PAID19

Prologue: 

Prologue

Politics of self-esteem: 

Politics of self-esteem “There is overwhelming evidence that the higher the level of self-esteem, the more likely one will be to treat others with respect, kindness, and generosity.” “I cannot think of a single psychological problem—from anxiety and depression, to fear of intimacy or of success, to spouse battery or child molestation—that is not traceable to the problem of low self-esteem.” Nathaniel Branden (psychotherapist, author and consultant)

Politics of self-esteem: 

Politics of self-esteem California Task Force on Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility Founded 1986 by Governor of California Annual budget of $245,000 Raising self-esteem would “solve many of the state’s problems, including crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, school underachievement, and pollution” The social importance of self-esteem, edited by Mecca, Smelser & Vasconcellos (1989)

Politics of self-esteem: 

Politics of self-esteem Key quotation from Smelser’s introduction: “Diminished self-esteem stands as a powerful independent variable (condition, cause, factor) in the genesis of major social problems. We all know this to be true, and it is really not necessary to create a special California task force on the subject to convince us. The real problem we must address—and which the contributors to this volume address—is how we can determine that it is scientifically true” (p. 8) But is this dogma or science? Is high self-esteem really so beneficial and low self-esteem so problematic?

The ‘dark side’ of high self-esteem: 

The ‘dark side’ of high self-esteem Arrogance, aggression and the ‘narcissistic personality’

Overview of topic: 

Overview of topic The debate over ‘positive illusions’ Self-esteem and aggression Rethinking self-esteem

The debate over ‘positive illusions’: 

The debate over ‘positive illusions’

Taylor & Brown (1988): 

Taylor & Brown (1988) Three “positive illusions” about the self are widespread amongst ‘normal’ populations: Unrealistically positive views of the self Exaggerated perceptions of personal control Unrealistic optimism All of these illusions are weaker, or absent, among depressives and Ps with low self-esteem

Taylor & Brown (1988): 

Taylor & Brown (1988) They argue that positive illusions promote: Happiness and contentment Experimental research shows causal role of positive illusions in producing positive mood Ability to care for others Perhaps through influence of positive mood Capacity for creative and productive work Facilitation of intellectually creative functioning Enhance motivation, persistence and performance

Colvin & Block (1994): 

Colvin & Block (1994) Are these illusions really so prevalent? Much of research is on university students in lab settings Are they really illusions? How is ‘reality’ operationalised? Defined by the experimenter—perhaps inappropriately Typically group-level, not individual-level realities Are they really associated with better mental health? Depressives, but not psychotics seem to lack these illusions Perhaps depressives are not more accurate, just more negative Remaining evidence focused on short-term benefits only

Colvin, Block & Funder (1995): 

Colvin, Block & Funder (1995) Two studies on characteristics of self-enhancers Q-sort methodology Participants rated their personality characteristics Also rated by trained examiners or friends Ratings compared to ‘favourability prototype’ Self-enhancement as discrepancy between favourability of own and others’ ratings i.e. ‘illusion’ = disagreement with ‘social reality’

Colvin, Block & Funder (1995): 

Colvin, Block & Funder (1995) Longitudinal study at ages 14, 18 and 23 Self-enhancement at age 18 correlated with other ratings at age 23 (“study 1”) Self-enhancement at age 23 correlated with other ratings at age 18 and with measure of ‘ego resilience’ at ages 14 and 18 (“study 2”) Laboratory study Self-enhancement correlated with observer ratings of participant’s behaviour in dyadic interaction (debate)

Colvin, Block & Funder (1995): 

Colvin, Block & Funder (1995) “Friends and assessors hold relatively negative impressions of people who self-enhance” Fluctuating moods, guileful and deceitful, distrustful, sex-typed, keep people at a distance, projects blame, thin-skinned, condescending, hostile, self-pitying ... Non self-enhancers described as cheerful, forthright, dependable, introspective, interesting, sympathetic, liked, accepted, personally charming, social skills ... Self-enhancement associated with ‘ego brittleness’ rather than ‘ego resilience’

Some points of ‘clarification’: 

Some points of ‘clarification’ Taylor & Brown (1994) clarify their position Accuracy is not necessary for mental health Illusions foster happiness, caring, creativity, growth This does NOT mean ... ... that more illusion is better ... that all illusions are good ... that illusions are necessary for mental health ... that illusions can cure people of physical illness ... that the human mind is untuned to reality detection

Remaining problems: 

Remaining problems Defining self-enhancement operationally What is reality and what is an illusion? Best to use multiple definitions of ‘reality’ Statistical problems with discrepancy scores Zuckerman & Knee (1996) critique of Colvin et al. Defining mental health benefits Is there an optimal margin of illusion? Short-term benefits and long-term costs?

Self-esteem and aggression: 

Self-esteem and aggression

Self-esteem and aggression: 

Self-esteem and aggression Conventional wisdom suggests that people who are violent, aggressive or hostile are often suffering from low self-esteem An alternative view is that aggression may be characteristic of people with high self-esteem, especially where self-esteem is threatened [Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996]

Self-esteem and aggression: 

Self-esteem and aggression Kernis, Granneman & Barclay (1989) studied self-reported anger and hostility as a function of both level and stability of self-esteem No relation between level of self-esteem and hostility until stability of self-esteem was taken into account Highest level of hostility was found among those with high, unstable self-esteem Lowest level of hostility was found among those with high, stable self-esteem

Self-esteem and violence: 

Self-esteem and violence Baumeister, Smart & Boden (1996) reviewed evidence suggesting high or low self-esteem among perpetrators of Murder and assault Rape Domestic violence Violent youth gangs and juvenile delinquency Political terror Prejudice, oppression and genocide

Self-esteem and violence: 

Self-esteem and violence Little direct psychological evidence using measures of self-esteem, thus conclusions are based on qualitative review of literature Considerable convergence in findings Virtually no evidence for ‘low self-esteem’ hypothesis Violent people have favourable views of themselves and violence is often explicitly intended to demonstrate superiority of the perpetrator to the victim Violence often follows threats to self-esteem

High self-esteem vs. narcissism: 

High self-esteem vs. narcissism Recent theory and research distinguishes ‘secure’ forms of high self-esteem from ‘inflated’ views of the self, or narcissism Conceptualisations of narcissism Extreme or ‘ultra-high’ levels of self-esteem Unstable high self-esteem Strong motive for self-aggrandisement Disregard for others Increased sensitivity to ego-threats

Narcissism scale items: 

Narcissism scale items If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place. I am going to be a great person. I am more capable than other people. [from Raskin & Terry, 1988]

Narcissism and aggression: 

Narcissism and aggression Bushman & Baumeister (1998) conducted two studies with undergraduate participants Measures of self-esteem and narcissism Participants wrote pro-choice or pro-life essays Essay ‘evaluated’ positively or negatively (manipulation of ego-threat ) Opportunity to aggress with ‘blasts of noise’ in competitive task against evaluator (or third party)

Narcissism and aggression: 

Narcissism and aggression More aggression was observed from male rather than female participants participants with higher narcissism scores participants who had received ego-threat Interaction of narcissism and ego-threat Narcissistic participants agressed significantly more against source of threat, but not against source of praise or third party (i.e. targeted aggression) No relationships with ‘self-esteem’ measures

Is ‘narcissism’ the answer?: 

Is ‘narcissism’ the answer? Focus on narcissism seems to resolve the self-esteem and aggression debate Correlates with many outcomes e.g. sexual coercion, prejudice, belief in the paranormal, behaviour in intimate relationships Narcissists are chronic self-enhancers! But is this just a ‘relabelling’ excercise? Do we really understand what narcissism is?

Rethinking self-esteem: 

Rethinking self-esteem

Different types of self-esteem: 

Different types of self-esteem Self-esteem is not just high or low! ‘Realistic’ vs ‘inflated’ self-esteem Implicit vs explicit self-esteem Stable vs unstable self-esteem ‘Contingent’ vs ‘true’ self-esteem

Conclusions: 

Conclusions High SE widely seen as ‘good thing’ But there is a ‘dark side’ to high SE: Self-enhancement at best a ‘mixed blessing’ Hostility linked to unstable high self-esteem Aggression/violence linked to narcissism Should we try to ‘boost’ self-esteem?