Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology > Self-esteem > Flashcards

Self-esteem Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Self-esteem definition

A

Self-esteem is an attitude regarding oneself: It refers to an evaluation of oneself and of his or her personal worth (Crocker & Major, 1989)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Self-esteem vs self-concept

A

Self-concept:
- How you define and view yourself e.g. I am a procrastinator

Self-esteem:
- evaluative of yourself - how you feel about yourself e.g. I dislike being a procrastinator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Self-esteem and psychological equanimity

A

Self-esteem is linked to positive psychological adjustment (e.g. Baumeister et al, 2003)
Increased self-esteem has been associated with:
- reduced depression
- reduced anxiety
- increased happiness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Low SE

A
  • Less clear self-conceptions
  • Set unrealistic goals/shy away from goals
  • Remember past more negative/wallow in negative moods
  • Pessimistic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

High SE

A
  • Clear sense of self
  • Set appropriate goals
  • Savour past experiences/think positively
  • Optimistic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Historial perspectives on SE

A
  • During this time SE seemed to be the cause of everything
    -Schools therefore developed ways to increase SE and promote increased SE in an attempt to eradicate problems e.g. drinking, teen pregnancy
  • The self-esteem movement (1970/80s)
  • California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social
    Responsibility (1986)
  • Low self-esteem is the cause of individual and societal dysfunction, therefore high self-esteem is the cure to many societal problems
  • No evidence for an epidemic of low self-esteem in Western culture (Baumeister et al., 2003)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Evidence for SE and social problems (Baumeister et al., 2003)

A

Baumeister found there are links between SE and a range of social issues:

  • school performance, job performance, anti-social behaviour, unhealthy behaviours
  • However the links are weak and when links where found, there is the issue of causality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Is self-esteem a state and a trait?

A

There are lots of different ways we can define SE

  • Trait SE - typical, average evaluation of the self across time
  • State SE - moment-to-moment fluctuations in self evaluation
  • People can differ in whether they have high or low SE and although there are fluctuations - SE level over time tends to remain stable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Stable vs Unstable SE

A

Kernis (1993) claimed that individual self-esteem can differ in terms of stability
- The magnitude of fluctuations around general levels of self-esteem e.g. someone could experience more extreme highs and lows

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Global evaluations of the self

A

e. g. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965)

- “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Domain-specific evaluations of the self

A

e. g. appearance, academic competence, athletic ability

- “I generally think that I am good at my degree”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bottom-up approach to SE

A

Evaluative feedback > Domain specific self-esteem > Global SE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Top-down approach to SE

A

Global SE >
Evaluative feedback > Domain-specific SE
- Therefore we build up a sense of how we evaluate ourselves and this influences our SE
- Studies tend to suggest that it is how you see yourself in certain areas that influence a person’s behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Contingent/non-contingent (Crocker, 2002)

A

SE can be contingent or non-contingent - when we stake our self-worth in particular domains, our SE can become contingent upon success and failures we experience

  • The successes and failures we experience influence how we feel about ourselves and the basis of who we are
  • This can be dangerous as staking one’s self-worth on achieving can be detrimental
  • All SE can be contingent at some point however, basing your whole self-worth on belief on achieving can be negative
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Contingent Self-worth (Crocker, 2003)

A
  • Seven contingent domains of self-esteem: (Seven areas people can put contingent self-worth on) approval of others, appearance, competition, academic competence, family support, virtue, god’s love
  • People tend to have one of these areas where they show contingent self-worth
  • Domains in which people staked their self-worth predicted self-report activities of what they did that year at college e.g.,
  • Academic contingent self-worth spent more time studying
  • Appearance contingent self-worth spent more time partying, socialising, shopping, and grooming themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Threatened self-esteem

A
  • Because feelings of self-esteem are important, we often react when experiencing threats to our self- esteem
    ▪ Studies exploring responses to threatened self-esteem often include tests that provide false feedback on how well they did e.g.,
    ▪ Remotes Associates Test
    (RAT)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Threatened self-esteem example - students (Greenberg et al)

A
  • Students told they were going to take part in an intelligence test and told the results are predictive of future academic results
  • Participants randomly selected to succeed of fail
  • The results indicated that those who failed were much more likely to externalise failure e.g. criticising the clarity of the test instructions or suggesting the test isn’t fair/valid
  • Highlights that when our SE is threatened, we try to externalise the failure and diminish the importance of the information given
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Threatened self-esteem (vanDellen et al., 2011)

A
  • Meta-analysis of responses to threatened self-esteem
  • Depends on whether high v low in trait self-esteem

High self-esteem -More likely to show compensatory responses and blame others/external factors
» More likely to pick themselves up and persevere
» Externally attribute failure
» Positive self-evaluations
» Downward social comparisons
» Negative evaluations of evaluators
» Increased persistence/motivation

Low self-esteem - More likely to show breaking responses e.g. blaming themselves
» More likely to accept failure
» Less likely to improve for the future and therefore give up
» Internally attribute failure
» Negative self-evaluations
» Upward social comparisons&raquo_space; Positive evaluations of evaluators
» Decreased persistence/motivation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How does self-esteem function? - Self-verification model (Swann, 1987)

A

> > Suggests that we don’t like to be exposed to contradictory information - we prefer information that confirms our self-views

  • High trait SE - seek out positive information
  • Low trait SE - seek out negative information
20
Q

Self-Verification (Swann, 1992)

A

We can seek social contexts that provide self-verification information for one’s self-view (e.g., Swann et al., 1992)

  • Participants pre-tested for whether they had either positive vs negative self-view
  • Participants read two evaluations (favourable vs. unfavourable) of themselves written by two
    potential interaction partners
  • Asked to select who they would like to interact with and provide reasons for this judgment
  • Reasons for selecting this interaction were epistemic (e.g., confirmatory) and pragmatic (e.g., suitable expectation) in nature
21
Q

Swann (1992) self-verification findings

A

> Those with a more positive self view were more likely to pick more favourable people
Those with lower SE were more likely to pick (unfavourable person) someone who also does’t have positive things to say about them

22
Q

Self-enhancement model (Kunda, 1990)

A

– guided towards favourable information that confirm positive self-views, and can revise negative self-views
▪ High trait self-esteem – direct self-enhancement
▪ Low trait self-esteem – indirect self-enhancement
▪ Self-affirmation (Steele, 1988) - cope with threats by affirming our self-worth in unrelated aspects

23
Q

Self-affirmation: compensatory responses - Brown & Smart (1991)

A
  • PP’s with high self-esteem (HSE) and those with low self-esteem (LSE) first experienced success or failure at
    an alleged test of their intellectual ability.
  • They rated themselves on trait adjectives: Half of the items referred to social traits and attributes, the other half referred to achievement-related traits and attributes.
  • Those who failed led HSE PP’s to exaggerate the positivity of their social
    qualities
  • The reverse was true for LSE PP’s
24
Q

Self-affirmation: reducing defensiveness - Sherman et al (2000)

A
  • Self-affirming one’s self-worth in an alternative domain can reduce defensiveness to threat
  • In Study 1, female
    participants (high vs. low relevance) read an article linking caffeine consumption to breast cancer.
  • High-relevance women
    rejected the information more than did low-relevance women
  • Affirmed high-relevance women accepted the information and intended to change their behaviour accordingly
25
Q

Anticipated Failure - Pyszczynski & Greenberg (1983)

A

We are not just affected when SE is threatened, but when there is a potential for threat

  • Sometimes we feel failure is likely and therefore avoid it
  • Prior to a test - PP’s were either told that the test was not important so didn’t matter how well you do (low threat) or that it matters a lot (high threat)
  • The test was manipulated so some PP’s received a hard test (bigger chance of failure) or an easy test (less chance of failure)
  • Those who were told the test was important with drew effort when the test was difficult
  • Those in the group where the test was not important - put in equal effort whether the test was easy or hard
26
Q

Anticipated Failure (Crocker, 2006)

A

Whether success/failure matters to use depends on where we stake our self-esteem

  • Participants were provided with some sample questions (either hard or easy) to provide a cue to PP’s as to whether failure or success was likely
  • Those who see academic self-worth as important - withdrew effort in the hard condition to reduce the sting of failure
27
Q

Collective Self-esteem

A

Self-esteem may not just refer to personal evaluation of our self but also to our groups we belong to:

  • Collective Self-esteem
  • High collective SE predicts reactions to group success/failure (Crocker et al)
  • Cialdini et al - those with high collective self-esteem are happy to associate and celebrate the success of their group (We WON) HOWEVER
  • They are also likely to distance themselves from their group when the group fails (They lost)
28
Q

Is SE universal across cultures - NO

A
  • No, the need for self-esteem is a preoccupation with Western
    culture (Heine et al., 1999)
  • (Diener & Diener, 1995) - Survey of 13, 118 students across 31 nations
  • Correlation between self-esteem and life satisfaction stronger in individualistic cultures
29
Q

Is SE universal across cultures - YES

A

YES but what self-worth means and how it is attained can differ between collectivist and individualist cultures…
- Self-esteem measures biased towards individualistic conceptions of self-worth – e.g., “I am..”
▪ Individuals in collectivistic cultures strive for self-esteem by enhancing their collective value (Kashima et al., 2004)
▪ Japanese students – implicit self-esteem (Kityama & Karasawa, 1997)
▪ Bicultural Chinese participants completing survey in Chinese or English (Ross et al., 2002)
▪ Lower self-esteem and more collective self-statements in Chinese survey

30
Q

Role of culture in SE

A

Our cultures defines and tells us what it means to be a person of value
- Our culture provides social roles with associated standards of conduct that if we live up to can make us feel worthy

31
Q

Culture Definition

A
  • socially constructed, and consensually validated, set of norms, beliefs, assumptions and
    values
32
Q

Pursuit of SE can be costly

A

“self-esteem is the greatest sickness known to man or woman” Albert Ellis
- Our pursuit of self-esteem can have destructive consequences, and can be costly to the pursuit of other needs and goals

33
Q

Costly pursuit of SE on autonomy

A

Autonomy – feeling that one is the origin of their own behaviour
▪ Self-esteem can sacrifice autonomy – not doing it for our own sake, but for the approval of others/experience positive emotions
▪ Report feeling more pressured and struggle to make decisions
▪ Experiencing failure leads to lower levels of intrinsic motivation

34
Q

Contingent SE of others

A

> > People’s pursuit of high SE can have positive short-term effects - but can have long-term negative effects
If our SE is contingent on others values and the validation of others - this can be detrimental
This can prevent people making decisions for themselves as they only act for external validation not because they truly want to

35
Q

Costly pursuit of SE on Competence

A

Competence – the ability and willingness to learn and grow from experiences
▪ Self-esteem can sacrifice competence – mistakes, failure, criticism become threats rather opportunities for improvement
▪ Set easy, self-validating, goals - easily obtained goals makes us feel good but doesn’t push someone to be better and improve
▪ Externalise failure - people cannot accept the information and therefore cannot improve
▪ Withdraw effort/self-handicap
▪ Show little persistence with tasks

36
Q

(Crocker & Park, 2004; Crocker et al., 2006) - costly pursuit of SE

A

Pursuit of self-esteem can impede other needs for competence, relatedness, autonomy, and good physical health

37
Q

Costly pursuit of SE on Relatedness

A

Relatedness – feelings of closeness, and mutual, supportive relationships
▪ Self-esteem can sacrifice good relatedness – become self-absorbed
▪ Experiencing self-esteem threat can lead to defensive reactions that result in isolation or disconnection from others
▪ Those who fail are often perceived to be less caring, supportive and pre- occupied with self

38
Q

Costly pursuit of SE on Good physical health

A

Good physical health – low levels of stress, anxiety, and engagement in healthy behaviours
▪ Self-esteem can sacrifice good physical health
▪ Can engage in smoking, excessive drinking, drug use
etc. in pursuit of self-esteem (some might think these harmful behaviours are cool > increased negative behaviours > increased SE > negative for health)
▪ Can experience high levels of stress in areas we invest self-worth in - People strive for unrealistic beauty standards and compromise their health in the wake

39
Q

Why do we need self-esteem?

A

Widely accepted that people have a need for self-esteem but why do we need it?
1. Self-esteem for its own sake (James, 1890; Steele, 1988)

  1. Manage existential-based concerns (Greenberg et al., 1986)
  2. Manage our inclusiveness (Leary & Baumeister, 2000)
40
Q
  1. Self-esteem for its own sake
A

> This argues that humans strive for self-esteem because it exists and therefore it is a necessity
Suggests that it is in our DNA to seek SE and therefore we are hardwired to achieve it
Although this theory doesn’t explain why this is the case - why do we strive for SE

41
Q
  1. Manage existential-based concerns - Terror Management Theory (Greenberg 1986)
A

TMT (Greenberg 1986) – humans have an awareness of the inevitability of death provides potential for existential terror

  • This theory explains why people might engage in hazardous behaviours to increase their SE
  • We realise that death is inevitable and therefore, we behave in a way that means life is worth while
  • Elevated self-esteem reduces anxiety in the face of death- related stimuli (Greenberg et al., 1992)
  • Reminders of death increase self-esteem striving in various domains (Pyszczynski et al., 2004)
42
Q
  1. Manage our inclusiveness - Sociometer Theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000)
A

Sociometer Theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) - self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor
- Evolutionary - humans are more likely to survive in a group
- SE has developed as a way of managing inclusivity - we feel good when we are included
> hence SE is threatened when we are excluded > Social exclusion affects state self-esteem (Leary et al., 1995)
» Provides a basis for why we need SE however when someone’s SE in threatened
this can actually decrease the likely chance of them being included

43
Q

Can we abandon our need for self-esteem?

A

According to (Rogers, 1959) we should instil in children unconditional self-worth
▪ Develop implicit, intrinsic, non-contingent bases of self
worth
» We should try and make children feel valuable not for the things they achieve
but just because of who they are
- However we cannot abandon SE completely as we would have no motivation to get up and live full-filling lives
- The need for self-esteem may serve more basic psychological needs
- Self-esteem cannot be abandoned or wholly unconditional. It must be based on meeting consensually validated, standards of conduct (Greenberg, 2008)
▪ Bases of self-worth should be realistic, flexible and widely attainable.

44
Q

Improving the future - Abandon dysfunctional contingencies (Crocker & Park, 2004)

A

> > Issues with contingency as basing your self worth on others approval is
detrimental - better to base self worth on being a virtuous person

45
Q

Beyond SE - is SE the only motive of our behaviour?

A
  • Meaning
  • Uncertainty
  • Belonging
  • Distinctiveness
  • Continuity
  • Self-Efficacy

Social Psychology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions