Self: self esteem

• Self-esteem is the panacea of modern life. It is seen as the key to financial success, health,
and personal fulfillment, and it is regarded as the antidote to underachievement, crime,
and drug abuse
• Self-esteem is also popular in academic circles. In the fields of personality and social
psychology, it has been implicated in models of conformity , attraction , persuasion ,
cognitive dissonance , subjective well-being, and social comparison processes , just to
name a few.

• The widespread appeal of self-esteem attests to its importance, but this popularity has
had an undesirable consequence.
• Self-esteem is currently spread so thin that it is difficult to know just what it is.
• It is used as a predictor variable (some researchers study whether high self-esteem people
think, feel, and behave differently than low self-esteem people), an outcome variable
(some researchers study how various experiences affect the way people feel about
themselves), and a mediating variable (the need for high self-esteem is presumed to
motivate a wide variety of psychological processes).
• In short, self-esteem has become a protean concept—so capable of changing form that
its value is in risk of being undermined

Self-esteem is part of everyday language, and at an intuitive level, everyone seems to

know what self-esteem “is.” It may surprise you then to know that there is less than
perfect agreement within the psychological literature. Part of the problem is that the
term is used in three different ways.
Three Meanings of Self-Esteem
Global Self-Esteem
• Most often, the term “self-esteem” is used to refer to a personality variable that captures
the way people generally feel about themselves.
• Researchers call this form of self esteem global self-esteem or trait self-esteem, as it is
relatively enduring, both across time and situations.
• Attempts to define self-esteem have ranged from an emphasis on primitive libidinal
impulses , to the perception that one is a valuable member of a meaningful universe
• I take a decidedly less exotic approach and define self-esteem in terms of feelings of
affection for oneself
 • Within normal populations, high self-esteem is characterized by a general fondness or
love for oneself; low self-esteem is characterized by mildly positive or ambivalent feelings
toward oneself.
• In extreme cases, low self-esteem people hate themselves, but this kind of self-loathing
occurs in clinical populations, not in normal populations

Self-Evaluations
• The term self-esteem is also used to refer to the way people evaluate their various
abilities and attributes.
• For example, a person who doubts his ability in school is sometimes said to have low
academic self-esteem, and a person who thinks she is popular and well liked is said to
have high social self- esteem.
• In a similar vein, people speak of having high self-esteem at work or low self-esteem in
sports.
• The terms self-confidence and self efficacy have also been used to refer to these beliefs,
and many people equate self confidence with self-esteem.
• I prefer to call these beliefs self-evaluations or self-appraisals, as they refer to the way
people evaluate or appraise their abilities and personality characteristics.
• Self-esteem and self-evaluations are related—people with high self-esteem think they
have many more positive qualities than do people with low self- esteem—but they are
not the same thing.
• A person who lacks confidence in school might still like himself a lot. Conversely, a person
who thinks she is attractive and popular might not feel good about herself at all.
Unfortunately, psychologists don’t always make this distinction, often using the terms
self- esteem and self-evaluations interchangeably.
• The causal association between self-esteem and self-evaluations is also unclear.
• Cognitive models of self-esteem assume a bottom-up process. They assume that positive
evaluations of self in particular domains give rise to high self-esteem.
• I call this a bottom-up process because it assumes that global self-esteem is built up from
these more specific evaluations.
• Affective models of self-esteem assume a top-down process
• These models assume that the causal arrow goes from global self-esteem to specific self
evaluations: Liking oneself in a general way leads people to believe they have many
positive qualities.

Feelings of Self-Worth
• Finally, the term self-esteem is used to refer to rather momentary emotional states,
particularly those that arise from a positive or negative outcome.
 • This is what people mean when they speak of experiences that bolster their self-esteem or
threaten their self-esteem.
• For example, a person might say her self-esteem was sky-high after getting a big
promotion, or a person might say his self-esteem was really low after a divorce.
• Following William James (1890), we will refer to these emotions as self-feelings or as
feelings of selfworth.
• Feeling proud or pleased with ourselves (on the positive side), or humiliated and ashamed
of ourselves (on the negative side) are examples of what we mean by feelings of self-
worth.
• Because they involve feelings toward oneself, some researchers use the term state
selfesteem to refer to the emotions we are calling feelings of self-worth, and trait self-
esteem to refer to the way people generally feel about themselves.
• These terms connote an equivalency between the two phenomena, implying that the
essential difference is simply that global self-esteem is persistent, while feelings of self-
worth are temporary.
• The trait–state assumption has important consequences.
• First, it suggests that feeling proud of oneself is akin to having high self-esteem and that
feeling ashamed of oneself is akin to having low self-esteem.
• This, in turn, leads investigators to assume that an analogue of high self-esteem or low
self-esteem can be created by temporarily leading people to feel good or bad about
themselves
• This is typically accomplished by giving people positive or negative self-relevant feedback
(e.g., telling people they are high or low in some ability). Other researchers disagree with
this approach, arguing that these manipulations do not provide a suitable analogue of
high self-esteem or low self- esteem
• One more point about feelings of self-worth. Several times in this book we have spoken
of a basic human need to feel good about ourselves. Within psychology, this is called the
self-enhancement motive. This term refers to the fact that people are motivated to have
high feelings of self-worth. People want to feel proud of themselves rather than ashamed
of themselves. They strive to maximize and protect their feelings of self-worth. The way
people go about trying to meet this need differs across time, cultures, and subcultures,
but the need is universal.

The Nature and Origins of Self-Esteem

Having defined our terms and discussed ways to measure self-esteem, let’s look more closely
at the nature of self-esteem. What aspects make up high self-esteem? And where does high
self-esteem come from? Several different models have been developed to address these
questions
Affective Models of Self-Esteem:
1. Two Components of Self-Esteem
• Feelings of Belonging:
◦ Rooted in social experiences.
◦ Represents the feeling of being unconditionally loved and valued for who one is, not
for specific qualities or achievements.
◦ Provides a secure base, instilling a sense of being valued regardless of circumstances.
◦ Linked to Carl Rogers' concept of unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1951; Rogers
& Dymond, 1954).
◦ Different from reflected appraisals, which are conscious perceptions of how others
view us.
• Feelings of Mastery:
◦ More personal in nature.
◦ Involves the perception of having an impact on one's environment or overcoming
obstacles.
◦ Not dependent on perceived competence or accomplishments.
◦ Emphasizes the joy and immersion in activities (e.g., a child making mud pies).
◦ Process-oriented and not outcome-oriented (evaluation of skill).
2. The Development of Self-Esteem
Early Development:
• Erik Erikson’s Stages of Development:
◦ Trust vs. Mistrust (Infancy):
▪ Establishing feelings of trust with caregivers correlates with feelings of belonging.
◦ Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (Early Childhood):
▪ Developing feelings of mastery through exploration and creativity.
▪ Success is influenced by supportive vs. critical parental behavior (Stipek, Recchia, &
McClintic, 1992).
3. Attachment Bonds and Self-Esteem
Attachment Theory (John Bowlby, 1969):
• Function of Attachment Bonds:
◦ Secure attachment provides a safe base for exploration and fosters a sense of mastery.
◦ Involves an emotional bond with the caregiver that facilitates exploration and security.
• Strange Situation Procedure (Ainsworth et al., 1978):
◦ Secure Attachment:
▪ Balance between closeness and independence.
▪ Willing to explore and distressed but comforted upon reunion with the mother.
◦ Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment:
 ▪ Difficulty separating, high distress upon separation, and clinginess upon reunion.
◦ Avoidant Attachment:
▪ Little distress upon separation and indifference upon reunion.
• Impact on Self-Esteem:
◦ Securely attached children typically exhibit both strong feelings of belonging and
mastery.
◦ Insecure attachment styles (anxious/ambivalent and avoidant) are linked to lower self-
esteem.
◦ Secure attachment correlates with higher self-esteem in later life (Cassidy, 1990;
Sroufe, 1983; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
• Internal Working Model (Bowlby, 1973):
◦ Cognitive representation of attachment relationships.
◦ Secure attachment fosters beliefs of being worthy of love; insecure attachment fosters
beliefs of being unworthy.
4. Summary
Key Points:
• Components of High Self-Esteem:
◦ Unconditional feelings of belonging and a sense of mastery.
• Early Life Influence:
◦ Early parent-child interactions lay the foundation for self-esteem.
◦ Later experiences are viewed through the established schema from early experiences.
• Persistence of Self-Esteem:
◦ Self-esteem tends to persist due to its influence on perception and interpretation of
experiences.
◦ Changes in self-esteem are difficult and often occur at a preconscious level

Cognitive Models of Self-Esteem

Cognitive models offer a different perspective on the nature and origins of self esteem. They
view self-esteem as a more or less conscious decision people make regarding their worth as a
person. If you think you possess many socially desirable qualities, then you will have high self-
esteem. In terms of the three meanings of self-esteem we discussed earlier, cognitive models
emphasize that how we evaluate ourselves in various domains determines our overall level of
self-esteem.

1.Three Cognitive Models of Self-Esteem Formation

a. Add-'Em-Up Model
• Concept: Self-esteem is the aggregate of evaluations across various domains (e.g.,
attractiveness, intelligence, likability, athleticism).
• Method: Sum individual domain evaluations to determine overall self-esteem.
• Example:
◦ Person A: Attractive (6), Intelligent (3), Well liked (5), Athletic (7)
◦ Person B: Attractive (3), Intelligent (6), Well liked (4), Athletic (2)
◦ Predicted Result: Person A has higher self-esteem.
• Problem: Does not account for the varying importance of different attributes to different
people.
b. Weight-'Em-By-Importance Model
• Concept: Self-esteem is influenced by the evaluations of attributes that are most
important to the individual.
• Method: Multiply each attribute rating by its importance rating and sum the products.
• Example:
◦ Person A values athleticism more but is less good at it.
◦ Person B values intelligence highly and is good at it.
◦ Predicted Result: Person B may have higher self-esteem if intelligence is more
important to them than athleticism is to Person A.
• Research Findings: This model has not consistently shown strong support; it may be due
to people generally valuing all attributes or societal norms influencing perceived
importance.
c. Self-Ideal Discrepancy Model
• Concept: Self-esteem is influenced by the discrepancy between one's current self-image
and their ideal self-image.
• Method: Subtract ideal self-ratings from current self-evaluations.
• Example:
◦ Person A is a perfectionist with high self-evaluations but has high discrepancies
between self-image and ideal self.
◦ Person B is less demanding of themselves, so they experience less discrepancy.
◦ Predicted Result: Person A may have lower self-esteem due to high self-ideal
discrepancies; Person B may have higher self-esteem.
• Research Findings: Support for this model exists, but methodological issues with
difference scores complicate interpretation.
2. Self-Esteem and Self-Evaluations
• High vs. Low Self-Esteem Individuals:
◦ High Self-Esteem: Generally rates themselves more positively across a wide range of
traits and attributes.
 ◦ Low Self-Esteem: Rates themselves more positively than others but less so than high
self-esteem individuals.
• Self-Evaluation Comparison:
◦ High self-esteem individuals view themselves as better than average.
◦ Low self-esteem individuals have positive self-evaluations but are less exaggerated in
their self-perception.
3. Self-Esteem and Certainty of Self-Knowledge
• High Self-Esteem:
◦ More stable and clearly defined self-views.
◦ Less variability in self-evaluations from day to day.
◦ More confidence in self-assessments and quicker decision-making regarding
attributes.
• Low Self-Esteem:
◦ Greater fluctuations in self-evaluations.
◦ Longer decision times regarding self-attributes.
◦ Less certainty about self-attributes.
◦ Greater likelihood of accepting self-discrepant feedback.

Sociological Models of Self-Esteem

1. Foundational Theories
• Cooley's "Looking-Glass Self" (1902): Suggests that self-esteem is derived from how
others perceive us. We form self-concepts based on how we think others see us.
• Mead's Perspective-Taking and Generalized Other (1934): Proposes that self-esteem is
influenced by the way we perceive societal expectations and norms, as well as the
generalized other (a composite of societal attitudes).
2. Societal Influences on Self-Esteem
• Societal Factors: Occupational prestige, income, education, and social status (e.g., race,
religion, gender) are considered to impact self-esteem.
• Evidence: The connection between societal advantages (e.g., high income, education) and
higher self-esteem is weak. Individuals from stigmatized or minority groups sometimes
report higher self-esteem than those from more privileged groups (Crocker & Major,
1989; Wylie, 1979).
3. Group Pride and Self-Esteem
• Group Pride: Social movements like Black pride and Gay pride encourage individuals to
view their minority status positively, potentially enhancing self-esteem.
• Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986): Self-esteem is influenced by how
individuals evaluate their social groups. Positive evaluations of one's social group
contribute to higher self-esteem.
• Collective Self-Esteem: Crocker and colleagues (1995) found a positive correlation
between personal self-esteem and collective self-esteem, indicating that people who view
their social groups positively tend to have higher personal self-esteem.
4. Coping Mechanisms for Socially Disadvantaged Groups
• Attribution to Prejudice: Socially disadvantaged groups may attribute negative feedback
to prejudice rather than personal shortcomings.
• Selective Comparison: Individuals from disadvantaged groups may compare themselves
with others within their group rather than with members of more privileged groups.
• Devaluation and Exaggeration: Disadvantaged groups may devalue attributes where
they are less competitive and emphasize attributes where they excel (Crocker & Major,
1989).
• Study Example: Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, and Major (1991) demonstrated that African-
American students' self-esteem was unaffected by negative feedback when they believed
the feedback was due to their race rather than their personal qualities.
5. Sex Differences in Self-Esteem
• General Findings: Research does not consistently show that women have lower global
self-esteem than men (Feingold, 1994; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Wylie, 1979).
• Attribute Evaluation: Men and women differ in evaluating specific attributes. Women
rate themselves higher on kindness, while men rate themselves higher on athleticism.
• Cultural Stereotypes: Differences in self-esteem across genders often reflect cultural
stereotypes. Women may emphasize interpersonal qualities, while men emphasize
achievements and competence.
6. Terror Management Theory
• Foundation: Based on Ernest Becker's work (1973), which posits that human awareness of
mortality creates existential anxiety.
• Cultural Worldviews: Cultures provide frameworks that offer meaning, value, and a
sense of immortality. Self-esteem develops when individuals believe they meet the
cultural standards and ideals.
• Theory Summary: Self-esteem is a product of cultural beliefs and the perception that
one is living up to cultural values (Solomon et al., 1991).
Key Points
• Sociological models emphasize the role of societal and cultural factors in shaping self-
esteem.
• The relationship between societal advantages and self-esteem is complex and not always
straightforward.
• Group pride and social identity play significant roles in how self-esteem is maintained or
enhanced, particularly in disadvantaged groups.
• Gender differences in self-esteem are influenced by cultural expectations and stereotypes.
• Terror Management Theory integrates sociological perspectives with psychological needs,
highlighting the role of cultural worldviews in self-esteem.

Self-Esteem and Responses to Evaluative Feedback

Impact of Self-Esteem on Responses to Feedback
• General Findings:
◦ Positive Feedback: Self-esteem has little effect on how people respond to positive
feedback. Most individuals feel good when they succeed.
◦ Negative Feedback: Self-esteem plays a significant role when individuals confront
negative outcomes, such as failure, rejection, or criticism.

Emotional Responses to Failure

• Study by Brown and Dutton (1995b):
◦ Participants: College students categorized into high and low self-esteem groups.
◦ Method: Participants completed a test designed to be either a success or failure. They
then rated their emotions using scales for general emotions (e.g., happy, sad) and
feelings of self-worth (e.g., proud, ashamed).
• Findings:
◦ General Emotions: Both high and low self-esteem individuals felt sadder after failure
than after success.
◦ Feelings of Self-Worth:
▪ Low Self-Esteem: Individuals felt bad about themselves following failure, feeling
humiliated and ashamed.
▪ High Self-Esteem: Individuals felt disappointed but did not experience a decline in
self-worth. Their self-esteem was less affected by failure.
• Key Points:
◦ Conditional Self-Esteem: Low self-esteem individuals’ self-worth is highly contingent
on recent outcomes. They feel good when succeeding but bad when failing.
◦ Stable Self-Esteem: High self-esteem individuals are less affected by failure and
maintain a more stable sense of self-worth.
Unstable High Self-Esteem
• Concept by Kernis (1993):
◦ Unstable High Self-Esteem: Refers to individuals who report high self-esteem but
whose self-worth fluctuates with recent events. This form of high self-esteem is akin to
low self-esteem because it is highly dependent on recent successes or failures.
• Example: David Letterman describes feeling as though his self-worth is contingent upon
his nightly performance, reflecting unstable high self-esteem.

Cognitive Responses to Failure

• Factors Affecting Responses:
◦ Performance Evaluation: Low self-esteem individuals may view performance more
negatively and attribute failures to personal inadequacies.
◦ Attribution: Low self-esteem individuals might attribute poor performance to low
ability, affecting their overall self-assessment more severely than high self-esteem
individuals.
• Study by Dutton (1995):
◦ Method: Participants evaluated themselves in areas including specific ability, general
intelligence, interpersonal qualities, and overall self-worth after a success or failure.
◦ Findings:
▪ Specific Ability: Both self-esteem groups saw themselves as less capable in the
specific task after failure.
▪ General Intelligence: Low self-esteem individuals doubted their overall
intelligence after failure, whereas high self-esteem individuals did not.
▪ Interpersonal Qualities: Low self-esteem participants might devalue their social
qualities after failure, while high self-esteem participants might exaggerate their
social skills.
▪ Overall Worth: Failure led low self-esteem participants to view their overall worth
negatively, while high self-esteem participants maintained a more positive self-
view.
• Key Points:
◦ Low Self-Esteem: Failure leads to a global negative self-assessment, impacting
feelings of worth and causing humiliation.
◦ High Self-Esteem: Failure is seen as a specific issue rather than a global character
flaw, leading to less severe emotional impacts and maintaining a stable sense of self-
worth.
Behavioral Responses to Failure
1. Risk-Taking Behavior
• General Preference:
◦ People generally prefer a guaranteed gain over a riskier option with a higher potential
reward, reflecting a tendency towards risk aversion.
• Findings by Josephs, Larrick, Steele, and Nisbett (1992):
 ◦ Low Self-Esteem: Individuals with low self-esteem are more likely to avoid taking risks
to protect themselves from negative self-relevant feedback. They prefer safer, less
rewarding options to avoid potential psychological consequences.
◦ High Self-Esteem: Individuals with high self-esteem are less risk-averse and are more
willing to take risks, especially if the outcome is not immediately linked to their self-
worth.
• Key Insight:
◦ Risk aversion in low self-esteem individuals is driven by the desire to avoid negative
feedback about their decision-making abilities, rather than just the fear of financial
loss. When they are not going to receive feedback on their decisions, they do not
show increased risk aversion.
2. Self-Handicapping
• Definition: Self-handicapping involves creating obstacles to success to protect oneself
from the implications of failure and to enhance self-perception if success is achieved
despite these obstacles.
• Tice’s Hypothesis (1991):
◦ Low Self-Esteem: Individuals with low self-esteem engage in self-handicapping
primarily to avoid the pain of failure by providing external excuses for poor
performance. This strategy protects them from the implication that they lack ability.
◦ High Self-Esteem: Individuals with high self-esteem use self-handicapping to
enhance their self-image by demonstrating high ability despite self-imposed
impediments.
• Study by Tice (1991):
◦ Method: Participants were informed that the test could either reveal low ability or
high ability. Participants could choose to practice or not before taking the test.
◦ Findings:
▪ Low Self-Esteem: Practiced less when the test could reveal low ability, thus
avoiding the implication of low ability.
▪ High Self-Esteem: Practiced less when the test could reveal high ability, aiming to
enhance their perceived competence.
• Key Insight:
◦ Low self-esteem individuals use self-handicapping as a form of self-protection,
whereas high self-esteem individuals use it as a form of self-enhancement.
3. Task Performance and Persistence
• General Observations:
◦ Self-esteem has little effect on task performance in the absence of prior outcomes or
following prior successes.
 ◦ After Failure: Low self-esteem individuals tend to perform worse and show less
persistence compared to high self-esteem individuals.
• Reasons for Performance Differences:
◦ Self-Focus: Low self-esteem individuals become preoccupied with their own
shortcomings, impairing task performance.
◦ Effort Withdrawal: Low self-esteem individuals are less likely to persist in the face of
failure, which impacts their overall performance.
• Key Insight:
◦ Contemplation of failure negatively impacts the performance and persistence of low
self-esteem individuals, making them less resilient in challenging situations.
4. Social Comparison
• Behavioral Tendencies:
◦ Low Self-Esteem: Individuals with low self-esteem are cautious about social
comparison. They avoid comparisons when expecting unfavorable outcomes but seek
them when expecting positive feedback.
• Study by Wood et al. (1994):
◦ Method: Participants received positive or negative feedback and were then given the
opportunity to engage in social comparison.
◦ Findings:
▪ After Positive Feedback: Low self-esteem individuals actively sought social
comparison.
▪ After Negative Feedback: They avoided social comparison to prevent discovering
negative aspects about themselves.
• Key Insight:
◦ Self-protection drives the social comparison behavior of low self-esteem individuals.
They use a "play it safe" strategy, seeking comparisons only when they are confident
of favorable outcomes.
Theoretical Explanations for Low Self-Esteem Reactions
Overview
The reactions of low self-esteem individuals to failure and risk can be understood through two
broad theoretical approaches: cognitive models and affective models. These theories explain
why low self-esteem individuals experience greater emotional distress and show higher risk
aversion compared to those with high self-esteem.
Cognitive Models of Emotional Distress
Cognitive Model Overview:
• Key Assumption: Low self-esteem people doubt their abilities and expect failure.
• Process:
 1. Negative Beliefs about Ability: Low self-esteem individuals have pervasive doubts
about their abilities.
2. Expectation of Failure: These doubts lead to an expectation of failure.
3. Attribution of Failure: When failure occurs, it is attributed to low ability.
4. Generalization: Failure in one area is generalized to other areas of the self-concept.
5. Emotional Distress: The overgeneralization of failure results in greater emotional
distress.
Self-Affirmation Theory (Steele, 1988):
• Concept: People can neutralize failure effects by emphasizing their strengths in other
domains.
• High vs. Low Self-Esteem Responses:
◦ High Self-Esteem Individuals: Utilize self-affirmation to mitigate the impact of
failure.
◦ Low Self-Esteem Individuals: Lack sufficient positive self-beliefs to counteract failure,
leading to heightened emotional distress.
Self-Complexity Theory (Linville, 1975):
• Difference from Self-Affirmation Theory: Self-complexity theory suggests that having
multiple identities (positive or negative) buffers against the emotional extremes of
success and failure, whereas self-affirmation focuses specifically on positive identities.

Affective Models of Emotional Distress

Affective Model Overview:
• Key Assumption: Emotional responses to failure are automatic, visceral, and irrational
rather than cognitive.
• Process:
1. Early Experiences: Low self-esteem individuals may have experienced harsh criticism
early in life.
2. Automatic Reaction: Failure triggers automatic, negative emotional responses based
on these early experiences.
3. Comparison with Childhood Reactions: Similar to a child's undifferentiated reaction
to spilling milk, low self-esteem individuals experience failure as a fundamental
personal deficiency.
Epstein's (1980) View:
• High Self-Esteem Individuals: Carry an internalized supportive figure and can recover
quickly from setbacks.
• Low Self-Esteem Individuals: Carry an internalized critical figure, leading to greater
sensitivity to failure, prolonged recovery from disappointments, and a pessimistic outlook.
Theoretical Models of Self-Protection
Expectancy-Value Models:
• Framework: Behavior is influenced by expectations of achieving outcomes and the value
placed on those outcomes.
Cognitive Models:
• Expectation Component: Low self-esteem individuals avoid risks due to lack of
confidence in their success. If they believed in their abilities, they would be less risk-
averse.
Affective Models:
• Value Component: The negative emotional impact of failure is more significant for low
self-esteem individuals. They avoid risks because the fear of failure is overwhelming.
Brockner's (1984) Suggestion:
• Vulnerability to Social Influence: Low self-esteem individuals are more susceptible to
social influence due to their lack of confidence and heightened sensitivity to rejection,
leading to negative behaviors such as substance abuse and unsafe practices.

Implications and Reflections

Self-Enhancement vs. Self-Consistency Debate
• Self-Consistency Theories:
◦ Core Idea: People strive to maintain consistency between beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviors. Inconsistencies cause discomfort and tension, leading to efforts to reduce
this discomfort.
◦ Prediction for Negative Feedback: People with positive self-views will be more
disturbed by negative feedback because it conflicts with their positive self-image.
Conversely, those with negative self-views are more accepting of negative feedback, as
it aligns with their self-image.
• Self-Enhancement Theories:
◦ Core Idea: People strive to feel good about themselves, and the longer this need goes
unmet, the stronger the need becomes.
◦ Prediction for Negative Feedback: People with negative self-views will be more
disturbed by negative feedback than those with positive self-views because the need
to maintain a positive self-feeling is stronger.
2. Shrauger’s “Affect–Cognition” Distinction
• Cognitive Reactions:
◦ Conform to Self-Consistency Model: People with negative self-views are more
accepting of negative feedback, seeing it as accurate and attributing it to themselves.
• Emotional Reactions:
◦ Conform to Self-Enhancement Model: People with negative self-views are more
disturbed by negative feedback compared to those with positive self-views.
• Responses to Positive Feedback:
◦ Self-Consistency Theory Prediction: Low self-esteem individuals will be
uncomfortable with positive feedback as it is inconsistent with their self-view.
◦ Empirical Findings: Mixed results. Some studies show discomfort with positive
feedback among low self-esteem individuals, but many do not.
3. Self-Verification Theory
• Core Idea: People want others to confirm their self-views, even if those views are
negative.
• Prediction for Negative Feedback: People with negative self-views will be uneasy
receiving positive feedback because it conflicts with their self-perception.
• Behavioral Implications: Low self-esteem individuals may avoid positive feedback or
stay in negative relationships due to a fear of not living up to positive expectations.
4. Global Self-Esteem vs. Specific Self-Evaluations
• Global Self-Esteem:
◦ Core Idea: General self-worth, but evidence on its utility is mixed.
◦ Predictive Value: Better predictor of psychological well-being.
• Specific Self-Evaluations:
◦ Core Idea: More specific domains of self-evaluation (e.g., academic ability) predict
behavior and responses to success and failure better than global self-esteem.
◦ Empirical Findings: Mixed; sometimes specific self-views are better predictors,
sometimes global self-esteem is.
5. Personal Critique of Cognitive Models
• Self-Esteem Formation:
◦ Cognitive Approach: Assumes self-esteem is based on a rational process of
evaluating various characteristics.
◦ Critique: The process is seen as more irrational and based on general feelings rather
than specific evaluations.
• Self-Esteem and Failure:
◦ Cognitive Explanation: Low self-esteem is linked to negative self-evaluations and
perceptions of failure.
◦ Critique: Many low self-esteem individuals do not have highly negative self-views but
still feel bad about themselves when they fail. Self-esteem may be based more on
irrational feelings than on specific negative thoughts.
6. Implications for Improving Self-Esteem
• Current Strategies:
 ◦ Positive Self-Evaluations: Programs often encourage focusing on positive traits.
◦ Attributional Retraining: Encourages attributing failure to external factors rather
than low ability.
• Alternative Approach:
◦ Focus on Unconditional Acceptance: Helping individuals understand that failure
does not reflect their worth as a person, which aligns with Carl Rogers’ approach of
unconditional positive regard.
◦ Feeling of Belonging and Mastery: Building self-esteem through secure
interpersonal relationships and unconditional acceptance rather than solely cognitive
strategies.