I&G Self esteem

Question 1

Quotes on self esteem

What is highlighted in both instances?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

What was it believed that raising self esteem would achieve?

Answer 2

Would solve many prevalent problems- e.g. crime, teenage pregnancy etc

Question 3

Global self esteem

What is self esteem?

Answer 3

“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.

Question 4

Self- esteem scale items- Rosenburg

If you have high self esteem- what would you choose?

Answer 4

The positive items- e.g.

I feel that I have a number of good qualities

I take a positive view of myself

Question 5

What is James’ formula for self esteem?

Answer 5

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!

Question 6

What is a self- discrepancy?

What are the different domains of the self?

Answer 6

Self-discrepancy refers to the gap between the actual self and the self-guide.

Actual self
Ideal self
Ought self

Question 7

What does domain specific self esteem refer to?

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

State vs trait self esteem

What are these researchers interested in?

Answer 8

Interested how people feel about themselves at the moment- not over a period of time.

Question 9

Implicit self esteem

For individuals with HIGHER implicit self esteem- what may they be able to do?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Implicit self esteem

How is it measures?

What are problems with the measures for implicit self esteem?

Answer 10

More subtle ways- e.g. reaction times.

Show poor convergent validity- don’t tend to correlate with each other.

Question 11

What do single item self esteem scales do?

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

How does self esteem vary?

Answer 12

Global, domain specific, trait self esteem (persists over time), state self esteem (in the moment), implicit, explicit

CAN ALSO BE

personal/ collective

Question 13

Predictions of global self esteem

Based on James’ formula, what did people think predicted global self esteem?

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Predictors of global self esteem

What did Harter 1993 find?

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Global self esteem

Who decides what is important?

Answer 15

Individual differences in importance of different domains do NOT moderate the importance of each domains for global self-esteem

Question 16

What is global self esteem?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

What is important

What did Bekker say- moderates the importance of each domain?

Answer 17

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!

Question 18

What are most of the studies?

What are the findings?

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

What are the ways self esteem is constructed?

Answer 19

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 …

Question 20

Heritability of self esteem

What has been discovered?

Answer 20

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.)

Question 21

Heritability of self esteem

How can we explain genetic influences?

Answer 21

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%)

Question 22

Predictive benefits of self esteem

What does lower self esteem in adolescence predict?

Answer 22

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)

Question 23

Health benefits of self esteem study
Strauman, Lemieux and Coe (1993)

What happened in the study?

Answer 23

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 …

Question 24

Health benefits of self esteem study
Strauman, Lemieux and Coe (1993)

What were the findings?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Self esteem as an anxiety buffer

What was the study?

Answer 25

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)

Question 26

Self esteem as an anxiety buffer

What were the results?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

What is terror management theory?

Answer 27

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)

Question 28

Terror management theory

What further evidence is there for the TMT view of self-esteem?

Answer 28

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)

Question 29

Self esteem as a “sociometer”

What does this include?

Answer 29

Belongingness hypothesis
Sociometer hypothesis

Question 30

What is the belongingness hypothesis?

Answer 30

“Human beings have a pervasive desire to form and maintain […] lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497)

Question 31

What is the sociometer hypothesis?

Answer 31

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)

Question 32

What evidence is there for sociometer theory?

Answer 32

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

Question 33

What debate is there?

Answer 33

Positive illusions

Question 34

Where did the debate over positive illusions begin?

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Positive illusions debate

What are the different illusions?

Answer 35

• 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)

Question 36

What are the benefits of positive illusions?

Answer 36

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

Question 37

What are Colvin and Block’s (1994) critique of positive illusions?

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

Colvin & Block & Funder 1995

What studies did they do?

Answer 38

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’

Question 39

Colvin & Block & Funder 1995

What were the findings of the study?

Answer 39

“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

Question 40

Taylor & Brown (1994) - how did they reply to Colvin & Blocks critique?

Answer 40

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

Question 41

What are the remaining problems with the illusions?

Answer 41

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?

Question 42

How can self esteem have negative consequences?

Answer 42

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)

Question 43

Self esteem & aggression- what do the findings suggest?

Answer 43

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

Question 44

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?

Answer 44

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.

Question 45

What are the conceptualizations of narcissism?

Answer 45

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

Question 46

What are some examples of narcissism scale items?

Answer 46

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)

Question 47

Bushman & Baumeister (1998) conducted two studies with undergraduate participants

What was the study?

Answer 47

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

Question 48

Bushman & Baumeister (1998) conducted two studies with undergraduate participants

What were the findings of the study?

Answer 48

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.

Question 49

Name calling & compliance

What study was conducted- Women in salt lake city who were contacted by phone?

Answer 49

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)

Question 50

Name calling & compliance

Women in salt lake city study- what were the results?

Answer 50

when told they were uncooperative- they were more willing to help & 66% actually helped
In positive condition- results were lower.

Question 51

What is self affirmation theory?

Answer 51

Concerned with how people are motivated to reaffirm a sense of personal integrity* when their integrity is threatened.

Question 52

Self affirmation theory

What are some key claims?

Answer 52

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

Question 53

Values affirmation method

What do participants do?

Answer 53

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

Question 54

Self Affirmation & Prejudice
(Fein & Spencer 1997)

What did the study look at?

Answer 54

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)

Question 55

Self Affirmation & Prejudice
(Fein & Spencer 1997)

What were the results of the study?

Answer 55

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.

Question 56

Caffeine consumption
(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998)

What was the study?

Answer 56

“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

Question 57

Caffeine consumption
(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998)

What did they measure?
What were the result?

Answer 57

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.

Question 58

Caffeine consumption
(Reed & Aspinwall, 1998)

What were the intentions to reduce caffeine use?

Answer 58

Self affirmation- made things worse- for whether they were intending to have more caffeine.

Question 59

What are some of the remaining issues with self affirmation literature?

Answer 59

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.