@article{RentzschSchroederAbe2022,
  author    = {Rentzsch, Katrin and Schr{\"o}der-Ab{\´e}, Michela},
  title     = {Top down or bottom up?},
  series = {Journal of personality and social psychology / American Psychological Association},
  volume    = {122},
  journal   = {Journal of personality and social psychology / American Psychological Association},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {0022-3514},
  doi       = {10.1037/pspp0000393},
  pages     = {714 -- 730},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Classical theoretical perspectives have implied that either global self-esteem has an impact on domain-specific self-esteem (top-down) or domain-specific self-esteem affects global self-esteem (bottom-up). The goal of the present research was to investigate whether classical top-down and bottom-up approaches could withstand a thorough test. To do so, we applied elaborate analytical methods in a four-wave longitudinal study across 6 years with preregistered hypotheses and data analyses. We analyzed data from N = 1,417 German participants (30.6\% men, median of 12 to 13 years of education) with an average age of 47.0 years (SD = 12.4, range 18 to 88) at intake. Analyses using latent variable approaches for modeling intraindividual change provided evidence of top-down effects only. For example, participants with higher global self-esteem exhibited an increase in performance self-esteem but not vice versa. Our results also provided evidence of "vertical" associations between global and domain-specific self-esteem, that is, parallel development within the same time frame. In addition, the analyses revealed high rank order stability and a substantial trait component in global self-esteem and the self-esteem domains. The present findings have important theoretical and practical implications for the stability and development of self-esteem in adulthood and advance the understanding of global and domain-specific self-esteem in personality theory.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RentzschSchroederAbe2018,
  author    = {Rentzsch, Katrin and Schr{\"o}der-Abe, Michela},
  title     = {Stability and change in domain-specific Self-esteem and global self-esteem},
  series = {European journal of personality},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {European journal of personality},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0890-2070},
  doi       = {10.1002/per.2167},
  pages     = {353 -- 370},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {A notable uptick of interest in the stability of self-esteem has been observed over the past few years. Most researchers, however, have focused on unidimensional rather than multidimensional conceptualizations of self-esteem. The paucity of empirical research is surprising given conflicting theoretical perspectives on the stability of self-esteem. The goal of the present study was to thoroughly disentangle different conceptualizations of self-esteem and test opposing classical theories on (i) the stability and (ii) the direction of mutual influence of these different forms of self-esteem. We analysed two-year longitudinal data from participants (N=644 at T1, N=241 at T2) with an average age of 47.0years (SD=12.4). Analyses using a latent variable approach revealed that the domains of self-esteem were relatively stable in terms of rank order and mean levels. In fact, the size of the stability coefficients was comparable to that of other trait measures that have been reported in the literature and paralleled the stability observed for global self-esteem. Results did not provide support for either top-down or bottom-up effects between domain-specific and global self-esteem. These findings have important theoretical and practical implications regarding the stability and development of self-esteem in adulthood and advance the understanding of self-esteem in personality theory. (c) 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RudolphSchroederAbeSchuetz2020,
  author    = {Rudolph, Almut and Schr{\"o}der-Ab{\´e}, Michela and Sch{\"u}tz, Astrid},
  title     = {I like myself, I really do (at least right now)},
  series = {European journal of psychological assessment : EJPA},
  volume    = {36},
  journal   = {European journal of psychological assessment : EJPA},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Hogrefe},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {1015-5759},
  doi       = {10.1027/1015-5759/a000501},
  pages     = {196 -- 206},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {In five studies, we evaluated the psychometric properties of a revised German version of the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES; Heatherton \& Polivy, 1991). In Study 1, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis on the original scale revealed poor model fit and poor construct validity in a student sample that resembled those in the literature; thus, a revised 15-item version was developed (i.e., the SSES-R) and thoroughly validated. Study 2 showed a valid three-factor structure (Performance, Social, and Appearance) and good internal consistency of the SSES-R. Correlations between subscales of trait and state SE empirically supported the scale's construct validity. Temporal stability and intrapersonal sensitivity of the scale to naturally occurring events were investigated in Study 3. Intrapersonat sensitivity of the scale to experimentally induced changes in state SE was uncovered in Study 4 via social feedback (acceptance vs. rejection) and performance feedback (positive vs. negative). In Study 5, the scale's interpersonal sensitivity was confirmed by comparing depressed and healthy individuals. Finally, the usefulness of the SSES-R was demonstrated by assessing SE instability as calculated from repeated measures of state SE.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KuhlmannBuergerEsseretal.2015,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sophie Merle and B{\"u}rger, Arne and Esser, G{\"u}nter and Hammerle, Florian},
  title     = {A mindfulness-based stress prevention training for medical students (MediMind)},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe 820},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe 820},
  number    = {820},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42756},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427568},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Background: Medical training is very demanding and associated with a high prevalence of psychological distress. Compared to the general population, medical students are at a greater risk of developing a psychological disorder. Various attempts of stress management training in medical school have achieved positive results on minimizing psychological distress; however, there are often limitations. Therefore, the use of a rigorous scientific method is needed. The present study protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of a specifically developed mindfulness-based stress prevention training for medical students that includes selected elements of cognitive behavioral strategies (MediMind). Methods/Design: This study protocol presents a prospective randomized controlled trial, involving four assessment time points: baseline, post-intervention, one-year follow-up and five-year follow-up. The aims include evaluating the effect on stress, coping, psychological morbidity and personality traits with validated measures. Participants are allocated randomly to one of three conditions: MediMind, Autogenic Training or control group. Eligible participants are medical or dental students in the second or eighth semester of a German university. They form a population of approximately 420 students in each academic term. A final total sample size of 126 (at five-year follow-up) is targeted. The trainings (MediMind and Autogenic Training) comprise five weekly sessions lasting 90 minutes each. MediMind will be offered to participants of the control group once the five-year follow-up is completed. The allotment is randomized with a stratified allocation ratio by course of studies, semester, and gender. After descriptive statistics have been evaluated, inferential statistical analysis will be carried out with a repeated measures ANOVA-design with interactions between time and group. Effect sizes will be calculated using partial η-square values. Discussion: Potential limitations of this study are voluntary participation and the risk of attrition, especially concerning participants that are allocated to the control group. Strengths are the study design, namely random allocation, follow-up assessment, the use of control groups and inclusion of participants at different stages of medical training with the possibility of differential analysis.},
  language  = {en}
}