Corrigendum: Childhood Adversity, Self-Esteem, and Diurnal Cortisol Profiles Across the Life Span

Abstract

Original article: Zilioli, S., Slatcher, R. B., Chi, P., Li, X., Zhao, J., & Zhao, G. (2016). Childhood adversity, self-esteem, and diurnal cortisol profiles across the life span. Psychological Science, 27, 1249–1265. doi:10.1177/0956797616658287

It has come to the authors’ attention that the two neuroticism items in Study 2 were negatively correlated with each other (r = −.202, p < .001) instead of positively correlated, as originally reported. For this reason, the authors reran the Study 2 analyses treating the two items as separate covariates instead of combining them into a single scale. The article is now being corrected to reflect the results of this reanalysis. In addition, some corrections and clarifications are being made in the sections presenting the method and results for Study 1.

The authors note that, apart from some minor fluctuations in regression estimates and p values, the new pattern of results for Study 2 did not change from the pattern of results observed in the original analyses. Thus, the scientific conclusions presented in the original article remain unchanged.

Corrected Results for Study 2

Tables 4, 5, and 6 (and Table S2 in the Supplemental Material) are being corrected to show the values obtained in the reanalysis. Several paragraphs in the main text are also affected. The first complete paragraph on page 1255 should read as follows:

The psychological covariates consisted of measures of neuroticism, depression, daily positive affect, and daily negative affect. Neuroticism was assessed via two personality descriptors (i.e., “anxious, easily upset” and “calm, emotionally stable”), which were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Responses to the second neuroticism item were reverse-scored. Because the two items were negatively correlated (r = −.202, p < .001), we treated them as separate covariates in the analyses. Scores for “anxious, easily upset” ranged from 1 to 4 (M = 2.40, SD = 0.96), and scores for “calm, emotionally stable” also ranged from 1 to 4 (M = 2.17, SD = 0.89).

Table 4.

Bivariate Correlations Between Person-Level Variables in Study 2

Variable	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Female	−.087*	.004	.023	−.038	−.037	−.054	−.006	−.059	−.109**	.100*	.067†
2. Age	—	−.025	−.074†	.085*	.057	.101*	−.002	−.011	−.026	.050	.049
3. Caregiver education (high school)		—	−.021	.059	.099*	.113**	−.018	.004	.050	−.022	−.121**
4. Health status			—	−.183**	−.106**	−.205**	.054	−.045	−.066†	.007	.131**
5. CA-SE				—	−.011	.703**	.025	−.039	.212**	−.056	−.035
6. CA-RP					—	.703**	−.027	.183**	.153**	−.247**	−.218**
7. Childhood adversity						—	−.001	.102**	.260**	−.216**	−.180**
8. Neuroticism: “anxious, easily upset”							—	−.202**	.243**	−.021	−.021
9. Neuroticism: “calm, emotionally stable” (R)								—	.083*	−.299**	−.123**
10. Depression									—	−.400**	−.139**
11. Youth self-esteem										—	.100*
12. Caregiver self-esteem											—

Note: CA-SE = Childhood Adversity Stressful Events scale; CA-RP = Childhood Adversity Relationship With Parents scale; R = reverse-scored.

^†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5.

Results of Selected Hierarchical Linear Models of Diurnal Cortisol Parameters in Study 2

Fixed effect	Model 4			Model 5			Model 6
	Estimate	SE	p	Estimate	SE	p	Estimate	SE	p
Morning cortisol, π0
Average morning cortisol, β00, γ000	0.6934	0.0121	< .001	0.6943	0.0121	< .001	0.6987	0.0129	< .001
Childhood adversity, γ001	−0.0109	0.0045	.017	−0.0094	0.0045	.038	−0.0079	0.0045	.079
Youth self-esteem, γ002	—	—	—	0.0423	0.0160	.008	0.0405	0.0160	.012
Caregiver self-esteem, γ003	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.0309	0.0165	.061
Female, γ004	−0.0042	0.0130	.746	−0.0058	0.0130	.657	−0.0057	0.0130	.662
Age, γ005	0.0066	0.0037	.077	0.0061	0.0037	.100	0.0052	0.0037	.164
Caregiver education, γ006	0.0029	0.0132	.825	0.0027	0.0131	.840	0.0080	0.0135	.557
Health status, γ007	−0.0030	0.0087	.727	−0.0017	0.0086	.841	−0.0034	0.0088	.701
Neuroticism: “anxious, easily upset,” γ008	0.0019	0.0069	.782	0.0016	0.0070	.818	0.0024	0.0070	.738
Neuroticism: “calm, emotionally stable” (R), γ009	−0.0032	0.0073	.659	0.0021	0.0075	.777	0.0025	0.0075	.736
Depression, γ0010	−0.0020	0.0016	.215	−0.0004	0.0017	.801	−0.0004	0.0017	.833
Caregiver sex: female, γ0011	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.0138	0.0132	.296
Caregiver age, γ0012	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.0001	0.0007	.824
Weekend, β01, γ010	−0.1018	0.0103	< .001	−0.1021	0.0103	< .001	−0.1019	0.0103	< .001
Wake-up time, β02, γ020	−0.0132	0.0066	.045	−0.0126	0.0066	.057	−0.0129	0.0066	.052
Daily negative affect, β03, γ030	−0.0197	0.0148	.181	−0.0201	0.0147	.170	−0.0205	0.0147	.163
Daily positive affect, β04, γ040	−0.0075	0.0142	.600	−0.0073	0.0141	.606	−0.0102	0.0141	.469
Cortisol awakening response (CAR), π1
Average CAR, β10, γ100	0.0069	0.0118	.558	0.0065	0.0118	.582	0.0028	0.0135	.834
Childhood adversity, γ101	0.0065	0.0048	.182	0.0056	0.0049	.247	0.0048	0.0049	.326
Youth self-esteem, γ102	—	—	—	−0.0235	0.0176	.182	−0.0227	0.0179	.204
Caregiver self-esteem, γ103	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.0237	0.0165	.150
Female, γ104	−0.0315	0.0129	.015	−0.0307	0.0129	.017	−0.0307	0.0129	.018
Age, γ105	0.0060	0.0037	.104	0.0063	0.0037	.090	0.0069	0.0037	.065
Caregiver education, γ106	0.0222	0.0132	.094	0.0222	0.0132	.094	0.0196	0.0138	.156
Health status, γ107	0.0071	0.0095	.453	0.0063	0.0095	.505	0.0071	0.0096	.460
Neuroticism: “anxious, easily upset,” γ108	0.0042	0.0077	.590	0.0044	0.0078	.570	0.0040	0.0077	.610
Neuroticism: “calm, emotionally stable” (R), γ109	−0.0008	0.0077	.913	−0.0038	0.0081	.638	−0.0040	0.0082	.628
Depression, γ1010	−0.0005	0.0016	.738	−0.0014	0.0017	.400	−0.0016	0.0017	.359
Caregiver sex: female, γ1011	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.0097	0.0143	.499
Caregiver age, γ1012	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.0004	0.0006	.523
Weekend, β11, γ110	−0.0294	0.0132	.026	−0.0291	0.0132	.027	−0.0293	0.0132	.027
Wake-up time, β12, γ120	−0.0192	0.0075	.010	−0.0196	0.0075	.009	−0.0194	0.0075	.010
Daily negative affect, β13, γ130	0.0003	0.0175	.985	0.0004	0.0175	.981	0.0012	0.0175	.947
Daily positive affect, β14, γ140	−0.0103	0.0127	.418	−0.0105	0.0126	.404	−0.0079	0.0129	.541
Time since waking, π2
Average linear slope, β20, γ200	−0.0385	0.0022	< .001	−0.0386	0.0022	< .001	−0.0391	0.0023	< .001
Childhood adversity, γ201	0.0001	0.0004	.730	0.0000	0.0004	.934	−0.0001	0.0004	.841
Child self-esteem, γ202	—	—	—	−0.0030	0.0015	.044	−0.0028	0.0015	.055
Caregiver self-esteem, γ203	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.0029	0.0014	.048
Female, γ204	−0.0012	0.0011	.306	−0.0011	0.0011	.350	−0.0010	0.0011	.356
Age, γ205	−0.0006	0.0003	.087	−0.0005	0.0003	.110	−0.0005	0.0003	.177
Caregiver education, γ206	0.0000	0.0011	.981	0.0000	0.0011	.992	−0.0004	0.0012	.723
Health status, γ207	−0.0002	0.0007	.761	−0.0003	0.0007	.668	−0.0002	0.0007	.809
Neuroticism: “anxious, easily upset,” γ208	0.0006	0.0006	.333	0.0006	0.0006	.316	0.0006	0.0006	.369
Neuroticism: “calm, emotionally stable” (R), γ209	0.0001	0.0007	.855	−0.0003	0.0007	.703	−0.0003	0.0007	.667
Depression, γ2010	0.0001	0.0001	.413	0.0000	0.0001	.966	0.0000	0.0002	.981
Caregiver sex: female, γ2011	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.0012	0.0012	.298
Caregiver age, γ2012	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.0000	0.0001	.887
Weekend, β21, γ210	0.0076	0.0010	< .001	0.0076	0.0010	< .001	0.0076	0.0010	< .001
Wake-up time, β22, γ220	−0.0007	0.0006	.216	−0.0008	0.0006	.194	−0.0008	0.0006	.206
Daily negative affect, β23, γ230	0.0024	0.0013	.062	0.0024	0.0013	.058	0.0025	0.0013	.053
Daily positive affect, β24, γ240	−0.0002	0.0012	.883	−0.0002	0.0012	.874	0.0001	0.0012	.957
Time since waking2, π3
Average curvature, β30, γ300	0.0008	0.0001	< .001	0.0008	0.0001	< .001	0.0008	0.0001	< .001
Smoking, π4
Intercept, β40, γ400	0.1462	0.0473	.002	0.1461	0.0474	.002	0.1460	0.0477	.002
Exercise, π5
Intercept, β50, γ500	0.0187	0.0082	.023	0.0191	0.0082	.020	0.0190	0.0082	.021

Note: Intercepts indicate average cortisol values at awakening; average slopes of time since waking indicate change in cortisol per 1-hr change in time; average slopes of time since waking² indicate change in cortisol per 1-hr change in time². R = reverse-scored. Thirty-three cortisol values were more than 3 SD above the mean; when analyses were run after Winsorizing these values, the magnitude of the main results remained approximately the same as reported here, despite minor changes in the p values (highest p value = .057).

Table 6.

Results of Analyses on the Effects of Childhood-Adversity Measures on Cortisol Parameters Controlling for Covariates in Study 2

Measure	Morning cortisol	Cortisol awakening response	Cortisol slope
Without controlling for self-esteem
Childhood Adversity Stressful Events score	−0.0044† (0.0026)	0.0008 (0.0030)	0.0003 (0.0002)
Childhood Adversity Relationship With Parents score	−0.0044 (0.0027)	0.0042 (0.0027)	−0.0001 (0.0002)
Controlling for self-esteem
Childhood Adversity Stressful Events score	−0.0045† (0.0026), [−0.000581, 0.000837]	0.0009 (0.0030), [−0.000557, 0.000374]	0.0003 (0.0002), [−0.000058, 0.000039]
Childhood Adversity Relationship With Parents score	−0.0031 (0.0027), [−0.002334, −0.000268]	0.0035 (0.0028), [−0.000365, 0.001709]	−0.0002 (0.0002), [0.000008, 0.000189]

Note: The table shows unstandardized regression coefficients, followed by robust standard errors in parentheses. For indirect effects, 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets.

^†p < .10.

In the concluding sentence of the immediately following paragraph, the average depression score should be 20.17 instead of 20.16.

The first sentence of the Data Analysis section for Study 2 (p. 1255) should read as follows:

At the daily level, the incidence of missing data among the variables was 9.8%, and at the person level, the incidence of missing data was 3.1%.

The second paragraph of the results for Study 2 (p. 1258) should read as follows:

In Model 1 and Model 4, childhood adversity was a significant predictor of morning cortisol, such that individuals who reported more adverse childhood conditions had lower levels of cortisol at awakening (Model 1: γ₀₀₁ = −0.011, p = .009; Model 4: γ₀₀₁ = −0.011, p = .017). However, childhood adversity was not associated with the cortisol slope (Model 1: γ₂₀₁ = 0.000, p = .553; Model 4: γ₂₀₁ = 0.000, p = .730) or CAR (Model 1: γ₁₀₁ = 0.006, p = .193; Model 4: γ₁₀₁ = 0.007, p = .182). Next, self-esteem was introduced as a predictor in the analyses. Corroborating the findings from Study 1, results showed that individuals with higher self-esteem had higher morning cortisol (Model 2: γ₀₀₂ = 0.044, p = .003; Model 5: γ₀₀₂ = 0.042, p = .008) and a steeper cortisol slope (Model 2: γ₂₀₂ = −0.003, p = .025; Model 5: γ₂₀₂ = −0.003, p = .044). In other words, individuals who reported higher self-esteem had higher cortisol at awakening and a steeper cortisol decline through the day. Self-esteem was not a significant predictor of CAR (Model 2: γ₁₀₂ = −0.018, p = .259; Model 5: γ₁₀₂ = −0.024, p = .182). Effect sizes in Study 2 were comparable with the effect sizes in Study 1.¹

The first four sentences of the immediately following paragraph (p. 1259) should read as follows: We next tested whether the associations between childhood adversity and the cortisol parameters were partially explained by self-esteem. Further, because indirect effects can exist in the absence of a significant total effect (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010), we also tested the significance of a potential indirect effect of childhood adversity on cortisol slope through self-esteem. Regression analyses showed that childhood adversity negatively predicted self-esteem (without controlling for covariates: b = −0.067, SE = 0.012, p < .001; controlling for covariates: b = −0.032, SE = 0.011, p = .005). Monte Carlo analyses showed a significant indirect effect of childhood adversity on morning cortisol via self-esteem (without controlling for covariates: 95% CI = [−0.005319, −0.000950]; controlling for covariates: 95% CI = [−0.003004, −0.000199]), as well as a significant indirect effect of childhood adversity on diurnal cortisol slope via self-esteem (without controlling for covariates: 95% CI = [0.000025, 0.000413]; controlling for covariates: 95% CI = [0.000006, 0.000231]), which indicates that high childhood adversity was linked to low morning cortisol and a flatter cortisol slope via low self-esteem.

In the next paragraph, the third sentence (p. 1261) should read as follows:

Although no association emerged with CAR (Model 3: γ₁₀₃ = −0.026, p = .110; Model 6: γ₁₀₃ = −0.024, p = .150) or morning cortisol (Model 3: γ₀₀₃ = 0.028, p = .087; Model 6: γ₀₀₃ = 0.031, p = .061), higher caregiver self-esteem predicted a steeper diurnal cortisol slope (Model 3: γ₂₀₃ = −0.003, p = .030; Model 6: γ₂₀₃ = −0.003, p = .048).

The second sentence of the final paragraph presenting results for Study 2 (p. 1261) should read as follows:

As shown in Table 6, we found indirect effects between CA-RP scores and morning cortisol via self-esteem, 95% CI = [−0.002334, −0.000268], and between CA-RP scores and the cortisol slope via self-esteem, 95% CI = [0.000008, 0.000189].

Corrections and Clarifications for Study 1

In the first paragraph of the Method section (p. 1250), the average age for MIDUS II participants should be 55.43 years, rather than 56.62 years. The next sentence should read, “The first wave of data collection for MIDUS (MIDUS I), a large panel survey of adults between the ages of 20 and 75 years (average age = 46.39 years), occurred from 1995 to 1996.” The fourth through sixth sentences in the same paragraph should read as follows:

For the current study, inclusion criteria required that participants provided data about parents’ education, childhood adversity, self-esteem, neuroticism, depressed affect, and demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, and physical health), as well as cortisol data. Information about childhood adversity and parents’ education was collected during MIDUS I, and information about self-esteem and psychological covariates was collected during MIDUS II. Data for age, education, and physical health were taken from MIDUS II, and data for ethnicity and gender were taken from MIDUS I.

In the first complete paragraph on page 1251, the second and third sentences are being replaced by the following:

Participants had to answer 7 questions about their relationship with their mother and the same 7 questions about their relationship with their father (14 total items). Twelve of these questions (6 for the mother and 6 for the father) were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = a lot, 4 = not at all). Two of the questions (1 for the mother and 1 for the father) were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = excellent, 5 = poor); these ratings were multiplied by 0.75 factorial to maintain continuity with the other items. Averaging these two scales (one for the mother and one for the father) yielded a measure of overall parental affection (higher scores indicated higher parental affection), which was reverse-scored (so that higher scores indicated lower parental affection) and showed high internal consistency (α = .92).

The first sentence of the following paragraph originally reported that we used nine items from the Conflict Tactics Inventory. This sentence is being corrected to say that we used 12 items (i.e., 3 referring to the mother, 3 referring to the father, 3 referring to brothers, and 3 referring to sisters).

On page 1252, the last sentence of the second paragraph should read as follows:

Values greater than 3 standard deviations above the mean were treated as missing cases, and this variable was included as a covariate at the daily level (M = 0.6839, SD = 1.37; M = 0.5193, SD = 0.82, after removing values more than 3 SD above the mean).

In the first complete paragraph on page 1253, the fourth sentence should read as follows:

Specifically, we first ran a multiple regression analysis in which self-esteem was regressed on childhood adversity while we controlled for appropriate (i.e., nonspecific to cortisol) person-level demographic covariates (age, gender, education, race-ethnicity, childhood SES) and person-level psychological covariates (neuroticism and depressive symptoms).

The multiple regression coefficients reported on page 1258 are unstandardized coefficients and should be labeled as “b” rather than “β.” The footnote in Table S1 in the Supplemental Material is also being corrected for this error.

Finally, two errors in the tables presenting results for Study 1 are being corrected. In Table 2, the correct p value for the effect of non-White race on morning cortisol (γ₀₀₄) in Model 4 is .005 (instead of < .001). In Table 3, the correct 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect linking Childhood Adversity Physical/Emotional Abuse score to cortisol slope controlling for self-esteem is [−0.000068, 0.000670] (instead of [−0.002716, 0.001604]).