The self 2

The self 2

1. Benefits of high self-esteem Baumeister et al 2003

   • Assumption High SE = academic performance, health, relationships
     • Raise SE = school performance raise. Reality = w/ or w/o intervention makes no difference
     • Reality = high SE is outcpme not cause

2. Development of SE - parenting styles

   • 2 dimensions - demnding vs responsive
     • demanding = controlling, rules, punishments Responsive = warm & supportive
     • Authoritative parent
       • High demanding Hgih responsive
       • High SE
     • Authoritarian parent
       • High demanding low responsive
       • Reduced SE
     • Permissive parent
       • Low demanding  High responsive
       • Low SE

3. Stability of SE

   • Chronic SE may be determined in childhood but variations in low vs. high SE throughout lifespan (Robins et al 2002 Meta- analysis)
   • 6-11 years - unstable
     • still developing self-concept
     • Twenties - mostly stable
       • fully developed self-concept - less affected by temporary life changes
       • Mid adulthood - relatively stable
         • 60+ - decline
           • major life changes e.g. retirement

4. Self-esteem scale (rosenberg, 1965)

   • Indicate level of agreement to following statements  0 = strongly disagree 3 = strongly agree (e.g. at times i think im no good at all  I take a positive view of myself
   • score = reverse coded for negatively framed questions. Add up score up to 30. Higher score = higher SE

5. Trait SE vs State SE

   • Trait = self-regard across time
     •  –Remains fairly stable across time in adults (although, see previous slide re. later in life) –People who report high trait self-esteem at one point in their life tend to report high trait self-esteem later (same for low trait self-esteem; Block & Robins, 1993)  
   • State = dynamic, dependent on situations - Heatherton & Polivy 1991
     • –E.g., rejection by a love interest or low grade on an exam   

6. Social media & SE (Vogel et al.)

   • Social comparison theory (Festinger 1945) = we compare
     • Upwards social comparison
       • compare self with superior other Negative affect  poorer self-evaluations, reduced SE (Marsh & Parker, 1984)
     • Downwards social comparison
       • Compare self with inferior other positive affect improved self-evaluations Heightened SE  (e.g. Willis, 1981)
   • Temporary expose impacts on state SE (situational influence)
     • Chronic exposure impact on trait SE

7. Self-enhancement

   • When our SE is threatened people tend to engage in a number of strategies to regain feelings of self-worth e.g. ...
   • Self affirmation (Steele, 1988)
     • Affirming oneself in a domain unrelated to the threatened domain
     • SA and SMS (Toma & Hancock 2013)
       • previously confirmed the self-affirming value of facebook - most attractive/succesful version of self enhances self-worth Aim: to test if individuals use FB as way of recovering from threat to self-esteem. (basis of self affirmation theory -steele 1988) Method: 86 UG students (M age = 19.79)  Stage 1: public speaking task, given neutral or negative feedback on task Stage 2: Choice of 5 seemingly unrelated studies inluding own fb profile. asked to rate preference. more likely to select FB as first choice when SE threatened (neg feedback) vs not (neutral)
   • Comparing and reflecting
     • Social comparison theory - Festinger, 1954 Self-evaluation maintenance theory (Tesser, 1988)
     • Social comparison (Festinger 1945)
       • Self-evaluation maintenence theory (Tesser,1988)
         • what determines?
           • if the domain is RELEVANT and you are UNCERTAIN of your ability in that domain = social comparison vice versa = social reflection
         • 4 strategies for maintaining positive self-concept
           • Strategy: 1. exaggerate ability of successful target 2. change target of comparison 3. Distance self from successful target  4. devalue dimension of comparison (being popular is more important)