Self Esteem Flashcards
Definition
Self esteem is an attitude regarding one self . It refers to an evaluation of the self and their personal worth/value
Evaluation is key as it distinguished itself from self concept and efficacy
Narcissism?
both refer to positive self evaluation
Narcissism and self esteem have similarities they are very different as high esteem ≠ narcissism. Measures of esteem do not distinguish this.
Self esteem considered the feelings of adequacy or good enough whereas narcissism view themselves as superior
Narcissism (Campbell evidence)
Narcissism and self esteem measures actually are weakly correlated (Campbell, 2002)
Wellbeing (evidence)
Esteem correlates to well being
Depression r = -.20-.70
Anxiety r = -.10 - -.70
Happiness r = .30 - .60
Low esteem links
Low self esteem links to less clear self conceptions, set themselves unrealistic goals, remember past negatively, pessimistic.
History (70,80)
70/80s esteem movement; low self esteem causes individual/societal dysfunction; high esteem is the “cure”
History (Baumeister)
Baumeister 2003; evidence is weak, low r and issues of causality, no evidence of an epidemic of low esteem
What is self esteem?
Self esteem is both a state and a trait
Trait esteem
is a typical evaluation of yourself across time
State esteem
is a moment to moment fluctuations of self eval.
Measuring self esteem
Rosenberg Scale 1965; measures explicitly adequacy as well as measuring how they feel in current moments and not the past
Threat on esteem
Research results and problems
Serves as evidence that esteem can fluctuate; often psychologists use students, this is a problem for research as it could base their esteem on intelligence, not as generalisable etc.
Threat on esteem (Method)
in this specific study they measured esteem at 3 time points;
baseline T1
Informed about upcoming difficult exam T2
Receiving grades on exam T3
There was a dip in T2 from T1. T3 varied a lot due to varying results
Manipulate esteem
Fake test
How can we manipulate esteem? Difficulty of the test? RAT; provide outcomes that will temporarily affect their esteem, in other words rig it.
“You will be shown three words and you have to find the fourth word that relates to the other 3
Soap shoe tissue ?
(Investigator mentions this is an easy question when in reality… it’s hard)
? = box”
Fake scores manipulate esteem
False feedback is another manipulated method for esteem
Fake IQ tests
Responses to esteem threat
Response to scores
Provided fake scores
Those given better scores recorded better esteem in locus of control, view on test, importance of scores, effort put in, abilities.
Meta analysis of responses and reason
Two major responses; compensating & breaking
Compensating reaction
minimisation, rejection, externalising reasons, downward comparison to lower scores, negative eval of others. More common in high esteem ppl
Breaking reactions
acceptance of threat, put themselves down, internal locus of control , positive evaluation of others, more common in low esteem ppl
More healthy as they realise it’s in their control to fix
Anticipation of threat
Responses occur when we sense potential esteem threat
Anticipation of threat
Predictive validity
False info about test predictive validity: weak (no threat) v Strong (threat)
(EG someone said high scorers are more likely to be wealthy and you score low, you think ur a bum)
Anticipated threat
Sample Qs
Sample questions: easy (success likely) or hard (failure likely)
Anticipated threat
Self handicapping
any strat you think of to put obstacles in the way of preparing in order to make yourself feel better about preemptive failure
Anticipated effort evidence Greenberg
Intended effort has shown to link to perceived likeliness of success
Ways of referring to Self esteem
Global evaluations ; Rosenberg
Domain specific eval; appearance, academic competence, athletic ability
Contingent self esteem crocker 2002
Everyone stakes their worth on different things and we look to one domain; our esteem is contingent in those demains we stake in
Socialised contingency
Is contingency a process of socialisation and things you learn as a child (parents force academic process)
Praise/reward or disciplinary consequences to esteem
Contingency study
Surveyed 1418 ppl, 7 domains; approval of others, appearance, competition, academic, familial, virtue, god connection
found nearly all participant had a domain esteem was dependent on and the area people valued they also spent more time on.
Contingency Graph Sommers 2002
further reinforced by Sommers 2002 contingency dependent esteem graphs; baseline similar to rejection and acceptance in non contingent study and big impact on contingent studies
Self verification (Swann 1987)
prefer information that confirms self view
Partner preference for interaction (Swann et al 1992)
Low esteem preferred people with low views of them and vice versa for High esteem.
Self enhancement approach (kunda 1990)
Motive to develop an esteem and maintain it; avoid things that take and approach things that maintain or provide
Self enhancement direct and indirect (kunda 1990)
high esteem go to seek and are comfiendent they can do that, low esteem look for indirect enhancements by being close to people who are close to them and therefore raise their image.
Self affirmation Steele 1988
& fluid compensation Brown 1991.
When we see threat we try to alieviate it by affirming ourselves in domains that haven’t been threatened. Fluid compensations (brown 1991) people who fail tests inflate their evaluation in other results or even in other concepts of life like social.
Cross culture
Culturally bound (Heine et Al 1999) Some people argue that this is a western civilisation concept and socialised to internal western attributes
Self esteem marked lower in non western cultures.
The more people from japan were exposed to western cultures the more self esteem began to be a concept that was prevelant
Cross culture Heine criticism (support for it being universal)
Self esteem is universal but how it’s attained differs from culture to culture; that could be a good explanation for Heines results as he is using Rosenbergs study, a western study. Explains why those who were exposed to western society appealed more to that study.
Explicit & implicit self esteem measures
Explicit and implicit self esteem measures differ (Kityama 1997)
An example of an implicit one is the initials test.
Contingency works cross culture
Contingent self esteem works cross culture too as we have esteem based on behaviours and goals that cultures promote; Asian cultures may look for those who go into medical professions more than western cultures and some may respect some sports, some may not.
Debate
“Self esteem is the greatest sickness known to man” Albert Ellis
The point of this is that our pursuit of self esteem
Can be self destructive, have consequences and can be costly to the pursuit of other needs and goals.
Autonomy of self esteem
sometimes self esteem isn’t for own purpose but to please others
Competence
Mistakes, failure, criticism become threats rather than opportunities for growth
Competence
Mistakes, failure, criticism become threats rather than opportunities for growth
Relatedness
Can lead to defensiveness and distancing as well as being too self absorbed
Good physical health
stress from obtaining esteem can lead to vices in order to cut corners, think steroids and doping in sports
Unconditional self esteem?
people say we should be looking for this and being yourself is enough. Anything else is bonus.
Some people believe this would be pathological and not adaptive as no one would push themselves
Self esteem never can be entirely unconditional (Greenberg 2008)
Bases of self worth instead should be realistic, flexible, attainable, etc
Values of female beauty standards are unrealistic, therefore have been unhealthy for ages.
A solution?
Abandon unhealthy contingencies!
