I&G Self esteem Flashcards
Quotes on self esteem
What is highlighted in both instances?
If you have higher self esteem- you will be more likely to treat others more kindly, respectfully & with generosity etc.
Psychological problems- often stem from problems with low self esteem.
What was it believed that raising self esteem would achieve?
Would solve many prevalent problems- e.g. crime, teenage pregnancy etc
Global self esteem
What is self esteem?
“a certain average tone of self-feeling which each one of us carries about with him, and which is independent of the objective reasons we may have for satisfaction and discontent” (James, 1890)
General- how good you feel about yourself.
Self- esteem scale items- Rosenburg
If you have high self esteem- what would you choose?
The positive items- e.g.
I feel that I have a number of good qualities
I take a positive view of myself
What is James’ formula for self esteem?
Self esteem = success/ pretensions
Our self-esteem is dictated by how well we’re doing in life (success) divided by how good we feel about ourselves (pretensions).
As you increase your pretensions- you reduce your self esteem!
What is a self- discrepancy?
What are the different domains of the self?
Self-discrepancy refers to the gap between the actual self and the self-guide.
Actual self
Ideal self
Ought self
What does domain specific self esteem refer to?
Refers to an individual’s self-appraisals within circumscribed domains, for example, intellect and athleticism.
Individuals therefore may hold different levels of self-esteem in various domains.
State vs trait self esteem
What are these researchers interested in?
Interested how people feel about themselves at the moment- not over a period of time.
Implicit self esteem
For individuals with HIGHER implicit self esteem- what may they be able to do?
Associate positive words with the self more quickly
Associate negative words with the self more slowly
Show a greater liking for letters of the alphabet that are included in their first name/full name/initials
Show a greater liking for the number of the day of the month they were born on
Implicit self esteem
How is it measures?
What are problems with the measures for implicit self esteem?
More subtle ways- e.g. reaction times.
Show poor convergent validity- don’t tend to correlate with each other.
What do single item self esteem scales do?
In surveys- show individuals a statement & ask participants on the one single item to rate themselves as e.g.
not very true of me 1 —- 2 —- 3 —- 4 —- 5 very true of me
(Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001)
How does self esteem vary?
Global, domain specific, trait self esteem (persists over time), state self esteem (in the moment), implicit, explicit
CAN ALSO BE
personal/ collective
Predictions of global self esteem
Based on James’ formula, what did people think predicted global self esteem?
Predicted by peoples domain specific self evaluations- weighted by importance of different domains.
E.g. if you see yourself as musical & want to be- you will reflect as being more positive towards it.
Predictors of global self esteem
What did Harter 1993 find?
Self-evaluations in important domains correlate with
global self-esteem at r = .70
Self-evaluations in unimportant domains correlate
with global self-esteem at r = .30
In domains people think are most important- self evaluations correlate highly with self esteem.
Global self esteem
Who decides what is important?
Individual differences in importance of different domains do NOT moderate the importance of each domains for global self-esteem
What is global self esteem?
Global self-esteem refers to how an individual values the self,
it is often treated as a trait that reflects an individual’s stable level of self-evaluation
What is important
What did Bekker say- moderates the importance of each domain?
Not so much about what you think is important and value- but its what those think is important around you that moderates importance of the domain.
Cultural influence = important!
What are most of the studies?
What are the findings?
Correlational studies:
Measure global & self on different dimensions at same time.
Domain-specifics → global self-esteem
(e.g. the higher you see yourself as academic- the higher you see yourself overall)
Global self-esteem → domain-specifics
(the more you see yourself as positively- the more it spreads out to specific domains- e.g. giving the lecture)
We can’t always be sure with the findings which way the cause is going! Could be a bit of both & different for different people.
What are the ways self esteem is constructed?
Socially constructed:
depends on social value of domains- not just what we personally think about them.
depends on social comparison standards
Individually constructed:
self-promotion and self-protection strategies
diverse, pervasive, subtle and strategic
BUT that’s not the whole story …
Heritability of self esteem
What has been discovered?
Self esteem- might have a genetic component.
Twin studies and adoption studies of global and domain-specific self-esteem
Few studies, but (fairly) consistent results:
Genetic influences “substantial” (30-50%)- of variance in self evaluations- due to genetic influence.
Shared environment “minimal” (mostly < 10%)
Non-shared environment “largest” (often > 50%)
(reviewed by Neiss & Sedikides, 2001) (individual experiences that individuals can have- even if in the same family.)
Heritability of self esteem
How can we explain genetic influences?
Twin/adoption studies not tell us the mechanism!- They don’t tell us if there is a particular gene, they only tell us there is something that seems to be genetic that predicts how people end up on whats being measured.
But here are some thoughts:
Genetic differences in ‘positive emotionality’ (how positive you feel)
Implies global SE → domain-specific evaluations
Genetic dispositions in particular domains? You don’t have a particular gene that makes you feel positive about yourself- but certain genetic characteristics- lead us to feel valued in the society we live in.
Physical characteristics → appearance SE (40-80%)
Physical characteristics → athletic SE (40-50%)
Intelligence → scholastic SE (20-60%)
Predictive benefits of self esteem
What does lower self esteem in adolescence predict?
Lower self-esteem in adolescence predicts negative outcomes in adulthood:
- poorer mental and physical health
- worse job prospects
- more criminal behaviour in adulthood
(Trzesniewski, et al., 2006, Dev. Psych.)
Lower self-esteem prospectively predicts depression, but not vice versa
(Orth, Robins, & Roberts, 2008, JPSP)
Health benefits of self esteem study
Strauman, Lemieux and Coe (1993)
What happened in the study?
Three groups of participants
-anxious
-dysphoric- experience sad emotions/ depression
- non distressed
Self-discrepancy priming manipulation:
Previously- the researchers had already noted the self discrepancies of the participants- through asking them about their ought selves & ideal selves.
Half participants primed with their own ideal/ought selves- half primed with another participants ought selves/ ideal selves.
Participants answered questions relating to their own self-guides or to those of another participant
Emotional and physiological responses …
Health benefits of self esteem study
Strauman, Lemieux and Coe (1993)
What were the findings?
Anxious participants:
Greater actual-ought (who they ought to be) discrepancies
Priming with self-discrepancies led to:
more anxious responses
higher cortisol level (hormonal indication of stress) and lower natural killer cell activity (immune function)
Dysphoric participants:
Greater actual-ideal discrepancies
Priming with self-discrepancies led to:
more dysphoric responses
lower natural killer cell activity
Self esteem as an anxiety buffer
What was the study?
Greenberg et al (1992) reported 3 experiments on self-esteem and anxiety (2 x 2 design)
Manipulation of self-esteem:
Positive/neutral feedback on ‘personality’ test
Positive/no feedback on ‘verbal intelligence’ test
Manipulation of threat:
Watching a video about death
Threat of painful electric shocks (electrodes were actually measuring skin conductance- unknown to participants)
Self esteem as an anxiety buffer
What were the results?
Self esteem- is a buffer against threat- makes people less anxious in a threatening situation.
Measures of anxiety:
Self-reported anxiety
Skin conductance (physiological arousal)
Results:
In neutral/no feedback conditions, the threats were clearly associated with increased anxiety
Among participants whose self-esteem had been boosted, anxiety was significantly reduced for the threat conditions, in some cases to normal levels
What is terror management theory?
Humans (uniquely?) aware of own mortality- know we will die at some point (which is scary)
Argued we have a dual component Anxiety buffer used to avoid paralysing terror:
1) an individual’s personalized version of the cultural worldview- have understanding of world from our own culture.
This includes:
- a set of benign concepts for understanding the world and one’s place in it
- a set of standards through which one can attain a sense of personal value
2) self-esteem (or a sense of personal value) we are living to standards in our cultural worldview.
This includes:
- attained by believing that one is living up to the standards of value that are part of the cultural worldview
(Psyszczynski, Greenberg & Solomon, 1997)
Terror management theory
What further evidence is there for the TMT view of self-esteem?
Reminders of personal mortality lead to
-increased self-esteem strivings- self enhancement mechanisms, self serving bias, better than average effect etc
-defence of one’s cultural worldview (more critical towards someone criticising their cultural worldview.)
High (or boosted) self-esteem reduces the effects of mortality reminders on cultural world-view defence
High (or boosted) self-esteem reduces death-thought accessibility after mortality reminders
(reviewed by Psyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon & Arndt, 2004)
Self esteem as a “sociometer”
What does this include?
Belongingness hypothesis
Sociometer hypothesis
What is the belongingness hypothesis?
“Human beings have a pervasive desire to form and maintain […] lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497)
What is the sociometer hypothesis?
Self-esteem system functions as a “sociometer”
- monitors the quality of interpersonal relationships
- motivates behaviors that help the person to maintain a
minimum level of acceptance by other people”
(Leary & Baumeister, 2000, p. 9)
What evidence is there for sociometer theory?
State Self (how feel in the moment) Esteem fluctuates with inclusion (when we feel includes it increases) and exclusion (decreases)
Trait SE (feel generally over time) correlated with perceived appreciation or devaluation by others.
Primary dimensions (domains) of SE reflect attributes relevant to being valued as a relational partner for others (e.g. friendships/ relationships- make us a better person to be around)
Public events affect SE more than private ones
Importance people place on dimensions of SE is interpersonally (and culturally) determined
What debate is there?
Positive illusions
Where did the debate over positive illusions begin?
Controversial article by Taylor and Brown (1988)
Reviews evidence that three “positive illusions” about the self are “characteristic of normal human thought”:
- Unrealistically positive views of the self (suggested better than average effect)
- Exaggerated perceptions of personal control (think we have control- even when we have no control over it- e.g rolling a dice)
-Unrealistic optimism (tend to think positive things more likely to happen to us than others who are similar to us)
All of these illusions are weaker, or absent, in people wtih depression or low self-esteem
Positive illusions debate
What are the different illusions?
- Unrealistically positive views of the self (suggested better
than average effect) - Exaggerated perceptions of personal control (think we have
control- even when we have no control over it- e.g rolling a
dice)
-Unrealistic optimism (tend to think positive things more likely to happen to us than others who are similar to us)
What are the benefits of positive illusions?
According to Taylor & Brown, positive illusions promote:
Happiness & contentment
Experimental research shows causal role of positive illusions in producing positive mood
Ability to care for others
Perhaps through influence of positive mood
Capacity for creative and productive work
Facilitation of intellectually creative functioning
Enhance motivation, persistence and performance
What are Colvin and Block’s (1994) critique of positive illusions?
Are these illusions really so prevalent?
- Much of research is on university students in lab settings/
north america
Are they really illusions?
- How is ‘reality’ operationalised?
- Defined by the experimenter—perhaps inappropriately
- Typically group-level, not individual-level realities
Are they really associated with better mental health?
- People with psychosis do not seem to lack these illusions
- Perhaps depression linked to negativity, not accuracy
- Remaining evidence focused on short-term benefits only- - - may be benefits in the moment- when might be better in long term to go with positive illusion.
Colvin & Block & Funder 1995
What studies did they do?
Two studies on characteristics of self-enhancers
Participants rated their personality characteristics
Also rated by trained examiners or friends
Ratings compared to ‘favourability prototype’
Complex longitudinal design – see paper for details!
Self-enhancement as discrepancy between favourability of own and others’ ratings i.e. ‘illusion’ = disagreement with ‘social reality’
Colvin & Block & Funder 1995
What were the findings of the study?
“Friends and assessors hold relatively negative impressions of people who self-enhance”
But possible circularity in method?
Negative impressions (at a different time, by different indiviudals) were part of the measure of self-enhancement
Self-enhancement correlated negatively with measure of ‘ego resilience’ (vs. ‘ego brittleness’): r = -.40
Also based on personality ratings, so still might be circular
Taylor & Brown (1994) - how did they reply to Colvin & Blocks critique?
Accuracy is not necessary for mental health
Illusions foster happiness, caring, creativity, growth
This does NOT mean …
… that more illusion is better
… that all illusions are good
… that illusions are necessary for mental health-
… that illusions can cure people of physical illness
… that the human mind is not tuned to detect reality
What are the remaining problems with the illusions?
Measuring positive illusions
What is reality and what is an illusion?
Statistical problems with discrepancy scores (Zuckerman & Knee, 1996) comparing someones ratings compared to how others rate them.
Best to use multiple definitions of ‘reality’- see whether get same results (if get different results- becomes more complex)
Defining mental health benefits- how do you define the positive benefits of illusions?
Is there an optimal margin of illusion?
Short-term benefits vs. long-term costs?
How can self esteem have negative consequences?
Conventional wisdom suggests that people who are violent, aggressive or hostile are often suffering from low self-esteem
An alternative view is that aggression may be characteristic of people with high self-esteem, especially where self-esteem is threatened
(Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996)
Self esteem & aggression- what do the findings suggest?
Little direct psychological evidence using measures of self-esteem, thus conclusions are based on qualitative review of literature
Considerable convergence in findings
Virtually no evidence for ‘low self-esteem’ hypothesis
Violent people have favourable views of themselves
Violence is often explicitly intended to demonstrate superiority of the perpetrator to the victim
Violence often follows threats to self-esteem
Kernis, Granneman and Barclay (1989) studied self-reported anger and hostility as a function of both level and stability of self-esteem
What were the findings of the study?
No relation between level of self-esteem and hostility until stability of self-esteem was taken into account.
Highest level of hostility was found among those with high, unstable self-esteem.
Lowest level of hostility was found among those with high, stable self-esteem.
What are the conceptualizations of narcissism?
Extreme or ‘ultra-high’ levels of self-esteem
Unstable high self-esteem
Strong motive for self-aggrandisement
Disregard for others
Increased sensitivity to ego-threats
What are some examples of narcissism scale items?
If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place.
I am going to be a great person.
I am more capable than other people.
(from Raskin & Terry, 1988)
Bushman & Baumeister (1998) conducted two studies with undergraduate participants
What was the study?
Measures of self-esteem and narcissism
Participants wrote pro-choice or pro-life essays
receive evaluation of Essay ‘evaluated’ positively or negatively (worst essay ever)
(manipulation of ego-threat )
Opportunity to aggress with ‘blasts of noise’ in competitive task against evaluator (or third party)
noise blast task- compete against another participant- blast them as a noise (form of aggression)- may have thought it was the person who wrote their essay/ or is a random person
Bushman & Baumeister (1998) conducted two studies with undergraduate participants
What were the findings of the study?
Self-esteem level did not predict aggression
More aggression was observed from
- male rather than female participants
- participants with higher narcissism scores
- participants who had received ego-threat
Interaction of narcissism and ego-threat (negative evaluation of essay)
Narcissistic participants agressed significantly more against source of threat, but not against source of praise or third party (i.e. targeted aggression)- only more aggressive towards those who rated essay as bad. Shows target aggression to show superiority over those who gave the ego threat.
Name calling & compliance
What study was conducted- Women in salt lake city who were contacted by phone?
Name calling condition: ‘it was pretty much common knowledge that, as members of their community, they were uncooperative with community projects’- community reputation of being uncooperative.
Positive name condition: common knowledge community was cooperative in community projects
Irrelevant negative name condition: experimenter criticized community’s lack of concern for careful / safe driving (not to do with being cooperative)
Two days later a separate experimenter sought help with developing a community food co-operative
Arduous task: list all items in their food cupboard
(Steele, 1975)
Name calling & compliance
Women in salt lake city study- what were the results?
when told they were uncooperative- they were more willing to help & 66% actually helped
In positive condition- results were lower.
What is self affirmation theory?
Concerned with how people are motivated to reaffirm a sense of personal integrity* when their integrity is threatened.
Self affirmation theory
What are some key claims?
People are motivated to maintain a sense of self-integrity, of positive self-regard
Threats to self-integrity may promote defensiveness
“self-affirming thoughts might make it easier to be objective about other, self-threatening information” (Steele, 1988, p. 290).
Central predictions: Self-affirmation manipulations promote more systematic processing of information, greater information acceptance, and changes in attitudes, intentions and behaviour
Values affirmation method
What do participants do?
Show a list of 12 different positive values people may have
Ask participants to pick out the most important values personally.
Ask to write sentences- why value is important how it influences what they do in everyday life.
should be a boost to self integrity
Others- asked what value is least important to them- why it might be important to others.
Manipulations used in study
Harris & Napper 2005
Self Affirmation & Prejudice
(Fein & Spencer 1997)
What did the study look at?
Study- interested in Anti-Jewish prejudice (knew there were negative stereotypes & not similar stereotypes for Italian women)
Study 1:
Values affirmation manipulation
Evaluation of female job candidate
Application form
8-minute videotape of interview
Manipulated minor details to suggest ethnicity
Jewish (target of negative stereotyping)
Italian
Participants completed a questionnaire, indicating positive and negative traits (and suitability for the post)
Self Affirmation & Prejudice
(Fein & Spencer 1997)
What were the results of the study?
When participants were not self-affirmed- they rated the Italian woman more positively than the Jewish candidate
When they were self affirmed- the difference was wiped out
There was an interaction effect- the effect of the candidates ethnicity is different- depending on whether they were self affirmed or not.
Caffeine consumption
(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998)
What was the study?
“Self-affirmation reduces biased processing
of health-risk information”
66 female Introductory Psychology class students
Information about link between caffeine consumption and fibrocystic breast disease.
Affirmation manipulation (affirmation vs. no affirmation)
Access to risk-confirming information, risk-disconfirming information, and neutral information
Caffeine consumption
(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998)
What did they measure?
What were the result?
Dependent measures
e.g., beliefs, ratings of argument strength, recall of information, perceived control, intentions
Self-affirmed / high caffeine participants rated risk-confirming information as more convincing (relative to risk-disconfirming information) than did non-affirmed/ high caffeine participants
This supports the idea that self affirmation makes people less defensive & more willing to listen to the information.
Caffeine consumption
(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998)
What were the intentions to reduce caffeine use?
Self affirmation- made things worse- for whether they were intending to have more caffeine.
What are some of the remaining issues with self affirmation literature?
Mediating mechanisms still unclear
Not a self-esteem boost
Meaning of self-integrity is quite vague- how does this relate to self esteem.
Why are there sometimes backfire effects? Why do some people do more of what you don’t want them to do?
How to translate lab experiments into real-world settings
Comparing effects of different manipulations
More research with behavioural outcomes- lots of research just has questionnaire outcomes
Avoiding backfire effects.
