adolescents (O’Mara, Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 2006). However, we also note that noncontingent praise (e.g., “You are so smart”) and inflated praise (e.g., “You drew an incredibly beautiful picture”) can be dysfunctional and may even worsen children’s self-esteem (Brummelman, Crocker, & Bushman, 2016; Brummelman, Nelemans, Thomaes, & Orobio de Castro, 2017). Good monitoring includes being generally informed about the child’s activities (i.e., where and with whom is the child and what is he or she doing), without being intrusive. Monitoring thus provides the basis for protecting the child (e.g., from deviant behavior; Dishion & McMahon, 1998) and for setting boundaries that are appropriate for the developmental status of the child. Protecting the child in appropriate ways may be as important for self-esteem development as supporting autonomy and independence.
What is clear? Attention and affection matter. Especially from the primary parent. And in a cruel joke from the psychological universe, a child’s esteem has effect on both the parenting behaviors they will receive, as well as the quality of the family environment. So that a spiral of doom might be created, should an ailing mother with economic hardship influence a low-esteem child, which then further depresses and stresses the mother, perhaps past the point of being able to engage in warm parenting behaviors. Another point to perhaps reflect on.
And in one last surprise, we touch on this paper for our close:
CONCLUSION!!!!
The roles of shame and poor self-concept in explaining low social connection among adult survivors of childhood emotional maltreatment
William P Archuleta 1, Patricia L Kaminski 1, Nicholas D Ross 2
Psychological Trauma
2024
From which I’ve pulled their greatest finding:
Emotional maltreatment (EM) is the most common retrospectively self-reported form of child abuse/neglect. One potential negative outcome for EM survivors is a lack of social connection (SC; i.e., feeling interpersonally distant from others, socially uncomfortable, etc.).
Conclusions: Children subjected to EM by caregivers are likely to experience themselves as deeply flawed (i.e., shame) and have difficulty developing a secure sense of themselves, especially as relational beings. Our results suggest that when shame interferes with the development of a positive social self-concept, survivors of EM are at-risk for low SC. Treatment implications include a focus on healing shame and building social self-concept.
Emotional maltreatment (abuse, neglect) often leads to social disconnection. The child assesses themselves as “incorrect” based on their parental experiences, which then increases chronic shame, which then reduces their likelihood of forming other relationships. This then reduces chances for corrective experiences to take place, allowing their low-self-esteem or high sense of unworthiness to persist or even deepen. This explains concisely how emotional unhealth at home creates an avalanche of self-diminishment that persists across a dissatisfying and unsafe feeling lifetime of assessing oneself worth-less than others.
I hope this discussion of worthlessness has helped you think about the mirage you may have been living through since childhood, and the personal factors that may have made it appear very real. I hope you find healing on the other side of acknowledging the hurt.
Come hang out in the discord community if you’re ready to take on the July Worth Challenge (actually running through the beginning of August – you got time!). And I’ll talk to you soon.