Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification

Three studies asked why people sometimes seek positive feedback (self-enhance) and sometimes seek subjectively accurate feedback (self-verify). Consistent with self-enhancement theory, people with low self-esteem as well as those with high self-esteem indicated that they preferred feedback pertaining to their positive rather than negative self-views. Consistent with self-verification theory, the very people who sought favorable feedback pertaining to their positive self-conceptions sought unfavorable feedback pertaining to their negative self-views, regardless of their level of global self-esteem. Apparently, although all people prefer to seek feedback regarding their positive self-views, when they seek feedback regarding their negative self-views, they seek unfavorable feedback. Whether people self-enhance or self-verify thus seems to be determined by the positivity of the relevant self-conceptions rather than their level of self-esteem or the type of person they are.     

Seeking self-evaluative feedback: the interactive role of global self-esteem and specific self-views

People who verify a negative self-view expose themselves to criticism and rejection. Because people with low global self-esteem are hurt more by negative feedback than are people with high global self-esteem, the authors predicted that they would be less apt to verify a negative self-view in a more specific domain. Three investigations found support for this hypothesis. In all 3 investigations, high self-esteem participants sought (or tended to seek) self-verifying feedback, even if it was negative, but low self-esteem participants sought (or tended to seek) positive feedback, even if it was nonself-verifying. These findings show that low self-esteem people are especially concerned with self-protection and that global self-esteem and specific self-views interact to guide people's responses to self-evaluative feedback.     

On the benefits of misery: self-serving biases in the depressive self-concept

Two survey studies suggested that depressed people react to their acute distress by engaging in self-serving biases and striving to develop positive self-views. Study 1 revealed that whereas most of the specific self-views of depressed persons were relatively negative, their best (most favorable) self-views were just as favorable as the best self-views of nondepressed persons. Moreover, depressed participants reported that they were highly confident of their best self-views and considered these beliefs extremely important. Analyses equating depressed and nondepressed persons for global self-esteem provided even stronger evidence of self-serving biases among the depressed. Specifically, such analyses revealed that depressed persons' best self-views were even more positive than the best self-views of the nondepressed. A 2nd study replicated these effects and provided tentative evidence that downward comparison processes play a role in the development of depressed persons' positive self-views. The theoretical and therapeutic implications of these findings are discussed.     

Intuition and the correspondence between implicit and explicit self-esteem

Four studies tested whether the perceived validity of intuition increases the correspondence between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Studies 1 and 2 found, with 2 different measures of implicit self-esteem, that people who chronically view their intuition as valid have more consistent implicit and explicit self-esteem. In contrast, people with relatively low faith in their intuition had a negative relation between implicit and explicit self-esteem, suggesting that they may overcorrect their explicit self-views for the potential bias posed by implicit self-esteem. In Studies 3 and 4, participants who were induced to view their intuition as valid reported explicit self-views (self-evaluations made under time pressure, or state self-esteem) that were more consistent with their implicit self-esteem. These results suggest that people experience implicit self-esteem as intuitive evaluations. The correspondence between implicit and explicit self-esteem among individuals who view their intuition as valid may suggest that these individuals incorporate implicit self-esteem into their explicit self-views.     

Self-esteem, construal, and comparisons with the self, friends, and peers

Extending the better than average effect, 3 studies examined self-, friend, and peer comparisons of personal attributes. Participants rated themselves as better off than friends, who they rated as superior to generalized peers. The exception was in direct comparisons, where the self and friends were not strongly differentiated on unambiguous negative attributes. Self-esteem and construal played moderating roles, with persons with high self-esteem (HSEs) exploiting both ambiguous positive and ambiguous negative traits to favor themselves. Persons lower in self-esteem exploited ambiguous positive traits in their favor but did not exploit ambiguous negative traits. Across self-esteem level, ratings of friends versus peers were exaggerated when attributes were ambiguous. HSEs seemed to take advantage of ambiguity more consistently to present favorable self-views; people with low self-esteem used ambiguity to favor their friends but were reluctant to minimize their own faults.     

On confidence and consequence: the certainty and importance of self-knowledge

Belief certainty and belief importance represent 2 relatively independent forms of investment in the self-concept. Three studies suggested that whereas certainty is associated with epistemic (i.e., rational or informational) factors, importance is more closely associated with emotive (i.e., emotional and motivational) factors. A 4th study explored the implications of certainty and importance for the temporal stability of people's self-views and revealed that whereas belief certainty was associated with the stability of both positive and negative beliefs, belief importance was associated with the stability of positive beliefs only. The implications of belief investment for the verification-enhancement debate and for the structure and measurement of the self-concept are discussed.     

Meta-accuracy about potential relationship partners' models of others

We investigated whether people can determine which partners are best able to confirm their self-views. Results suggest that people are able to determine the valence of a potential romantic partner's model of other (i.e., they are meta-accurate). Previous research indicates that people expect to have their specific negative and positive self-views confirmed by partners whose model of other matches the valence of their self-view. In the present study, participants generally sought feedback that was congruent with a partner's model of other. However, men who held positive self-views were not meta-accurate; rather, they sought positive or negative feedback from partners regardless of the valence of the partner's model of other. These gender differences are discussed in terms of differential socialization patterns. Results suggest that people may choose relationship partners who are able to confirm their self-views.     

Is the allure of self-esteem a mirage after all?

Comments on the original article "Do people's self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life," by W. B. Swann, Jr., C. Chang-Schneider, and K. L. McClarty. Swann et al argued that people's self-views, and their global self-esteem in particular, yield a suite of behavioral effects that are beneficial to the individual and to society at large. The Swann et al article is the latest link in a debate on the causal utility of self-esteem. Specifically, the article is a reply to a report published by the American Psychological Society Task Force on Self-Esteem (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). As members of that task force, the current authors wish to express their broad agreement with Swann et al. At the same time, in the comment presented here, they clarify pockets of disagreement.     

Who am I? The interactive effect of early family experiences and self-esteem in predicting self-clarity

Previous research suggests that inconsistencies between self-esteem and social feedback reduce feelings of coherence. The current research tested effects of discrepancies between people’s self-esteem and feedback they received in the form of chronic early family experiences. In two studies, participants completed measures of global self-esteem, perceived early family experiences, and self-clarity. Early family experiences that were inconsistent with participants’ current self-views (i.e., negative experiences for high self-esteem, positive experiences for low self-esteem) were associated with lower self-clarity; in contrast, consistent experiences were associated with higher self-clarity. These findings have implications for understanding the development of self-clarity and suggest novel consequences of early family experiences.     

Self-presentational persona: simultaneous management of multiple impressions

Most research on self-presentation has examined how people convey images of themselves on only 1 or 2 dimensions at a time. In everyday interactions, however, people often manage their impressions on several image-relevant dimensions simultaneously. By examining people's self-presentations to several targets across multiple dimensions, these 2 studies offer new insights into the nature of self-presentation and provide a novel paradigm for studying impression management. Results showed that most people rely on a relatively small number of basic self-presentational personas in which they convey particular profiles of impressions as a set and that these personas reflect both normative influences to project images that are appropriate to a particular target and distinctive influences by which people put an idiosyncratic spin on these normative images. Furthermore, although people's self-presentational profiles correlate moderately with their self-views, they tailor their public images to specific targets. The degree to which participants' self-presentations were normative and distinctive, as well as the extent to which they reflected their own self-views, were moderated by individual differences in agreeableness, self-esteem, authenticity, and Machiavellianism.     

Self-verification and contextualized self-views

Whereas most self-verification research has focused on people's desire to verify their global self-conceptions, the present studies examined self-verification with regard to contextualized selfviews-views of the self in particular situations and relationships. It was hypothesized that individuals whose core self-conceptions include contextualized self-views should seek to verify these self-views. In Study 1, the more individuals defined the self in dialectical terms, the more their judgments were biased in favor of verifying over nonverifying feedback about a negative, situation-specific self-view. In Study 2, consistent with research on gender differences in the importance of relationships to the self-concept, women but not men showed a similar bias toward feedback about a negative, relationship-specific self-view, a pattern not seen for global self-views. Together, the results support the notion that self-verification occurs for core self-conceptions, whatever form(s) they may take. Individual differences in self-verification and the nature of selfhood and authenticity are discussed.     

THE TROUBLE WITH CHANGE:

Abstract— Past approaches to the self have emphasized people's desire for positive evaluations I suggest that this emphasis overlooks another powerful and important motive, the desire for evaluations that verify self-views. Among people with negative self-views, this desire for self-verification can override the desire for positive evaluations. For example, people with negative self-views seek relationship partners who view them negatively, elicit unfavorable evaluations from partners, and "see" more negativity in the reactions of others than is actually there Although these self-verification processes ordinarily impede progress in therapy, awareness of these processes can allow therapists to either circumvent them or actually use them in the service of fostering self-concept change.     

Contingencies of self-worth, academic failure, and goal pursuit

Two studies examine the effects of failure on explicit and implicit self-esteem, affect, and self-presentation goals as a function of people's trait self-esteem and academic contingency of self-worth. Study 1 shows that participants with low self-esteem (LSE) who receive failure feedback experience lower state self-esteem, less positive affect, and less desire to be perceived as competent the more they base self-worth on academics. In contrast, participants with high self-esteem (HSE) who strongly base self-worth on academics show a slight boost in state self-esteem and desire to be perceived as competent following failure. Study 2 shows that following failure, academically contingent LSE participants downplay the importance of appearing competent to others and associate themselves with failure on an implicit level. Taken together, these findings suggest that academically contingent HSE people show resilience following failure, whereas academically contingent LSE people experience negative outcomes and disengage from the pursuit of competence self-presentation goals.     

Self-esteem maintenance processes: why low self-esteem may be resistant to change

If most people desire to maximize feelings of self-worth, how do we explain the persistence of low self-esteem? Results from four studies suggest that people with low self-esteem may be less likely to accept positive feedback from themselves than from an outside source but equally likely to accept negative feedback from the self and an outsider. When the self was the source of positive feedback, people high, but not low, in self-esteem incorporated the feedback into their self-views; in contrast, when positive feedback came from a knowledgeable external source, both high and low self-esteem people accepted it. Finally, when self-generated feedback was negative, participants low in self-esteem accepted it. The authors discuss how these findings shed light on the maintenance of low self-esteem.     

Allure of negative feedback: self-verification strivings among depressed persons.

We propose that people with negative self-views are rejected because they gravitate to partners who view them unfavorably. In relation to nondepressed college students (n = 28), depressives (n = 13) preferred interaction partners who evaluated them unfavorably (Study 1). Similarly, in relation to nondepressives (n = 106), depressives (n = 10) preferred friends or dating partners who evaluated them unfavorably (Study 2). Dysphorics (n = 6) were more inclined to seek unfavorable feedback from their roommates than were nondepressives (n = 16); feedback-seeking activities of dysphorics were also associated with later rejection (Study 3). Finally, people with negative self-views (n = 37) preferentially solicited unfavorable feedback, although receiving such feedback made them unhappy, in comparison with people with positive self-views (n = 42; Study 4). It seems a desire for self-verification compels people with negative self-views to seek unfavorable appraisals.     

Self-ambivalence and resistance to subtle self-change attempts

Recent research has demonstrated the malleability of self-views to subtle situational influence but has not uncovered features of the self-concept representation that make it susceptible to such change. Using research on attitude ambivalence as a foundation, the current article predicted that the self would be most likely to respond to a subtle change induction when the targeted self-beliefs were objectively ambivalent (e.g., possessed both positive and negative features). Using self-esteem conditioning (Experiment 1) and outgroup stereotype priming (Experiment 2), it was found that people were more susceptible to subtle change inductions as objective self-ambivalence increased. Notably, the consistency between dominant self-views (positive or negative) and the change induction did not influence these results. These effects held for objective ambivalence, but not subjective ambivalence, and only when the objective ambivalence measure was relevant to the change induction. Mechanisms of the observed moderation and the implications of self-ambivalence for understanding self-change are discussed.     

In the absence of rose-colored glasses: Ratings of self-attributes and their differential certainty and importance across multiple dimensions in social phobia

Sixty-seven individuals with social phobia (social anxiety disorder) and 60 healthy controls rated their perceived standing relative to others on 13 self-attribute dimensions, their level of certainty concerning those standings, and the importance of each dimension. As expected, individuals with social phobia provided self-ratings that were significantly more negative than controls across all dimensions. In addition, positive self-views were equated with higher levels of certainty and importance for controls, but not for individuals with social phobia. Thus, whereas reports of control participants reflected a healthy, positive framing of self-views, the ratings of clinical participants demonstrated an orientation toward self-framing that was neither positive nor negative. Together, these novel findings shed light on the nature of self-appraisals in social anxiety. Implications of these results are discussed in terms of contemporary cognitive-behavioral models of social phobia.     

Intimates as agents of social support: sources of consolation or despair?

We proposed that people's intimates may insulate them against self-discrepant feedback. Individuals who possessed low or high self-esteem (targets) reported to the laboratory accompanied by persons with whom they were involved in intimate relationships (intimates). Some intimates perceived targets in a manner that was congruent with targets' self-conceptions; others perceived targets in a manner that was incongruent with targets' self-conceptions. Targets received bogus feedback that was discrepant with their self-esteem and interacted with either their intimate or a stranger. Targets then completed a measure of self-esteem. As expected, targets changed their self-ratings in the direction of the discrepant feedback when they interacted with either an incongruent intimate or a stranger but not when they interacted with a congruent intimate. Moreover, congruent intimates were just as effective in insulating low self-esteem targets against positive feedback as they were in insulating high self-esteem individuals against negative feedback. Finally, the more targets discussed the feedback, the less self-rating change they experienced. Implications for social support processes and attempts to cope with traumatic events are discussed.     

Compartmentalization and integration: the evaluative organization of contextualized selves

This article reviews research on the evaluative organization (compartmentalized or integrative) of contextualized selves. Evaluatively compartmentalized self-structures consist of multiple selves, each of which is either mostly positive or mostly negative. Evaluatively integrative self-structures represent each self with a mixture of positive and negative attributes. These different styles of organizing self-knowledge have been linked to current mood and self-esteem. More recently, studies of evaluative organization have examined self-esteem stability, coping styles (e.g., self-enhancement or resilience), change in self-organization, as well as psychopathology and psychological treatment. Findings suggest that compartmentalized self-structures, typically associated with the highest levels of self-esteem, may be vulnerable to instability. In contrast, the more moderate self-views of individuals with integrative self-structures may offer greater stability, increased resilience, and a means of coping with extreme stress.     

Outcasts in a white-lie society: the enigmatic worlds of people with negative self-conceptions.

Although people with negative self-views want to be liked at some level, they repeatedly enact behaviors that alienate their relationship partners. Why? One possibility is that such persons reside in social environments that offer them little insight into what they are doing wrong. Although persons who had negative self-views elicited unfavorable reactions, they did not appreciate this fact because their interaction partners concealed their aversion behind a facade of kind words. To be sure, the interaction partners of people with negative self-views tended to leak their disdain nonverbally. These negative nonverbal messages proved to be uninformative, however, because people with negative self-views overlooked them. These data imply that people with negative self-views may live in social worlds in which they are deprived of corrective feedback that could allow them to improve themselves.