333 midterm 2 Flashcards
Who was John Vasconcellos, and how did he influence the self-esteem movement?
- A California politician who met Carl Rogers and was inspired by unconditional positive regard.
- Became convinced that self-esteem was the key to solving societal problems.
- Developed an expensive task force to “Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility”
What was Vasconcellos’ conclusion based on his task force about self-esteem and social problems?
- High self-esteem correlated with: Happiness, productivity, success, and even state budgets.
- Low self-esteem correlated with: Crime, teen pregnancy, pollution.
- Claim: Self-esteem causes these outcomes (not just correlates).
How did the self-esteem movement influence culture?
- Schools and programs prioritized boosting self-esteem over actual skill development.
- Popular media (e.g., Calvin and Hobbes) criticized the idea of self-esteem as a cure-all.
What are the methodological issues in measuring self-esteem?
- Different scales may not measure the same construct.
- This construct is difficult to define
- Studies often fail to define which type of self-esteem they are measuring (the report didn’t state which type of SE they were measuring)
- Individual differences in SE relate to interpersonal strategies
Defining self-esteem according to William James
- Self-esteem is the ratio of Success / Pretensions
- pretensions are personal standards and judgments for evaluating success
- we can increase this ratio by increasing the numerator (successes) or decreasing the denominator (pretensions)
What are the different types of self-esteem?
- Trait self-esteem: Stable, long-term self-evaluation (High trait SE: Confident, assertive, seeks attention. Low trait SE: Defensive, avoids standing out, rejection-sensitive.)
- State self-esteem: Temporary, fluctuates based on situation.
- Global self-esteem: Overall sense of self-worth.
- Specific self-esteem: Self-evaluation in specific areas (e.g., academic, athletic).
- Implicit self-esteem: Unconscious self-evaluation.
- Explicit self-esteem: Conscious self-evaluation.
How does self-esteem change over a lifetime?
- Before age 8: Self-esteem is generally high.
- Adolescence: Declines due to self-concept instability.
- Adulthood: Peaks around 60, then declines after 70. (Why? Social role changes like retirement, loss of loved ones)
What predicts self-esteem in adulthood according to the longitudinal study by Orth et al.?
- Quality of home environment at age 8 predicts self-esteem at age 27.
- Factors involved in quality of home environment: Parental support, cognitive stimulation, physical environment.
Is self-esteem an antecedent or an outcome of success?
- High self-esteem does not reliably predict:
- Physical attractiveness (only self-perceived attractiveness).
- Academic success (grades improve self-esteem, not vice versa).
- Job performance (weak correlation).
- Social success (high SE people can be socially dominant but also overconfident).
- Only strong effect: High self-esteem predicts social initiative (willingness to speak up and engage).
What are the main theories explaining the function of self-esteem?
- Self-Verification Theory: People seek feedback that confirms their self-view, even if negative (not widely supported)
- Dominance Theory: Self-esteem signals status and dominance (not everyone uses SE in this way)
- Terror Management Theory: Self-esteem acts as a buffer against fear of death (a distraction)
- Sociometer Theory (most supported)
Explain sociometer theory in relation to SE.
- SE monitors social inclusion, so is a measure of our ‘relational value’
- SE isn’t a need, but the output of a system that monitors and responds to events through acceptance or rejection (how well are we doing?)
- sociometer sensitivity: when people receive netural or negative feedback, SE stays low, but getting better feedback improves SE (only up to a plateau)
- social influence: it’s rare for people to be immune to social influence (SE is likely to be impacted by rejection/acceptance)
- trait self-esteem is correlated with people’s perceptions of the degree to which they are valued, accepted, supported by others
Study: Does acceptance and rejection impact state SE?
- Method: participants in groups of 5 wrote self-descriptions which were given to other participants, then received bogus feedback about whether they were selected to work with others or alone (told that this was either (1) random or (2) based on preferences of others)
- results: not being chosen for group work significantly lowered state SE (no effect for random exclusion)
establishing directionality in claims made about SE
- claim: high SE makes people physically attractive (not accurate)
- no significant correlation between ratings of attractiveness and self-esteem, but self-reported physical attractiveness was strongly related to self-esteem
- claim: high SE leads to improved academic performance (not accurate)
- doing well in school = higher SE the next year, but high SE doesn’t result in good performance the next year
- claim: high SE improves job performance (not accurate)
- weak positive correlations between job performance and SE (if high SE consistently improved performance in lab tasks, this would be easy to demonstrate)
- claim: high SE results in social success (fail to objectively demonstrate this)
- high SE people can be jerks in social situations (not seeing feedback) which erodes social skills BUT high SE predicts speaking up and taking social initiative (tendency to initiate interpersonal contact)
- SE not the antecedent to most adaptive outcomes (except initiative)
- directional issues (SE being caused by other antecedents) and weak correlations
- motivational factor: high SE = more persistent in the face of failure
What is the relationship between self-esteem and aggression?
- Early theory: Low SE = aggression.
- New evidence: High (but unstable) SE is linked to aggression.
- Low SE people are not likely to take risks or stand out given their interpersonal strategies of not speaking up, initiate, or risk rejection
- Why? Threats to ego trigger hostility.
How does high self-esteem relate to violent behavior?
- Criminals, dictators, and serial killers often report high SE.
- Unstable SE predicts violent offences (ego-threats = aggression).
- Men (higher SE) tend to be more violent than women.
- Depressed individuals (low SE) are less violent than controls.
- Inflated favourable self-views = antisocial behaviour (lack of regard for others and unmitigated agency)
How does self-esteem relate to narcissism?
- Narcissism = extreme need for high SE (sense of entitlement and grandiosity pursued by achieving power and status)
- Grandiose narcissism → High explicit SE, no link to implicit SE.
- Vulnerable narcissism → Low explicit SE, no link to implicit SE (no evidence of the “inner hatred” hypothesis)
- Often linked to social problems via unmitigated agency: High SE people may pursue power at any cost (manipulation, lack of empathy).
How does high self-esteem predict both prosocial and antisocial behaviors?
- High SE predicts both:
Bullying & defending against bullies. - Cheating & moral integrity.
- Conclusion: SE amplifies existing personality traits (intensifying both prosocial and antisocial tendencies)
is it the quantity of SE that matters or where you get your SE from?
Contingencies of self-worth: people tie SE to success in specific domains (where they stake their self-worth) like academic, relational, physical (external things that they don’t always have control over)
What is the motivational trade-off in contingent SE?
- increased drive but higher emotional vulnerability (you’re more motivated to do well, but if you fail, you get a worse reaction)
- focus on ‘proving oneself’ (external validation) can undermine learning and relationships
Contingencies of self-worth in academic success and adolescents
- more fluctuations in SE when people stake their self-worth in academic success, but they don’t necessarily do better in school
- adolescents more vulnerable to this: self-report on the extent of their self-worth across four domains = higher reliance on external validation predicts future depressive symptoms
- diathesis of social domain contingencies + social stressors predicting depressive symptoms (care a lot about social world, then failure = depression)
What are the conclusions regarding the Dark Side of SE?
- high SE seems to enhance our social tendencies (both prosocial and antisocial)
- SE tied to specific domains relates to fluctuations and vulnerability to stressors
- SE enhancement programs may not be having beneficial effects
Researcher bias in Vasconcellos report
- Vasconcellos had his political career tied to his theory of SE
- task force seemed aware of how muddy their findings were, but still reported positive effects (and then also contradicted themselves)
- Vasconcellos indirect pressure—got a very large budget for his task force and everyone was expecting good results
- data in the study was misinterpreted and exaggerated to fit researcher expectations
According to Baumeister’s review, what are the benefits and limits of high SE?
- Benefits: Increases initiative (confidence to take action), Improves mood (people feel better about themselves).
- Limits: No clear link to success (often an outcome, not a cause), Potential link to aggression (when high SE is unstable).
What distinguishes stable vs. fragile self-esteem?
- Stable SE: Consistent, independent of external validation.
- Fragile SE: Fluctuates, easily threatened by ego threats, attached to contingent domains (can be high SE)