Lecture 9: Attitudes About the Self

Question 1

Judge et al. (1997) or core self-evaluations (4)

Answer 1

1. Generalized Self-Efficacy
2. Locus of Control
3. Emotional Stability
4. Self-Esteem: The most basic appraisal people make of themselves; the overall value one places on oneself.

Question 2

generalized self-efficacy (4)

Answer 2

• generalized self-efficacy: One’s estimates of one’s ability to perform well and handle a variety of situations.
• Can differ in levels of self-efficacy in different domains, but generalized self-efficacy is the global estimate of our ability across a wide range of situations.
• Measurement: Indicate agreement/disagreement with 8 items on 11-point scale (Judge et al., 1997); e.g. “I am strong enough to overcome life’s struggles,” ”I often feel that there is nothing I can do well” (reverse-scored).
• People higher in self-efficacy are more likely to take on new tasks and are more persistent.

Question 3

locus of control (5)

Answer 3

• locus of control: The degree to which individuals believe they control events in their lives (internal locus of control) or believe that the environment or fate controls events (external locus of control).
  
  • “Internals” believe they control their own environment.
  • “Externals” believe outside forces control their lives.
• Measurement: Indicate agreement/disagreement with 24 items on an 11-point scale; e.g. “My life is determined by my own actions,” “Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happenings” (reverse scored).
• Internals are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and lives.

Question 4

emotional stability (4)

Answer 4

• emotional stability: The opposite of neuroticism; tendency that one is not prone to negative emotions (e.g. anger, anxiety, depression) and reacting negatively to those emotions.
• Measurement—Eysenck Personality Inventory Neuroticism Scale (1968): Indicate agreement/disagreement with 12-items on an 11-point scale; e.g. “I’m a nervous person,” “I’m a worrier.”
  
  • Common alternative: Big Five Inventory, neuroticism subscale.
• Low emotional stability: more insecure, guilty, timid, fearful of new situations, and susceptible to feelings of dependence and helplessness.

Question 5

self-esteem (2)

Answer 5

• A person’s overall subjective evaluation of his or her own worth.
• Encompasses beliefs about the self (e.g. I am competent, I am worthy) and emotional states (e.g. pride, shame).

Question 6

direct measures of self-esteem (4)

Answer 6

• Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE, 1965): 10-items, 4-point scale; e.g. “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others,” “At times I think I am no good at all” (reverse scored).
• Single Item Self-Esteem Scale, Robins et al. (2001): Single item on a 5-point (or 7-point) Likert scale; 1 (not very true of me) to 5 (or 7; very true of me).
  
  • The single item is: “I have high self-esteem.”
• Both are useful, but susceptible to socially desirable responding.

Question 7

indirect measures of self-esteem (3)

Answer 7

• Self-Esteem IAT
• Name-Letter Task
• Name-Liking Measure

Question 8

Self-Esteem IAT (7)

Answer 8

• Based on the idea that people with higher self-esteem will extend their positive self-evaluation to words representing the self (without conscious awareness that self-esteem is contributing to these evaluations).
• Pair ME / NOT-ME words with PLEASANT / UNPLEASANT words
  
  • ME: first name, surname, initials;
  • NOT ME: familiar same sex first name 1, familiar same sex first name 2, familiar other surname.
  • PLEASANT: loved, positive, liked, good, worthy, nice; UNPLEASANT: hated, negative, disliked, bad, failure, awful.
• Easier someone finds it to pair self words with positive words vs. negative words → higher implicit self-esteem.

Question 9

Name-Letter Task (6)

Answer 9

• Based on finding that people generally show preference for own initials (and to a lesser extent other letters in one’s name).
  
  • And based on the mere ownership effect: The tendency to evaluate self-related objects more positively than self-unrelated objects.
• Judge all the letters of the alphabet (random order).
  
  • “How much do you like this letter?” or “How attractive do you find this letter?” measured on Likert scale (5-, 7-or 9-point).
• Compare ratings for initials (or all name letters) to ratings of other letters.
• More preference for own initials/name letters theoretically correlates with higher implicit self-esteem.

Question 10

Name-Liking Measure (9)

Answer 10

• Also based on idea that self-esteem extends to self-related words and objects, but uses whole name because words are encoded holistically (not a collection of individual letters);
  
  • Distinguishes between names that have the same letters (e.g. Ernie & Irene);
  • And easier to administer—single item: “How much do you like your full name (first and surname together), in total?”; 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much).
• Like your name → higher self-esteem.
• The Name-Letter-Task and Self-Esteem IAT scores are often uncorrelated, but Name-Liking Scores correlated with both, indicating that it may be a more global measure of implicit self-esteem.
• Also correlated with:
  
  • Explicit self-esteem, and this correlation is larger when Ps are under cognitive load;
  • Well-being measures (with or without controlling for explicit self-esteem).
• Unlike explicit measures, this is also unrelated to impression management.
• Conclusion: Probably the best implicit method to use.

Question 11

self-esteem profiles (6)

Answer 11

• High Self-Esteem
• Contingent Self-Esteem
• Non-Contingent Self-Esteem
• Low Self-Esteem
• Narcissism
• Defensive Self-Esteem

Question 12

high self-esteem (6)

Answer 12

• Greater sense of self-efficacy, belief in own control over life events (locus of control), higher emotional stability (lower neuroticism).
• Firmer belief in principles, feeling secure enough to defend them.
• Better able to trust own judgment and decisions, even if others do not support choices.
• Live more in the present, not worrying excessively about the past or future.
• Able to accept differences in ability without seeing self as inherently inferior (or superior).
• See self as interesting and valuable to others.

Question 13

contingent self-esteem (3)

Answer 13

• Self-esteem derived from external sources, such as what others say and one’s successes (or failures).
• Less stable and reliable.
• Associated with pursuing constant approval from others and avoiding activities where failure is possible (or likely).

Question 14

non-contingent self-esteem (1)

Answer 14

• Self-esteem that is based on a stable belief that one is inherently acceptable.

Question 15

low self-esteem (7)

Answer 15

• Lower sense of self-efficacy, belief in external control of life events (locus of control), lower emotional stability (higher neuroticism).
• Heavy self-criticism and dissatisfaction.
• Hypersensitivity to criticism from others resulting in chronic general defensiveness.
• Chronic indecision and exaggerated fear of mistakes and displeasing others.
• Dwelling on or exaggerating the magnitude of past mistakes.
• More envy and resentment when others succeed.
• More likely to see temporary setbacks as permanent.

Question 16

narcissism (5)

Answer 16

• Excessive or inflated sense of self-worth.
• Agree with statements such as: “If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place.”
• Overly self-focused, struggle with empathy.
• Hypersensitive to any insults (real or imagined); hate people who do not admire them, flatter those who do.
• Exaggerate achievements, persistent bragging, claim to be experts at many things.

Question 17

defensive self-esteem (1)

Answer 17

• Positive attitude on explicit measures of self-esteem, but negative attitude on implicit measures of self-esteem

Question 18

Haddock & Gebauer (2011) (9)

Answer 18

• Individuals with defensive self-esteem have low ISE and high ESE.
• Study 1: Participants saw six words in a circle, one of which was related to defensiveness.
  
  • Low in ISE and high in ESE —> likely to attend to defensiveness words.
• Study 2: Participants had attitudes towards nuclear power assessed (strength, extremity, ambivalence, and accessibility).
  
  • Low in ISE and high in ESE —> stronger attitudes, less ambivalence, and higher accessibility.
• Study 3: Participants were measured on self-esteem and self-ideal discrepancy.
  
  • Then completed a self-affirmation or control task.
  • Defensive self-esteem participants who self-affirmed —> lower self-ideal discrepancy scores.
  • Demonstrates how defensive self-esteem participants are most likely to benefit from self-affirmation.

Question 19

formation of attitudes about the self (3)

Answer 19

• Parenting & Attachment Theory
• Emotional Learning
• Cognitions About the Self

Question 20

parenting and attachment theory (4)

Answer 20

• Over the course of many interactions, children form expectations about the accessibility and helpfulness of caregivers.
• This, in turn, informs their working models about themselves and others.
  
  • Whether or not others can generally be relied upon to provide support and protection.
  • Whether or not the self is someone who people are likely to respond to in a helpful way.

Question 21

emotional learning (3)

Answer 21

• Evaluative Conditioning: Pairing the self with positive/negative stimuli.
  
  • Others (e.g. “You are so ______.”)
  • Self (e.g. “I am so ______.”)
• Behavioural Conditioning: Positive or negative responses to the self.
  
  • e.g. Others smiling when they see you.
• Results in positive or negative feelings about the self.

Question 22

cognitions about the self (4)

Answer 22

• self-concept: Our collection of beliefs about ourselves.
  
  • Made up of multiple self-schemas that are domain-specific.
  • self-schema: Cognitive structures that represent one’s qualities/abilities in a given domain with clarity and certainty.
• When need to know whether we are [some trait], or how good we are at [some activity], we refer to the relevant self-schema.

Question 23

models of self-knowledge (5)

Answer 23

• Exemplar Models
• Abstraction Models
• Mixed Exemplar-Abstraction Model
• Problem: When we make self-judgements, what’s the baseline.
  
  • Lead to the proposal of Social Comparison Theory and Self-Discrepancy Theory.

Question 24

exemplar models (2)

Answer 24

• Proposes that we have separate representations of our behaviours in various domains stored in memory.
• When we need to determine our ability in a given domain, we retrieve the relevant memories and construct the relevant self-schema.

Question 25

abstraction models (2)

Answer 25

• Proposes that we use individual behaviours to create summary representations of our traits and abilities in various domains.
• When we need to determine our ability in a given domain, we access the already created and stored self-schema.

Question 26

mixed exemplar-abstraction model or Klein et al. (1992) (4)

Answer 26

• Concluded that we use both exemplar-based and summary-based self-schemas.
• Initially, when our experience with a given domain is low, we have to create self-schemas based on relevant memories or behavioural exemplars.
• Over time, self-schemas becomes more permanently accessible without having to construct it each time it is needed.
  
  • Patients with impaired episodic memories can rate themselves on personality traits; these ratings are indistinguishable from self-ratings (when memory no longer impaired) or ratings made by close others (e.g. family members).

Question 27

social comparison theory or Festinger (1954) (5)

Answer 27

• We compare ourselves to others in pursuit of accurate self-evaluation.
  
  • Of course, there are outcomes of our comparisons, and often this has impacts on our self-esteem.
• Prefer comparison targets that are similar to us in other domains.
• If the other person is doing better → upward comparison.
• If the other person is doing worse → downward comparison.

Question 28

when upward comparisons have positive outcomes (3)

Answer 28

• When self-other overlap is high—called ”basking in reflected-glory” (BIRG); e.g. A parent and their child.
• When are seeking inspiration or motivation.
• When see outcome as attainable or likely.

Question 29

when making downward comparisons have negative outcomes (4)

Answer 29

• When self-other overlap is high (e.g. a teammate, romantic partners).
• When see that outcome as likely/possible for the self.
  
  • If you have low self-esteem, you might feel like the bad thing will happen to you.
  • Low perceived control; e.g. cancer patients.

Question 30

Morse & Gergen (1970) (8)

Answer 30

• Participants were applicants for a part-time job.
• Upon arrival, seated at a table to complete forms (including a self-esteem measure, part 1).
• Another applicant (confederate) arrives and is also seated at the table.
  
  • They were either well-groomed, wearing a suit and appearing self-confident and prepared (“Mr. Clean”);
  • Or was wearing dirty, ripped clothes appearing unprepared and confused (“Mr. Dirty”).
• Then completed more forms (including a self-esteem measure, part 2).
• Sitting with Mr. Clean → lower self-esteem (presumably because they made an upward comparison).
• Sitting with Mr. Dirty → higher self-esteem.

Question 31

Wheeler & Miyake (1992) (6)

Answer 31

• How many comparisons do people make in a day?
• For 2 weeks, participants reported on comparisons they made.
• Reported comparison direction and affective ratings after the comparison.
• Generally, people made more downward than upward comparisons.
• About 1 comparison per day (reported).
• On average: more negative affect after upward comparisons, and more positive affect after downward comparisons.

Question 32

Claire & Dr. Lockwood’s research (9)

Answer 32

• Participants view Facebook (or other social media) for X amount of minutes/posts.
• For each post: Did you make a comparison?
  
  • Pre-tested for trait self-esteem; post-tested for state self-esteem.
  • Participants looking at the 20 most recent posts in their Facebook or Instagram feeds tend to make the most upward comparisons.
• Current findings show that online upward comparisons are associated with:
  
  • Worse self-evaluations immediately afterwards;
  • Worse mood, state self-esteem, life satisfaction after the session.
• Importantly, this holds even when taking initial trait self-esteem into account.
• Future research: Does excessive social media use impact trait self-esteem?

Question 33

De Vries & Kühne (2015) (4)

Answer 33

• Making upward social comparisons on Facebook negatively impacts self-perception.
• Asked participants about:
  
  • Their tendency to make upward comparisons on Facebook.
  • Their self-perceived social competence, physical appearance.
• Making more upward comparisons on Facebook was associated with lower self-ratings of social competence, physical appearance.

Question 34

Aubrey (2006) (8)

Answer 34

• Participants were exposed to a series of magazines and TV shows that were rated externally as being highly sexually objectifying.
• Measured at two time points: self-objectification, appearance anxiety, body shame, thin-ideal internalization, BMI, and global self-esteem.
• College-aged women were exposed to sexually objectifying media at time 2.
• Time 1 body-shame predicted a decrease in Time-2 exposure to sexually objectifying media for women low in thin-ideal internalization.
• Women low in global self-esteem: exposure to sexually objectifying media predicted a decrease in trait self-objectification.
• Many measures correlated with a decrease in exposure to sexually objectifying media, suggesting that this is a self-defense mechanism.
• Thin-ideal media promotes a certain type of body ideal, which is more detrimental to the self-concept of women who don’t match that ideal.
  
  • Sexually objectifying media more broadly spotlights the body and appearance without necessarily promoting a thin ideal. Thus, women avoid this media content regardless of their BMI.

Question 35

self-discrepancy theory or Higgins (1987) (10)

Answer 35

• We don’t just compare ourselves to others; sometimes we compare ourselves to other possible selves.
  
  • Discrepancies from (or upward comparisons to) one’s ideal self (who we would like to be) → reward pursuit, or promotion focus mindset.
  • Discrepancies from (or upward comparisons to) one’s ought self (who we think others/society want us to be) → punishment avoidance, or prevention focus mindset.
• Individual differences on how motivated people are to achieve ideal vs. ought selves:
  
  • High extraversion → focus on achieving ideal self.
  • High neuroticism → focus on achieving ought self.
• Familial/cultural variation:
  
  • Some parents emphasize opinion of others, others becoming ideal self.
  • Independent vs. interdependent cultures.
• Regardless, people experience greater well-being when they are moving closer to the standard that is important to them.