Self-Verification, Self-Assessment, & Self-Esteem (I)
Self-Verification Theory
Self-Verification Theory: Individuals are motivated to confirm their existing self-views, even if those views are negative.
Swann (1987, 1990, 2012) posited that people don't always seek self-enhancement; they often want others to see them as they see themselves.
Evidence suggests that individuals with negative self-views also engage in self-verification.
Reasons for Self-Verification:
Maintaining consistency in self-perceptions.
Enabling prediction and control.
Maintaining a sense of coherence.
Guiding behavior.
Self-verifying information is processed more readily, which can foster positive affect.
Self-Verification Strategies:
Constructing "opportunity structures" to satisfy self-verification needs.
Seeking partners who verify self-views.
Communicating self-views through identity cues and behaviors.
Biased attention and recall of self-verifying evidence.
Self-Verification: Evidence
Research has focused on:
Seeking self-verifying partners.
Communicating self-views.
Biased attention.
Participants with positive or negative self-views were recruited for studies.
Seeking Self-Verifying Interaction Partners (Swann et al., 1992):
Participants completed questionnaires and indicated their preference for interacting with a positive or negative evaluator.
72% of participants with positive self-views chose positive evaluators.
78% of participants with negative self-views chose negative evaluators.
"Think aloud" responses indicated a preference for partners who made them feel understood.
Participants preferred partners who evaluated them in the same way as they saw themselves.
Communicating Self-Views (Swann & Read, 1981):
Participants interacted with someone they expected to view them similarly or differently.
Participants behaved in ways that confirmed their existing self-views, especially when interacting with incongruent evaluators.
We communicate our self-views to others.
Biased Attention (Swann & Read, 1981):
Participants were told that another person had evaluated them, with evaluations mixed with those of someone else.
Participants spent longer reading evaluations consistent with their self-views.
We pay more attention to self-verifying information.
Self-Verification: Alternative Explanations
Why Choose Negative Evaluators?
Individuals with depression may seek negative evaluations.
Perceived similarity may lead to seeking negative evaluations.
Some individuals with positive self-views may try to "win converts."
Cultural Differences in Self-Verification
Seih et al. (2013, Study 1):
Participants from India and the United States completed questionnaires on self-views (sociability).
Participants imagined being evaluated positively or negatively.
Both Indians and Americans showed self-verification, but the effect was stronger among Americans.
Functions of Self-Verification
Costly Non-Self-Verification: Swann (e.g., 2012) argues that non-self-verifying information can be costly.
People with negative self-views may show threat responses to positive feedback (Mendes & Akinola, 2006).
They may be more likely to get sick after positive life events (Shimizu & Pelham, 2004).
This contrasts with Taylor and Brown’s (1988) idea that positive illusions are beneficial.
Adaptive Self-Verification: Swann argues that self-verification can promote survival (e.g., 2012).
People who self-verify are more predictable to other group members.
Alignment with relationship partners facilitates successful child-rearing.
Job candidates with higher self-verification strivings are more likely to receive job offers (Moore et al., 2017).
Benefits of Self-Verification:
Coherent and stable sense of self.
Reduced anxiety.
Improved group functioning.
Potential Drawbacks:
Holding very negative self-views may hinder positive changes.
It may make life situations more difficult.
Self-Enhancement vs. Self-Verification
Kwang & Swann (2010) Meta-Analysis:
Compared effect sizes for self-enhancement and self-verification.
Type of Response and Effect Strength:
Cognitive (e.g., perceived accuracy of feedback): Self-verification is stronger; negative feedback is perceived as more accurate.
Affective (e.g., mood): Self-enhancement is stronger; negative feedback is associated with more negative mood.
Relationship Quality (e.g., intimacy, satisfaction):
High rejection risk (e.g., dating): Self-enhancement is stronger.
Low rejection risk (e.g., married): Self-verification is stronger.
Strategic Self-Verification (Bosson et al., 2003):
People want positive views on relationship-relevant dimensions.
Self-verifying evaluations are preferred on less relevant characteristics.
The salience of self-enhancement vs. self-verification depends on current needs and opportunities.
Self-Assessment
Motivation for Accuracy: We seek accurate information about ourselves, even if unfavorable.
Social Comparison: Festinger believed we assess ourselves accurately through social comparison, especially where objective evaluation is lacking.
Whom Do We Compare With?
Similar others for accuracy.
Better others for upward drive.
Meta-analysis (Gerber, Wheeler, & Suls, 2018):
Participants preferred upward comparison (UC) targets.
Self-Assessment: Upward Social Comparisons
Lockwood & Kunda (1997):
Positive responses to UCs: inspiration.
Attainability matters.
Participants read about an outstanding 4th-year student with the same major.
4th-year students: cannot attain that success.
1st-year students: might be able to attain that success.
Self-Assessment: Downward Social Comparisons
Lockwood (2002):
Negative responses to downward comparisons (DCs): deflation.
Perceived vulnerability matters.
Participants read about a poorly coping target.
Target Characteristics:
Peer target: low vulnerability.
Recent grad target: high vulnerability.
Self-Motives Summary
Self-Enhancement: Information putting us in a positive light.
Self-Verification: Information consistent with existing self-views.
Self-Assessment: Valid information about the self.
Self-Esteem
Global Self-Esteem: A person’s overall self-evaluation or sense of self-worth.
Typically measured using the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE; 1965).
Items include "I feel I am a person of worth" and "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself."
Involves feeling on an equal basis with others and valuing self and others equally (Wu, Chen, & Greenberger, 2019).
Correlates of Global Self-Esteem:
High global self-esteem correlates with positive outcomes in academics, physical health, and psychological health.
In interpersonal behavior, those with high self-esteem think they are more popular, but this isn't always the case.
Self-Esteem: Methodological Issues
Shared Method Variance: Self-report measures can inflate correlations.
Correlations are lower when objective measures are used.
Example: self-reported attractiveness vs. observer ratings.
Correlation ≠ Causation: Third variables may be involved; longitudinal and experimental designs are needed.
Trzesniewski et al. (2006):
Global self-esteem measured in early adolescence (age 11).
Mental health, physical health, economic prospects, criminal behavior measured at age 26.
Adolescent self-esteem predicted better adjustment in adulthood, even when controlling for confounds.
Self-Esteem and Antisocial Behavior
Baumeister, Smart, & Boden (1996):
Antisocial behavior is not associated with low global self-esteem.
It's associated with a particular form of very high self-esteem.
Ego-Threat Model: Individuals with over-inflated views aggress in response to self-threat.
Narcissism
Definition: "Passionately wanting to feel well of oneself" (Baumeister & Bushman, 1998, p.10).
Overinflated sense of positive self-worth.
Feeling superior to others (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002).
Valuing self over others (Wu, Chen, & Greenberger, 2019).
Self-centered and entitled.
Note: Debate about whether narcissists have low self-esteem deep down, but some evidence suggests they think extremely well of themselves (Brunell & Fisher, 2014).
(Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002).
Testing the Ego-Threat Model
Bushman & Baumeister (1998):
Participants completed measures of narcissism and self-esteem.
Participants wrote an essay that was negatively (threat) or positively (praise) evaluated.
Aggression was measured via noise blasts against the evaluator.
Results: When threatened, participants high in narcissism were more aggressive.
Self-Esteem and Antisocial Behavior: In the Wild
Donnellan et al. (2005):
Adolescents and university students measured for narcissism and self-esteem.
Outcome variables: Aggression, delinquent behavior (self- and informant reports).
Narcissism was positively related to antisocial behavior.
Global self-esteem was negatively related to antisocial behavior.
Self-Esteem and Antisocial Behavior: Discrepancy
Types of antisocial behaviors in lab vs. real-world studies may differ in repercussions.
Both lab and real-world studies link narcissism and antisocial behavior.
Suggests distinguishing between global self-esteem and an overinflated sense of self-worth.