Self-esteem Totally Explained

Everything about Self-esteem totally explained

In psychology, self-esteem reflects a person's overall self-appraisal of their own worth.
   Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, "I am competent/incompetent") and emotions (for example: triumph/, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem, in (for example: assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution).
   Psychologists usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality characteristic (trait self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations (state self-esteem) occur.
   Self-esteem can apply specifically to a particular dimension (for example: "I believe I'm a good writer, and feel proud of that in particular") or have global extent (for example: "I believe I'm a good person, and feel proud of myself in general").
   Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include:

self-worth
self-regard
self-respect
self-confidence (a sometimes disparaging term which can suggest excessive self-regard [morethan self-esteem])
self-love (which can express overtones of self-promotion)

Compare:

self-efficacy

History of the concept of self-esteem

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) traces the use of the word "self-esteem" in English back as far as 1657. After a career in the proto-psychological lore of phrenology in the 19th century the term entered more mainstream psychological use in the work of the American psychologists and philosophers Lorne Park and William James in 1890. Self-esteem has become the third most frequently occurring theme in psychological literature: as of 2003 over 25,000 articles, chapters, and books referred to the topic.

Definitions of self-esteem

Given a long and varied history, the term has, unsurprisingly, no less than three major types of definitions in the field, each of which has generated its own tradition of research, findings, and practical applications:

The original definition presents self-esteem as a ratio found by dividing one’s successes in areas of life of importance to a given individual by the failures in them or one’s “success / pretensions”. Problems with this approach come from making self-esteem contingent upon success: this implies inherent instability because failure can occur at any moment.

In the mid 1960s Morris Rosenberg and social-learning theorists defined self-esteem in terms of a stable sense of personal worth or worthiness, measurable by self-report testing (see Rosenberg self esteem scale. This became the most frequently used definition for research, but involves problems of boundary-definition, making self-esteem indistinguishable from such things as narcissism or simple bragging.

Nathaniel Branden in 1969 briefly defined self-esteem as "…the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and being worthy of happiness". This two-factor approach, as some have also called it, provides a balanced definition that seems to be capable of dealing with limits of defining self-esteem primarily in terms of competence or worth alone. Branden’s (1969) description of self-esteem includes the following primary properties:

self-esteem as a basic human need, for example, "…it makes an essential contribution to the life process", "…is indispensable to normal and healthy self-development, and has a value for survival."

self-esteem as an automatic and inevitable consequence of the sum of individuals' choices in using their consciousness

something experienced as a part of, or background to, all of the individual's thoughts, feelings and actions. Compare the usage of terms such as self-love or self-confidence.

Measuring self-esteem

For the purposes of empirical research, psychologists typically assess self-esteem by a self-report questionnaire yielding a quantitative result. They establish the validity and reliability of the questionnaire prior to its use.
Popular lore recognizes just "high" self-esteem and "low" self-esteem.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965) and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (1967/1981) feature among the most widely used systems for measuring self-esteem. The Rosenberg test, often seen as a "standard", usually uses a ten-question battery scored on a four-point response-system. The Coopersmith Inventory uses a 50-question battery over a variety of topics and asks subjects whether they rate positive or negative characteristics of someone as similar or dissimilar to themselves.

Maslow's approaches to esteem

American psychologist Abraham Maslow described two kinds of esteem needs — the need for respect from others and the need for self-respect. Respect from others entails recognition, acceptance, status, and appreciation. Without the fulfillment of these needs, Maslow suggests, an individual feels discouraged, weak and inferior.

Quality and level of self-esteem

Level and quality of self-esteem, though correlated, remain distinct. Level-wise, one can exhibit high but fragile self-esteem (as in narcissism) or low but stable self-esteem (as in humility). However, investigators can indirectly assess the quality of self-esteem in several ways:

in terms of its constancy over time (stability)

in terms of its independence of meeting particular conditions (non-contingency)

in terms of its ingrained nature at a basic psychological level (implicitness or automaticity).

Excessive self-esteem

Humans have portrayed the dangers of excessive self-esteem and the advantages of more humility since at least the development of Greek tragedy, which typically showed the results of hubris. Ongoing social concern with too much perceived self-esteem reflects in everyday language: we speak of "overweening" types and of the need to "take a person down a peg or two". Spiritual practices (notably Eastern spiritual practices) which de-emphasize the self may lead to a more socially acceptable balance in the personal self-esteem stakes.

Self-esteem, grades and relationships

   From the late 1970s to the early 1990s Americans assumed as a matter of course that students' self-esteem acted as a critical factor in the grades that they earn in school, in their relationships with their peers, and in their later success in life. Given this assumption, many American groups created programs which aimed to increase the self-esteem of students, assuming that grades would increase, conflicts would decrease, and that this would lead to happier and more successful lives. Until the 1990s little peer-reviewed and controlled research took place on this topic.

   Peer-reviewed research undertaken since then hasn't validated previous assumptions. Recent research indicates that inflating students' self-esteem in and of itself has no positive effect on grades. One study has shown that inflating self-esteem by itself can actually decrease grades. High self-esteem correlates highly with self-reported happiness. However, it isn't clear which, if either, necessarily leads to the other.

Bullying, violence and murder

Some of the most interesting results of recent studies center on the relationships between bullying, violence, and self-esteem. People used to assume that bullies acted violently towards others because they suffered from low self-esteem (although supporters of this position offered no controlled studies to back up this belief).
In contrast to old beliefs, recent research indicates that bullies act the way that they do because they suffer from unearned high self-esteem.

   The presence of superiority-complexes can be seen both in individual cases, such as the criminals Roy Baumeister studied, and in whole societies, such as Germany under the Nazi régime.
   The findings of this research don't take into account that the concept of self-esteem lacks a clear definition and that differing views exist of the precise definition of self-esteem. In his own work, Baumeister often uses a "common use" definition: self-esteem is how you regard yourself (or how you appear to regard yourself) regardless of how this view was cultivated. Other psychologists believe that a "self esteem" that depends on external validation of the self (or other people's approval), such as what seems relevant in the discussion of violent people, does not, in fact, equate to "true" self-esteem. Nathaniel Branden labeled external validation as "pseudo self-esteem", arguing that "true self-esteem" comes from internal sources, such as self-responsibility, self-sufficiency and the knowledge of one's own competence and capability to deal with obstacles and adversity, regardless of what other people think.
   Psychologists who agree with Branden's view dismiss Baumeister's findings. Such psychologists say that Baumeister mistakes narcissism as "high self-esteem" in criminals. They see such narcissism as an inflated opinion of self, built on shaky grounds, and opine that violence comes when that opinion comes under threat. Those with "true" self-esteem who valued themselves and believed wholly in their own competence and worth would have no need to resort to violence or indeed have any need to believe in their superiority or to prove their superiority.

Contingencies of self-worth

Contingencies of self-worth comprise those qualities a person believes he or she must have in order to class as a person of worth and value; proponents claim the contingencies as the core of self-esteem.
In the field of social psychology, Jennifer Crocker has carried out major research on the topic of contingencies of self-worth. She says that her research "explores what it's that people believe they need to be or do to have value and worth as a person, and the consequences of those beliefs". She claims that people pursue self-esteem by trying to prove that they've worth and value, and this pursuit affects "the satisfaction of the fundamental human needs for learning, relationships, autonomy, self-regulation, and mental and physical health" (Crocker, 2007). Crocker argues that this pursuit of self-worth affects not only the individual, but everyone around the person as well.
According to the "Contingencies of Self-Worth model" (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) people differ in their bases of self-esteem. Their beliefs — beliefs about what they think they need to do or who they need to "be" in order to class as a person of worth — form these bases. Crocker and her colleagues (2001) identified six "domains" in which people frequently derive their self-worth, including:

virtue

support of family

academic competence

physical attractiveness

gaining others' approval Individuals who base their self-worth in a specific domain (such as, for example, academic success) leave themselves much more vulnerable to having their self-esteem threatened when negative events happen to them within that domain (such as when they fail a test at school). A 2003 study by Crocker found that students who based their contingency of self-worth on academic criteria had a greater likelihood of experiencing lower-state self-esteem, greater negative affect, and negative self-evaluative thoughts when they didn't perform well on academic tasks, when they received poor grades, or when graduate schools rejected them (Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003; Crocker, Sommers, & Luhtanen, 2002).
   Crocker and her colleagues (2003) have constructed the "Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale", which measures the seven domains mentioned above that previous research had hypothesized as providing important internal and external sources of self-esteem. Crocker argues that the domains on which people base self-worth play a greater role than whether self-worth is actually contingent or not. Contingencies of self-worth can function internally, externally, or somewhere in between. Some research has shown that external contingencies of self-worth, such as physical appearance and academic success, correlate negatively to well-being, even promoting depression and eating-disorders (Jambekar, Quinn, & Crocker, 2001). Other work has found internal contingencies, on the other hand, unrelated or even positively related to well-being (Sargent, Crocker, & Luhtanen, 2006).
   Research by Crocker and her colleagues also suggests that contingencies of self-worth have self-regulatory properties (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Crocker et al. define successful self-regulation as “the willingness to exert effort toward one’s most important goals, while taking setbacks and failures as opportunities to learn, identify weaknesses and address them, and develop new strategies toward achieving those goals” (Crocker, Brook, & Niiya, 2006). Since many individuals strive for a feeling of worthiness, it makes sense that those people would experience special motivation to succeed and actively to avoid failure in the domains on which they base their own self-worth. Accordingly, successful self-regulation can prove difficult for people aiming to maintain and enhance their self-esteem, because they'd have to actually embrace failure or criticism as a learning-opportunity, rather than avoid it. Instead, when a task which individuals see as fundamental to their self-worth proves difficult and failure seems probable, contingencies of self-worth lead to stress, feelings of pressure, and a loss of intrinsic motivation. In these cases, highly contingent people may withdraw from the situation. On the other hand, the positive emotional affect following success in a domain of contingency may become addictive for the highly contingent individual (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). Over time, these people may require even greater successes to achieve the same satisfaction or emotional “high”. Therefore, the goal to succeed can become a relentless quest for these individuals (Crocker & Nuer, 2004).
   Researchers such as Crocker believe that people confuse the boosts to self-esteem resulting from successes with true human needs, such as learning, mutually supportive relationships, autonomy, and safety (Crocker & Nuer, 2004; Crocker & Park, 2004; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Crocker claims that people don't seek "self-esteem", but basic human needs, and that the contingencies on which they base their self-esteem has more importance than the level of self-esteem itself.

Further Information

Get more info on 'Self-esteem'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://self-esteem.totallyexplained.com">Self-esteem Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.