Inductivist

Over the years, I've done a number of analyses that indicate that the psychologically most healthy people are both atheists and people who know God exists. The groups in the middle who are uncertain about God are, for example, less happy and are more likely to drink too much.

General Social Survey participants were asked how often did they feel worthless in the past 30 days.
Answers ranged from "all of the time" (1) to "none of the time" (5). Here are the means for a sample of 1,218 people:

Mean self-esteem score

Don't believe  4.88
No way to know  4.49
Some Higher Power  4.57
Believes sometimes  4.09
Believes but doubts  4.55
Knows Gods exist  4.63

Atheists have the highest mean, while confident believers come in second. At the absolute bottom are those who believe sometimes. This group is one standard deviation lower than atheists, which in English means a huge difference.

This is the pattern we've seen previously. The confident on either side are psychologically better off than those in the squishy middle. Personality might explain this. Decisive, confident people trust their abilities, and if they take a position on God, dammit they know they're right.

People who frequently doubt themselves also doubt their beliefs. One's uncertainty about oneself seems to go hand-in-hand with uncertainty about everything else.  

Also--these results contradict the view that atheists will have a low view of themselves because they are likely to believe they are the accidental product of natural forces, not the children of God. Personality seems to be much more important than people realize.  Self-esteem seems to be in your brain, not your beliefs.

Robert Trivers claims in The Folly of Fools that blacks explicitly self-enhance but subconsciously feel that they are inferior. Consistent with this blog's analyses, Trivers cites research indicating that, when asked, blacks inflate themselves more than whites. But Trivers then describes studies that show that blacks implicitly associate whiteness with goodness and blackness with undesirability. They also perform worse on IQ tests when reminded that they are black. Whites, by contrast, associate whiteness with goodness and do a bit better on tests when reminded that they are white. Trivers explains this in terms of identfying with the oppressor: to reduce conflict, victims self-deceive and adopt the view of the exploiter.

In my view, Triver's goofy leftism runs him off the rails here. The fact is that whites are not the oppresors of blacks, and have not been for several decades. It is also a fact that whites are better suited than blacks to life in a civilized society. Perhaps blacks sense this inferiority subconsciously--which is revealed in these studies of subconscious attitudes--but their excessive self-enhancement is manifested consciously. This helps explain phenomena like clownish Afro-centrism. Or perhaps the truth is as simple as whites creating a dominant culture which minorites tend to absorb because it's the water you swim in. The culture doesn't portray whites as superior, but it is mostly made by whites. You might identify with the leader, not because he is exploiting you, but because he is the leader.

For whites, their subconscious self-enhancement is most simply explained as natural: if Trivers is correct, people naturally self-enhance unless there is something to override it.     
 

Using MIDUS data, I estimated OLS regression models with Big 5 personality traits as dependent variables and self-esteem and whether or not the respondent is an Episcopalian as predictors (sample = 3,915--93 Episcopalians):

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion
Episcopalian .00
Self-esteem .41*

Negative emotionality
Episcopalian .00
Self-esteem -.51*

Conscientiousness
Episcopalian .00 
Self-esteem .37*

Agreeableness
Episcopalian -.02
Self-esteem .17*

Open to experience
Episcopalian .04*
Self-esteem .39*

*statistically significant

In spite of being an elite religious group, Episcopalians do not differ from others except that they are a little bit more open to experience.

The more interesting finding, perhaps, is that self-esteem is strongly related to all five traits. It is positively associated with desirable traits and inversely related to negative emotionality. People who have more esteem for themselves rate their traits more highly across the board. The correlation between agreeableness and self-esteem is weaker than the others perhaps because, while agreeableness is considered to be a good trait, it also suggests the person is a "yes-man."

I looked into Dr. Charlton's suggestion in the comments of the last post that self-esteem might boost self-assessment of conscientiousness. Using MIDUS data, I estimated an OLS model with conscientiousness as the dependent variable and self-esteem as a predictor. I also added a Mormon-versus-others dummy variable as a predictor in order to see if greater conscientiousness might emerge for Mormons once the influence of self-esteem is controlled. 

OLS Standardized Regression Coefficients

Mormon -.03
Self-Esteem .37*

*statistically significant

Self-esteem is strongly related to higher conscientiousness scores. Personality researchers may do well to examine if self-assessments are distorted by the level of self-esteem. On the other hand, the result for Mormons remains unchanged: they do not differ from others in conscientiousness even when the influence of self-esteem is controlled.   

In the recent post on self-esteem, a reader suggested that Asians and Hispanics have lower levels because they are shorter.

Using Add Health data, I calculated the correlation between height and self-esteem for males and females (samples sizes = 3,101 and 3,297). It is .05 and significant for guys and .01 and not signifiicant for girls. Trivial for males, non-existent for females. 

In The Perils of Diversity, Byron Roth challenges the multiculturist argument that minority groups must preserve their cultures to prop up self-esteem by citing research which failed to find group differences.

Let's look at the question with Add Health data. Students were asked how frequently do they feel they are just as good as anyone else. Answers ranged from "never/rarely" (0) to "most/all of the time" (3). Here are means:

Mean self-worth scores

Whites 1.98
Blacks 1.92
Asians 1.73*
Mexican Americans 1.61*

* significantly lower than whites

While blacks and whites--the two groups usually studied--don't differ significantly, Asians and Mexican Americans have lower averages.

Why? This is a sample of adolescents.  Blacks and whites are more likely to be popular. This seems to be due to greater athleticism, extraversion, and more interesting personalities. I also suspect that whites and black males are perceived as more attractive.  Self-esteem seems to be, in part, a reflection of reality. A Mexican American is more likely to have low self-worth because he doesn't compare well to others and lacks traits that are valued. It might be the case that whites and blacks get a self-esteem boost in schools with Mex-Am and Asian students. If I find time, I can test the hypothesis.