Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While the association between self-esteem and body image is well established, research on their long-term causal relationship in young people remains limited. This study addressed this gap by using three-wave longitudinal data and random intercept cross-lagged panel models to explore the bidirectional dynamics between self-esteem and body image, as well as the mediating role of psychological resilience. A sample of 313 college students (270 females; 43 males; mean age = 19.56 years; SD = 0.78) completed assessments of their self-esteem, psychological resilience, and body image at three time points spaced six months apart. The results revealed a reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and body image at the within-individual level, with psychological resilience mediating the effect of self-esteem on future body image. These findings highlight the importance of enhancing self-esteem and fostering psychological resilience in interventions aimed at improving body image among college students.

Keywords

self-esteem body image psychological resilience random-intercept cross-lagged model

Introduction

Body image is a complex construct that encompasses individuals’ cognitions, emotions, and behaviors related to their physical appearance (Cash, 2004; Smith et al., 2024). In today's visually driven culture, and amid the pervasive influence of mass media, appearance has increasingly become a central aspect of personal value on a global scale. As a result, concerns about body image have risen worldwide, fueled by societal pressures to meet idealized beauty standards (Kamaria et al., 2016; Noh et al., 2018; Rodgers et al., 2023; Santhira Shagar et al., 2021; Todd & Swami, 2020).

Research has consistently shown that a negative body image is associated with a range of mental health and behavioral issues, including eating disorders (e.g., anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa), depression, smoking, and substance use (Bornioli et al., 2021; Cooley & Toray, 2001; Polivy & Herman, 2002; Stice & Shaw, 2003). Body image is shaped by a variety of factors, including individual physiological traits (e.g., gender, age, and body mass index; Holsen et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 1999), psychological characteristics (e.g., personality traits and cognitive styles; Allen & Walter, 2016; Himmerich & Mirzaei, 2024), and sociocultural influences (e.g., family dynamics, peer interactions, mass media, and cultural norms; Frederick & Reynolds, 2022; Thompson et al., 1999).

Among these factors, self-esteem stands out as a potentially significant influence on body image (Donnellan et al., 2007). While the relationship between self-esteem and body image is well documented (Ahadzadeh et al., 2018; Garbett et al., 2023; Husain et al., 2023; Morin et al., 2011; Munandar & Nabilla, 2023), the underlying mechanisms, as well as self-esteem's protective potential against negative influences, remain inadequately understood. This study aims to address this gap by examining the dynamic interplay between self-esteem and body image, offering insights that can inform more effective interventions to promote positive body image and improve mental health outcomes.

Association between self-esteem and body image

Self-esteem refers to an individual's evaluation of their own worth, based on self-awareness and subjective personal views (Orth & Robins, 2014). Rosenberg (2015) defined high self-esteem as reflecting an individual's perception of being a valuable member of society, whereas low self-esteem signals dissatisfaction with oneself. Most studies examining the relationship between self-esteem and body image have relied on cross-sectional designs, which consistently show a strong correlation between the two (Ahadzadeh et al., 2018; Berg et al., 2010; Garbett et al., 2023; Husain et al., 2023; Mäkinen et al., 2012; Ozmen et al., 2007; Zancu & Diaconu-Gherasim, 2024). However, while some longitudinal studies have attempted to explore the dynamic nature of this relationship, their findings have been inconsistent. For example, Park and Epstein (2013) found evidence for a bidirectional relationship, with mutual influences between self-esteem and body image among female adolescents. In contrast, Tiggemann (2005) reported a unidirectional relationship, where body dissatisfaction at Time 1 predicted low self-esteem at Time 2, but not vice versa. Additionally, Mellor et al. (2010) found no evidence of a dynamic relationship between self-esteem and body image in their longitudinal study.

Previous longitudinal studies have primarily relied on traditional cross-lagged panel models, which have notable limitations, including the potential to either overestimate or underestimate the longitudinal relationships between variables, leading to biased results (Hamaker et al., 2015). These biases may help explain the inconsistencies observed in previous research. To address these limitations, researchers increasingly advocate for the use of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM), which effectively separates inter-individual effects from within-individual effects, thereby eliminating potential confounding from between-person differences and offering more accurate causal inferences (Chen, Chang, et al., 2022; Chen, Chen, et al., 2022; Chen, Huebner, & Tian, 2022; Yang et al., 2024). Therefore, this study employs the RI-CLPM framework, where inter-individual differences examine whether college students with lower self-esteem consistently report lower body-image levels compared to those with higher self-esteem, while within-individual effects assess whether changes in an individual's self-esteem influence their body image over time, and vice versa. This distinction allows for more precise causal reasoning by isolating within-individual effects and reducing bias from inter-individual variation.

Body image can be conceptualized as a component of the broader construct of self-esteem, specifically termed body self-esteem (Franzoi & Shields, 1984; Shavelson & Bolus, 1982). Because overall self-esteem is largely shaped by evaluations in a specific domain (Dapp et al., 2023), it is expected that satisfaction with one's body—a domain-specific aspect of self-esteem—will influence future overall self-esteem levels. Conversely, individuals with higher overall self-esteem are likely to have a more positive outlook on various aspects of themselves, including their body, which in turn fosters greater body satisfaction (Orth & Robins, 2022). Therefore, a bidirectional relationship is hypothesized, where higher initial self-esteem will predict greater future body satisfaction, while initial body satisfaction will also predict higher overall self-esteem over time.

Mediating role of psychological resilience

Individuals employ a variety of coping strategies when faced with challenges, and psychological resilience—the ability to endure setbacks, adapt positively, and recover from adversity—plays a critical role in this process (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Troy et al., 2023). Among the personal traits that contribute to resilience, self-esteem is considered a foundational psychological resource. Individuals with high self-esteem tend to interpret themselves and their environment more positively, maintain confidence in the face of stress, and access internal coping resources more effectively (Baumeister et al., 2003). Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that higher self-esteem predicts greater psychological resilience (Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006; Tian et al., 2018), suggesting that self-esteem is an antecedent of resilience rather than a consequence.

Resilience, in turn, plays an important role in how individuals experience and regulate their body image. In the Female Body Image Resilience Model, Choate (2005) highlighted the capacity to resist sociocultural pressures and maintain body satisfaction as a function of psychological resilience. Although direct research on resilience and body image is still emerging, existing findings suggest that resilience can act as a buffer against a negative body image, especially in individuals facing body-related stressors such as illness or surgery (Izydorczyk et al., 2018).

Building on these theoretical and empirical foundations, the current study proposes that psychological resilience serves as a mediator, linking self-esteem to body satisfaction. Specifically, we hypothesize that individuals with higher self-esteem are more likely to develop resilience, which in turn helps them maintain or improve body satisfaction over time. Compared to the reverse direction (i.e., body image influencing self-esteem via resilience), this model aligns better with the view of resilience as a generalized coping trait and self-esteem as a core antecedent rather than outcome of domain-specific experiences such as body image (Orth & Robins, 2014).

Current study

Because body-image disturbance is theoretically linked to a range of maladaptive behaviors, clarifying how psychological resilience and self-esteem relate to body-image perceptions may inform future prevention efforts. As described above, although existing theories of global and domain-specific self-esteem (Marsh, 1986), along with indirect empirical evidence (Johnson & Wardle, 2005; Munandar & Nabilla, 2023), suggest a relationship between self-esteem and body image, the mechanisms underlying this relationship remain poorly understood. Moreover, much of the prior research relies on cross-sectional designs, which fail to capture dynamic longitudinal changes.

This study aims to address these gaps by examining the longitudinal relationship between self-esteem and body image, with a particular focus on the mediating role of psychological resilience. Methodologically, the study employs the RI-CLPM to disentangle within-individual processes from between-individual differences, providing more robust insights into causal mechanisms. Two hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Self-esteem and body image predict future levels of each other at the within-individual level.

Hypothesis 2: Psychological resilience mediates this relationship, linking self-esteem and body satisfaction over time.

Methods

Participants

A convenience sampling strategy was employed to conduct a longitudinal questionnaire study among college students at a university in South China. Prior to the data collection, we distributed information about the study to all students within the school. Participation was entirely voluntary, and the students were free to decide whether or not to take part. In total, data was collected from 313 participants across three time points spaced six months apart between November 2022 and November 2023 (270 females; 43 males; mean age = 19.56 years; SD = 0.78). All of the participants provided their informed consent and had the option to withdraw at any time. The surveys were administered via the Questionnaire Star platform (www.wjx.cn). As an incentive, those participants who completed the survey and met the study's inclusion criteria were offered a mental health screening report prepared by a professional counseling psychologist.

Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to ensure the accuracy of the data. All of the participants were required to be between the ages of 18 and 24 and possess the cognitive ability to complete the questionnaire. Participants were excluded if their reported age or grade level was inconsistent, or if they failed a lie-detection question (“Please select C: I am an honest person”). The study received ethical approval from the ethics committee of the School of Psychology at South China Normal University.

Measures

All of the participants completed the same questionnaire at three time points (T1, T2, and T3). At the first time point (T1), they reported their basic demographic information, including age, gender, perceived family economic status, and place of family residence. Perceived family economic status was measured by asking: “Compared to those around you, how would you rate your family's financial situation?” The responses were recorded on a 5-point scale (1 = much better, 2 = somewhat better, 3 = about the same, 4 = somewhat worse, 5 = much worse). The place of family residence was coded as 1 = urban and 2 = rural.

Self-esteem

Self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, which consists of 10 items assessing an individual's overall feelings of self-worth and self-acceptance (Rosenberg, 2015). The scale uses a 4-point Likert scoring system (1 = very uncharacteristic to 4 = very characteristic). Lower total scores indicate lower self-esteem levels. In this study, the Cronbach's α coefficients for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were 0.839 at T1, 0.865 at T2, and 0.850 at T3.

Psychological resilience

Psychological resilience was measured using the translated and revised 10-item Conner–Davidson Resilience Scale (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Cheng et al., 2020). This scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity in the college student population. The items use a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never this way to 4 = always this way). In this study, the Cronbach's α coefficients for the scale were 0.958 at T1, 0.960 at T2, and 0.972 at T3.

Body image

Body image was assessed using the Body Image States Scale developed by Cash et al. (2002). This is a unidimensional scale containing 6 items (e.g., “Right now I feel ~ with my physical appearance”) that employs a 9-point scoring system (1 = very dissatisfied to 9 = very satisfied). Lower scores reflect lower satisfaction with one’s body image. In this study, the Cronbach's α coefficients for the scale were 0.963 at T1, 0.982 at T2, and 0.983 at T3.

Data analysis

The correlations among all the variables were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 software. Subsequent analyses were conducted with Mplus 8.0 software, employing RI-CLPMs to examine the relationships among the study variables over time. Four competing models were constructed to identify the most parsimonious and interpretable model: (1) an unconstrained baseline model; (2) a model with autoregressive paths fixed as time-invariant; (3) a model with cross-lagged paths fixed as time-invariant; and (4) a model with both autoregressive and cross-lagged paths fixed as time-invariant. Maximum likelihood robust estimators were applied in all the models to accommodate non-normal data.

The model fit was assessed using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Acceptable model fit was determined by the criteria CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, and RMSEA < 0.08 (Marsh et al., 2004). The criteria for model selection included |ΔCFI| < 0.01 and |ΔRMSEA| < 0.015. All of the primary analyses presented in the main body of the article (i.e., the main text) were conducted without covariates in order to provide a clear account of the longitudinal relationships among the key psychological constructs. To examine the robustness of our findings, we conducted supplementary analyses controlling for four theoretically relevant sociodemographic variables: age, gender, perceived family economic status, and residential location. Prior research has indicated that these factors may be associated with individual differences in self-esteem and body image (Bai et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2015; Grogan, 2006; Hanson et al., 2024; Wodarz & Rogowska, 2024). Moreover, urban residence is generally associated with higher socioeconomic status in China, supporting the use of residential location as a proxy indicator of socioeconomic status (Song & Smith, 2019). The results from the covariate-adjusted CLPM and RI-CLPM models are reported in Tables S1 and S2, which are available in the online supplementary material.

Results

Correlation analysis of primary variables

Table 1 presents the correlations among all the primary variables across the three waves. As expected, the results indicate that all of the variables are significantly and positively correlated over time, providing a solid foundation for the subsequent RI-CLPM analysis.

Table 1.

Correlations between self-esteem, psychological resilience, and body image.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Age	–
2. Gender	−.049
3. PFES	.138*	−.006
4. RL	.155**	.179**	.300**
5. T1 SE	−.020	−.052	−.177**	−.090
6. T2 SE	−.014	−.073	−.114*	−.039	.661**	–
7. T3 SE	−.013	−.081	−.151**	−.073	.492**	.597**	–
8. T1 PR	.016	−.095	−.108	−.008	.438**	.460**	.316**	–
9. T2 PR	−.043	−.155**	−.109	−.025	.469**	.597**	.473**	.441**	–
10. T3 PR	.001	−.149**	−.036	−.019	.286**	.434**	.449**	.289**	.507**	–
11. T1 BI	−.078	−.041	−.064	−.044	.375**	.373**	.244**	.366**	.244**	.129*	–
12. T2 BI	−.029	−.065	−.163**	−.052	.466**	.516**	.436**	.338**	.502**	.234**	.416**	–
13. T3 BI	−.014	.026	−.085	−.007	.316**	.442**	.497**	.219**	.362**	.407**	.375**	.466**	–

Note. N = 313. PFES = perceived family economic status; RL = residential location; SE = self-esteem; PR = psychological resilience; BI = body image.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Model comparison

Table 2 presents the results of the model comparison. In both the RI-CLPM for self-esteem and body image and the mediation RI-CLPM involving self-esteem, psychological resilience, and body image, the fit of Model 2 (with autoregressive paths fixed as time-invariant), Model 3 (with cross-lagged paths fixed as time-invariant), and Model 4 (with both autoregressive and cross-lagged paths fixed as time-invariant) did not substantially differ from the baseline Model 1 (ΔCFI < 0.01; ΔRMSEA < 0.015). Model 4 was selected as the final model based on two considerations. First, the data was collected at equal six-month intervals, and the psychological mechanisms under study (i.e., self-esteem and body-image dynamics) are theoretically assumed to be stable across this time frame in early adulthood. Second, the constrained model demonstrated model-fit indices comparable to the unconstrained model, aligning with previous studies that emphasize parsimony and interpretability in the absence of theoretical justifications for time-varying parameters (Grimm et al., 2021; Zyphur et al., 2020).

Table 2.

Model fit and model comparisons for RI-CLPMs.

	Fit indices				Model comparison
	CFI	TLI	RMSEA/90% CI	SRMR	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Self-esteem and body image
Model 1	.934	.904	.069[.050 .088]	.070	–	–
Model 2	.932	.908	.068[.049 .086]	.075	−.002	−.001
Model 3	.936	.912	.066[.047 .085]	.071	.002	−.003
Model 4	.935	.917	.064[.046 .083]	.075	.001	−.005
Self-esteem, body image, and psychological resilience
Model 1	.958	.927	.058[.041 .075]	.063	–	–
Model 2	.955	.926	.058[.042 .074]	.065	−.003	.000
Model 3	.959	.938	.053[.037 .070]	.064	.001	−.005
Model 4	.957	.938	.053[.037 .069]	.068	−.001	−.005

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual. Bold indicates the final selected model. Model 1 = baseline (unconstrained model); Model 2 = model with autoregressive paths fixed as time-invariant; Model 3 = model with cross-lagged paths fixed as time-invariant; Model 4 = model with autoregressive and cross-lagged paths fixed as time-invariant.

Longitudinal relationship between self-esteem and body image

An RI-CLPM was constructed to examine the longitudinal relationship between self-esteem and body image, with the standardized results presented in Figure 1. At the inter-individual level, a significant positive correlation was observed between the random intercepts of self-esteem and body image. At the intra-individual level, the results indicated that self-esteem at T1 and T2 positively predicted body image at T2 and T3, respectively. Similarly, body image at T1 and T2 positively predicted self-esteem at T2 and T3, respectively. The RI-CLPM demonstrated that self-esteem and body image mutually predicted subsequent levels of each other, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1.

Figure 1.

The RI-CLPM of self-esteem and body image.

Mediating role of psychological resilience

For the model incorporating psychological resilience as a mediator, the standardized results are shown in Figure 2. At the inter-individual level, significant positive correlations were found between the random intercepts of self-esteem and psychological resilience, as well as between self-esteem and body image. However, no significant correlation was observed between the random intercepts of psychological resilience and body image. At the intra-individual level, the results (Figure 2 and Table 3) indicated that self-esteem predicted subsequent body image through psychological resilience (T1 self-esteem → T2 psychological resilience → T3 body image), but body image did not predict subsequent self-esteem via psychological resilience. Thus, the RI-CLPM revealed a unidirectional effect in which self-esteem predicted subsequent body image through psychological resilience, supporting Hypothesis 2.

Figure 2.

The RI-CLPM with the mediator.

Table 3.

Results of the indirect effects for RI-CLPM.

Indirect path	Indirect effect	95% CI	p
T1 SE → T2 PR → T3 BI	.069*	[.013, .125]	.017
T1 BI → T2 PR → T3 SE	.007	[–.019, .034]	.586

Supplementary covariate models

All of the key paths in both the CLPM and RI-CLPM remained significant after controlling for age, gender, perceived family economic status, and residential location (for full parameter estimates, see Tables S1 and S2 and Figures S1 and S2 in the supplementary material).

Discussion

This study aimed to examine the dynamic interplay between self-esteem and body image, as well as the mechanisms underpinning this relationship, using RI-CLPMs. The findings showed that, over time, higher levels of self-esteem in college students predicted subsequent improvements in body image. Furthermore, by enhancing psychological resilience, self-esteem positively influenced future body-image levels. In contrast, while higher body-image levels predicted higher self-esteem, psychological resilience did not mediate this relationship. These results offer new insights into the complex interactions among self-esteem, psychological resilience, and body image

Reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and body image

Previous longitudinal studies on the relationship between self-esteem and body image have yielded mixed findings. Some studies reported a bidirectional relationship, with self-esteem and body image predicting each other over time (Park & Epstein, 2013), while others suggested a unidirectional effect, where body image predicted self-esteem but not the reverse (Morin et al., 2011; Tiggemann, 2005). Additionally, some studies have found no longitudinal associations between the two (Mellor et al., 2010). Paxton et al. (2006) further proposed that the impact of body dissatisfaction on self-esteem may vary by life stage. For example, they found that initial body dissatisfaction predicted low self-esteem five years later in early adolescent girls and mid-adolescent boys, but not in mid-adolescent girls or early adolescent boys.

The current study, utilizing RI-CLPMs to separate inter-individual differences from within-individual processes, reveals a bidirectional longitudinal relationship between self-esteem and body image. This advanced methodological approach provides more precise insights into how these variables interact over time. The findings indicate that college students with lower self-esteem tend to experience greater body dissatisfaction over time, while those with a lower initial body image are more likely to experience declines in self-esteem in the future.

On the one hand, body image is often conceptualized as a component of self-esteem, such that a decrease in body image directly influences overall self-esteem (Wodarz & Rogowska, 2024), aligning with the results of this study. On the other hand, lower self-esteem may lead to more negative self-evaluations, which in turn foster dissatisfaction with one's body (O’Dea, 2012). Individuals with negative body perceptions are more susceptible to eating disorders and other mental health challenges. Enhancing self-esteem can thus improve body image, as it encourages individuals to value their bodies more positively and approach appearance-related information with a more constructive attitude. Furthermore, higher self-esteem can strengthen an individual's sense of social identity, which is crucial for resisting external pressures that negatively impact body satisfaction (Wood-Barcalow et al., 2010).

Mediating role of psychological resilience

Our findings supported Hypothesis 2, demonstrating that psychological resilience significantly mediated the longitudinal relationship between self-esteem and body image. Psychological resilience refers to the capacity to effectively utilize internal (e.g., self-esteem) and external (e.g., social support) resources to cope with life stressors, thereby enhancing one's ability to adapt positively and reducing the risk of negative developmental outcomes. Baumeister et al. (2003) suggested that individuals with higher self-esteem tend to interpret both themselves and their environments more positively, which helps them cope with adversity by maintaining confidence in their ability to manage life's challenges.

Previous research has shown that individuals with higher self-esteem were better able to recover from the emotional, attentional, and physiological effects of stress, preserving cognitive and emotional functioning, which in turn helps foster a more positive body image (Swami et al., 2016). Our study highlights psychological resilience as a key mediating factor through which self-esteem promotes a positive body image. In sociocultural theories, self-esteem is believed to act as a buffer against the negative impact of sociocultural pressures on body image (Ricciardelli & McCabe, 2001). Individuals with high self-esteem may enhance their body image indirectly by demonstrating higher psychological resilience when facing sociocultural challenges.

Limitations and future directions

While this study used RI-CLPMs to effectively distinguish between within-individual processes and stable inter-individual differences, thereby providing more robust causal inferences, several limitations should be noted. First, the exclusive reliance on self-reported questionnaires may have introduced response biases and subjectivity, potentially affecting the accuracy of the findings. Second, the sample had a relatively small proportion of male participants, limiting the generalizability of the results across genders. Future research should strive for a more balanced gender distribution and consider constructing separate RI-CLPM models for male and female participants to explore potential gender differences in the longitudinal relationships among self-esteem, body image, and psychological resilience. Third, the participants were recruited from a single university in southern China, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or regional contexts. Future studies should consider using more diverse and representative samples across different regions and cultural backgrounds to enhance the external validity of the results. Fourth, although we applied Harman's single-factor test (Harman, 1976) to assess common method variance, and found that the first factor explained 39% (T1), 48% (T2), and 45% (T3) of the variance, indicating a possible common-method-variance influence particularly at T2 and T3 (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we believe the use of RI-CLPMs has helped alleviate this issue to some extent. Specifically, the model's capacity to isolate within-individual dynamics from between-person variance provides partial control over stable response biases that typically drive common method variance (Hamaker et al., 2015; MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012; Mulder & Hamaker, 2021). Nevertheless, future research should incorporate methodological strategies such as multi-informant designs, time-separated measurement, or statistical controls for common method variance to enhance data validity.

Conclusion

This study investigated the longitudinal interplay between self-esteem, body image, and psychological resilience among Chinese college students in early adulthood, utilizing three waves of data. The findings reveal a reciprocal dynamic relationship: lower self-esteem predicts declines in body image over time, and vice versa. Additionally, lower self-esteem weakens psychological resilience, which in turn exacerbates body-image dissatisfaction. These results provide new insights into how personality factors contribute to poor body image and demonstrate that diminished self-esteem can undermine resilience, intensifying body dissatisfaction over time. Interventions that simultaneously target self-esteem and psychological resilience may be essential for improving body image among college students.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909251360073 - Supplemental material for Exploring the longitudinal dynamics of self-esteem, body image, and psychological resilience in college students

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909251360073 for Exploring the longitudinal dynamics of self-esteem, body image, and psychological resilience in college students by Jie Liu, Junhua Dang and Hongyu Zou in Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

Footnotes

Data availability

All of the data and analytical scripts are available at:

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The research received approval from the ethics committee of the School of Psychology at South China Normal University (approval number: SCNU-PSY-2022-217).

ORCID iDs

Junhua Dang

Hongyu Zou

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ahadzadeh

A. S.

Rafik-Galea

Alavi

Amini

(2018). Relationship between body mass index, body image, and fear of negative evaluation: Moderating role of self-esteem. Health Psychology Open, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102918774251

Allen

M. S.

Walter

E. E.

(2016). Personality and body image: A systematic review. Body Image, 19, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.08.012

Bai

Jiang

Zhang

Wang

Zeng

Zhang

Zhao

Dai

(2021). Subjective family socioeconomic status and peer relationships: Mediating roles of self-esteem and perceived stress. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 634976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.634976

Baumeister

R. F.

Campbell

J. D.

Krueger

J. I.

Vohs

K. D.

(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431

Benetti

Kambouropoulos

(2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 341–352. https://doi.org/10/d3gmjc

Berg

P. A.

Mond

Eisenberg

Ackard

Neumark-Sztainer

(2010). The link between body dissatisfaction and self-esteem in adolescents: Similarities across gender, age, weight status, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47(3), 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.02.004

Bornioli

Lewis-Smith

Slater

Bray

(2021). Body dissatisfaction predicts the onset of depression among adolescent females and males: A prospective study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 75(4), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-213033

Campbell-Sills

Stein

M. B.

(2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271

Cash

T. F.

(2004). Body image: Past, present, and future. Body Image, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1740-1445(03)00011-1

10.

Cash

T. F.

Fleming

E. C.

Alindogan

Steadman

Whitehead

(2002). Beyond body image as a trait: The development and validation of the Body Image States Scale. Eating Disorders, 10(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640260290081678

11.

Chen

I.-H.

Chang

K.-C.

Chang

C.-W.

Huang

S.-W.

Potenza

M. N.

Pakpour

A. H.

Lin

C.-Y.

(2022). Temporal associations between problematic use of the Internet and self-stigma among people with substance use disorders: A cross-lagged model across one year. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 156, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.10.044

12.

Chen

I.-H.

Chen

H.-P.

Gamble

J. H.

Liao

Chen

X.-M.

Yang

Y.-T. C.

Pakpour

A. H.

Griffiths

M. D.

Lin

C.-Y.

(2022). Evaluating a cross-lagged panel model between problematic Internet use and psychological distress and cross-level mediation of school administrator support on problematic Internet use: The serial mediating role of psychological needs thwarting of online teaching and psychological distress. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 987366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.987366

13.

Chen

Huebner

E. S.

Tian

(2022). Longitudinal associations among academic achievement and depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in elementary schoolchildren: Disentangling between- and within-person associations. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(9), 1405–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01781-y

14.

Cheng

Dong

Zhong

Yao

(2020). Psychometric properties of the 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) in Chinese undergraduates and depressive patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 261, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.10.018

15.

Cheng

Zhang

Ding

(2015). Self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation as mediators between family socioeconomic status and social anxiety in Chinese emerging adults. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 61(6), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014565405

16.

Choate

L. H.

(2005). Toward a theoretical model of women’s body image resilience. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00350.x

17.

Cooley

Toray

(2001). Disordered eating in college freshman women: A prospective study. Journal of American College Health, 49(5), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480109596308

18.

Dapp

L. C.

Krauss

Orth

(2023). Testing the bottom-up and top-down models of self-esteem: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(5), 1111–1131. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000444

19.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Conger

K. J.

Conger

R. D.

(2007). A three-wave longitudinal study of self-evaluations during young adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.004

20.

Franzoi

S. L.

Shields

S. A.

(1984). The body esteem scale: Multidimensional structure and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(2), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4802_12

21.

Frederick

D. A.

Reynolds

T. A.

(2022). The value of integrating evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives on body image. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01947-4

22.

Garbett

K. M.

Craddock

Saraswati

L. A.

Diedrichs

P. C.

(2023). Body image among girls in Indonesia: Associations with disordered eating behaviors, life engagement, desire for cosmetic surgery and psychosocial influences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(14), Article 6394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20146394

23.

Grimm

K. J.

Helm

Rodgers

O’Rourke

(2021). Analyzing cross-lag effects: A comparison of different cross-lag modeling approaches. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021, 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20401

24.

Grogan

(2006). Body image and health: Contemporary perspectives. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(4), 523–530. https://doi.org/10/czjtnj

25.

Hamaker

E. L.

Kuiper

R. M.

Grasman

R. P. P. P.

(2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889

26.

Hanson

L. N.

Gott

Tomsett

Useh

Yeadon-Caiger

Clay

Fan

Hui

Wang

Evans

E. H.

Cowie

Boothroyd

L. G.

(2024). Examining body appreciation in six countries: The impact of age and sociocultural pressure. PLOS One, 19(7), Article e0306913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306913

27.

Harman

H. H.

(1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). U Chicago Press.

28.

Himmerich

Mirzaei

(2024). Body image, nutrition, and mental health. Nutrients, 16(8), Article 1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16081106

29.

Holsen

Carlson Jones

Skogbrott Birkeland

(2012). Body image satisfaction among Norwegian adolescents and young adults: A longitudinal study of the influence of interpersonal relationships and BMI. Body Image, 9(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.006

30.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

31.

Husain

F. S.

Lulla

Tay

T. K. C.

Lee

J.-J. M.

Dhaliwal

S. S.

Ang

S. B.

(2023). Association between body mass index, body image and self-esteem with sexual function: A survey of young women in Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 52(4), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2022358

32.

Izydorczyk

Kwapniewska

Lizinczyk

Sitnik-Warchulska

(2018). Psychological resilience as a protective factor for the body image in post-mastectomy women with breast cancer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), Article 1181. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061181

33.

Johnson

Wardle

(2005). Dietary restraint, body dissatisfaction, and psychological distress: A prospective analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.114.1.119

34.

Kamaria

Vikram

Ayiesah

(2016). Body image perception, body shape concern and body shape dissatisfaction among undergraduates students. Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering), 78(6–8), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v78.9050

35.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

(2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579400004156

36.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001

37.

Mäkinen

Puukko-Viertomies

L.-R.

Lindberg

Siimes

M. A.

Aalberg

(2012). Body dissatisfaction and body mass in girls and boys transitioning from early to mid-adolescence: Additional role of self-esteem and eating habits. BMC Psychiatry, 12, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-35

38.

Marsh

H. W.

(1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1224–1236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1224

39.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

40.

Mellor

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

Mccabe

M. P.

Ricciardelli

L. A.

(2010). Body image and self-esteem across age and gender: A short-term longitudinal study. Sex Roles, 63(9–10), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9813-3

41.

Morin

A. J. S.

Maïano

Marsh

H. W.

Janosz

Nagengast

(2011). The longitudinal interplay of adolescents’ self-esteem and body image: A conditional autoregressive latent trajectory analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 157–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.546731

42.

Mulder

J. D.

Hamaker

E. L.

(2021). Three extensions of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. Structural Equation Modeling, 28(4), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738

43.

Munandar

Nabilla

W. S.

(2023). The relationship between self-esteem and body image in female college. Suluh, 9(1), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.33084/suluh.v9i1.5992

44.

Noh

J.-W.

Kwon

Y. D.

Yang

Cheon

Kim

(2018). Relationship between body image and weight status in East Asian countries: Comparison between South Korea and Taiwan. BMC Public Health, 18(1), Article 814. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5738-5

45.

O’Dea

J. A.

(2012). Body image and self-esteem. In T. Cash (Ed.), Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance (pp. 141–147). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384925-0.00021-3

46.

Orth

Robins

R. W.

(2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547414

47.

Orth

Robins

R. W.

(2022). Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question. American Psychologist, 77(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000922

48.

Ozmen

Ergin

Cetinkaya

A. C.

Sen

Dundar

P. E.

Taskin

E. O.

(2007). The association of self-esteem, depression and body satisfaction with obesity among Turkish adolescents. BMC Public Health, 7, Article 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-80

49.

Park

Epstein

N. B.

(2013). The longitudinal causal directionality between body image distress and self-esteem among Korean adolescents: The moderating effect of relationships with parents. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.01.002

50.

Paxton

S. J.

Neumark-Sztainer

Hannan

P. J.

Eisenberg

M. E.

(2006). Body dissatisfaction prospectively predicts depressive mood and low self-esteem in adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35(4), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3504_5

51.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

52.

Polivy

Herman

C. P.

(2002). Causes of eating disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135103

53.

Ricciardelli

McCabe

(2001). Self-esteem and negative affect as moderators of sociocultural influences on body dissatisfaction, strategies to decrease weight and strategies to increase muscles among adolescent boys and girls. Sex Roles, 44, 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010955120359

54.

Rodgers

R. F.

Laveway

Campos

Carvalho

P. H. B.

(2023). Body image as a global mental health concern. Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health, 10, Article e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2023.2

55.

Rosenberg

(2015). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

56.

Santhira Shagar

Donovan

C. L.

Boddy

Tapp

Harris

(2021). Does culture moderate the relationship between body dissatisfaction and quality of life? A comparative study of Australian and Malaysian emerging adults. Health Psychology Open, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20551029211018378

57.

Shavelson

Bolus

(1982). Self concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.1.3

58.

Smith

O. E.

Mills

J. S.

Samson

(2024). Out of the loop: Taking a one-week break from social media leads to better self-esteem and body image among young women. Body Image, 49, Article 101715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101715

59.

Song

Smith

J. P.

(2019). Hukou system, mechanisms, and health stratification across the life course in rural and urban China. Health & Place, 58, Article 102150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102150

60.

Stice

Shaw

(2003). Prospective relations of body image, eating, and affective disturbances to smoking onset in adolescent girls: How Virginia slims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.71.1.129

61.

Swami

von Nordheim

Barron

(2016). Self-esteem mediates the relationship between connectedness to nature and body appreciation in women, but not men. Body Image, 16, 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.11.001

62.

Thompson

J. K.

Heinberg

L. J.

Altabe

Tantleff-Dunn

(1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10312-000

63.

Tian

Liu

Shan

(2018). Parent–child relationships and resilience among Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of self-esteem. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01030

64.

Tiggemann

(2005). Body dissatisfaction and adolescent self-esteem: Prospective findings. Body Image, 2(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.03.006

65.

Todd

Swami

(2020). Assessing the measurement invariance of two positive body image instruments in adults from Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Body Image, 34, 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.05.009

66.

Troy

A. S.

Willroth

E. C.

Shallcross

A. J.

Giuliani

N. R.

Gross

J. J.

Mauss

I. B.

(2023). Psychological resilience: An affect-regulation framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 547–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020122-041854

67.

Wodarz

Rogowska

A. M.

(2024). The moderating effect of body appreciation on the relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(4), 870–887. https://doi.org/10/g9kpg5

68.

Wood-Barcalow

N. L.

Tylka

T. L.

Augustus-Horvath

C. L.

(2010). “But I like my body”: Positive body image characteristics and a holistic model for young-adult women. Body Image, 7(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.01.001

69.

Yang

Zhao

Dong

Xia

(2024). Longitudinal associations between interpersonal distrust and social aggression during college: Disentangling the within-person process from stable between-person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(4), 849–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01874-8

70.

Zancu

A. S.

Diaconu-Gherasim

L. R.

(2024). Weight stigma and mental health outcomes in early-adolescents: The mediating role of internalized weight bias and body esteem. Appetite, 196, Article 107276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107276

71.

Zyphur

M. J.

Allison

P. D.

Tay

Voelkle

M. C.

Preacher

K. J.

Zhang

Hamaker

E. L.

Shamsollahi

Pierides

D. C.

Koval

Diener

(2020). From data to causes I: Building a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Organizational Research Methods, 23(4), 651–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119847278

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.15 MB

Exploring the longitudinal dynamics of self-esteem,body image,and psychological resilience in college students

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Association between self-esteem and body image

Mediating role of psychological resilience

Current study

Methods

Participants

Measures

Self-esteem

Psychological resilience

Body image

Data analysis

Results

Correlation analysis of primary variables

Model comparison

Longitudinal relationship between self-esteem and body image

Mediating role of psychological resilience

Supplementary covariate models

Discussion

Reciprocal relationship between self-esteem and body image

Mediating role of psychological resilience

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pac-10.1177_18344909251360073 - Supplemental material for Exploring the longitudinal dynamics of self-esteem, body image, and psychological resilience in college students

Footnotes

Data availability

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical standards

ORCID iDs

Supplemental material

References

Supplementary Material