Optimal self esteem

Overview

Many individuals maintain their self esteem is high. They perceive themselves as competent and likeable (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). Nevertheless, in some instances, their self esteem, mood, and temperament are fragile. They become especially, and unduly, distressed in response to difficulties, such as criticisms. In other words, some individuals seem to demonstrate a fragile self esteem. Kernis (2003) developed a framework that differentiates four conceptualizations of this fragility.

To illustrate, some individuals, if asked directly, maintain they regard themselves as worthy and successful. However, some of these individuals do not like anything that is associated with themselves, such as their name or initials. These individuals tend to be defensive or even prejudiced.

Kernis (2003) summarized four measures or protocols that differentiate fragile from optimal self esteem. These four measures include contingent versus true self esteem, Unstable versus stable self esteem, self enhancement biases, and implicit versus explicit self esteem.

Contingent versus true self esteem

One dichotomy, which differentiates fragile and optimal self esteem, was formulated by Crocker (2002; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). In particular, Crocker distinguished contingent and true self esteem. Specifically, the self esteem of some individuals depends on whether they fulfill a set of arbitrary standards: academic prowess, social approval, physical attraction, divine acceptance, and power (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). In other words, the self esteem of these individuals is contingent upon their achievements in various domains.

A contingent self esteem provokes a host of problems. First, these individuals feel motivated to prevail in each of these domains--even if these pursuits do not align with their core, enduring values. As a consequence, they often do not experience a sense of engagement or enjoyment, which can compromise their wellbeing (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995). In addition, when they receive negative feedback, and their sense of achievement is thus thwarted, they experience intense negative emotions (for a review, see Kernis, 2003).

In contrast, some individuals instead pursue activities that align with their core, enduring values. These individuals experience positive attitudes towards themselves, called a true self esteem, whenever they engage in these key pursuits. They do not experience the problems that a contingent self esteem can provoke (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995).

Unstable versus stable self esteem

Self esteem, if contingent upon the achievements of individuals, might vary erratically across time. In response to victories or triumphs, self esteem might escalate dramatically. In the aftermath of failures or errors, however, self esteem might dissipate. Either as a consequence of these contingencies, or because of other factors, the self esteem of some individuals varies dramatically across time--called an unstable self esteem (Kernis, Jadrich, Stoner, & Sun, 1996). The self esteem of other individuals is less erratic and more stable instead.

When self esteem is unstable, individuals are more sensitive to positive or negative feedback (Kernis, Paradise, Whitaker, Wheatman, & Goldman, 2000. In response to negative events, their mood dissipates rapidly. In response to positive events, their mood improves exponentially (Greenier, Kernis, Whisenhunt, Waschull, Berry, Herlocker, & Abend, 1999). They also tend to be more defensive (Kernis, Greenier, Herlocker, Whisenhunt, & Abend, 1997).

The concept of self compartmentalization can accommodate these findings. In particular, throughout their life, individuals assume a variety of identities: a parent, friend, accountant, and footballer, for example. Some of these individuals recognize that all of their identities correspond to both positive and negative qualities. They might perceive themselves as a caring and understanding--but an anxious and protective--parent, for example. Other individuals conceptualize some of their identities as almost entirely positive and other identifies as almost entirely negative, called a compartmentalized self structure. The self esteem and mood of these individuals thus varies dramatically, depending on which identity as salient (Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007).

This instability might also coincide with other traits and behaviors. When the self esteem of individuals is varied, they might become cognizant of apparent contradictions in their personality. They might perceive themselves as confident in some settings, but awkward in similar, but distinct, contexts. These contradictions diminish their certainty of themselves, undermining self clarity (Campbell, 1990). This awareness of acute strengths and weaknesses is also known as self ambivalence; individuals who report this ambivalence are also very sensitive to positive and negative feedback (Riketta & Ziegler, 2007).

Self concept clarity

A stable self esteem is one of three key features of self concept clarity, as defined by Campbell (1990). Specifically, in addition to stability, self concept clarity represents the extent to which individuals perceive their qualities as consistent with one another as well as unambiguous or certain. For example, if the strengths and limitation of individuals seem to contradict each other, self concept clarity is regarded as limited. Furthermore, if individuals are not certain of their strengths and limitations, self concept clarity is also low. When self concept clarity subsides, self esteem diminishes as well (Campbell, 1990). Clarity of self concept is also inversely related to feelings of inadequacy, negative affect, and life satisfaction as well (Usborne & Taylor, 2010).

Self enhancement biases

A compartmentalized self structure enables individuals towards orient their attention to their strengths, disregarding their limitations. That is, individuals could amplify the salience of identities that correspond to positive attributes only. This self enhancement bias can, at least momentarily, increase the self esteem of individuals.

Various measures have been developed to assess the inclination of some individuals to shift their attention from limitations to strengths, called a self enhancement bias (see social desirability bias). Self enhancement biases tend to coincide with defensive reactions (see Kernis, 2003). These individuals, for example, tend to inflate their positive qualities in response to negative feedback (e.g., Schneider & Turkat, 1975).

Implicit versus explicit self esteem

Traditionally, self esteem was assessed explicitly. That is, respondents would answer direct questions such as "I am a worthwhile person". Over the past few decades, however, indirect or implicit measures of self esteem have emerged (e.g., Farnham, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1999; Hetts, Sakuma, & Pelham, 1999). The principal rationale of these measures is straightforward: If individuals experience a high self esteem, they should exhibit positive attitudes towards anything they associate with themselves (Bosson, Brown, Zeigler-Hill, & Swann Jr., 2003). Several measures have been developed to assess self esteem implicitly (see Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000, for a review), such as:

• The name letter effect: Individuals with a high self esteem tend to like their initials (see Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997; Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001; Koole & Pelham, 2003; Nuttin, 1985, 1987)
• Name liking effect: Individuals with a high self esteem tend to like their own name (Gebauer, Riketta, Broemer, & Maio, 2008).
• Implicit association tests: Individuals with a high self esteem tend to associate words that relate to themselves with positive words (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; for a discussion, see Grum & von Collani, 2007)
• Signature effect: Individuals with a high self esteem tend to sign their name with larger letters (Rudman, Dohn, & Fairchild, 2007)
• Word completion tasks (see Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000), evaluative priming techniques (see Spalding & Hardin, 1999), and affective priming tasks (Back, Krause, Hirschmuller, Stopfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2009) can also be used to gauge self esteem implicitly.

To illustrate an evaluative priming measure, for example, Pelham and Hetts (1999) developed a technique that can be utilized to assess implicit self esteem. First, individuals complete a series of questions that evoke reflections about themelves, such as to what extent do "Other people value (your) abilities and opinions" or "(are you) very sensitive to (your) inner thoughts and feelings". These questions are intended to prime the self.

Next, participants receive a series of word fragments, such as -ice or -ate. Participants are asked to form three words from each fragment. Some of the fragments can form positive words, such as nice. Other fragments can form negative words such as hate. If implicit self esteem is high, when the self is primed, positive concepts should become more salient. Participants should, for example, specify nice before the alternative answers. However, they should specify hate after the alternative answers. Although this procedure has been utilized by researchers, the internal consistency tends to be low, below .50 (Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000; Jordan, Whitfield, & Zeigler-Hill, 2007).

To illustrate a related technique, called affective priming (e.g., Back, Krause, Hirschmuller, Stopfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2009), participants are exposed to primes, often pictures, that correspond to either themselves or other individuals. A photograph of the participant or someone else might be presented, sometimes subliminally. After the prime, a word, such as honest or mean appears. Participants then indicate whether this word is positive of negative.

Some participants recognize positive words more rapidly--and negative words less rapidly--after stimuli that represent themselves appear. This pattern of observations implies they might perceive themselves positively, which represents an elevated level of implicit self esteem.

Implications of implicit and explicit self esteem

Some individuals report a high explicit self esteem but demonstrate a low implicit self esteem (e.g., Kernis, Abend, Goldman, Shrira, Paradise, & Hampton, 2005). These individuals also tend to be defensive in response to adverse feedback (e.g., Bosson, Brown, Zeigler-Hill, & Swann Jr., 2003; Epstein & Morling, 1995; Kernis, 2003) as well as discriminate against other ethnicities (Jordan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2005). This disparity between explicit and implicit self esteem, therefore, also seems to reflect a fragile self esteem.

Procedures that amplify implicit self esteem tend to curb these defensive reactions. For example, in a study conducted by Baccus, Baldwin, and Packer (2004), some of the participants were exposed to their personal details, such as their name, alongside positive pictures. This protocol instills positive associations with the self, which increases implicit self esteem (for a similar procedure, see Dijksterhuis, 2004). After implicit self esteem escalated, individuals subsequently became less aggressive and defensive.

However, Schroder-Abe, Rudolph, and Schutz (2007) argued that congruence between implicit and explicit self esteem, rather than merely elevated implicit self esteem, curbs anger and improves mental health. In one study, to measure implicit self esteem, participants completed the implicit association test. In addition, they completed an explicit measure of self esteem. Finally, they complete a measure of anger and anger expression, including items like "I could explode but I do not let anybody notice".

When explicit self esteem was high, implicit self esteem was negatively related to this feeling of anger that needs to be suppressed. That is, both high explicit and implicit self esteem seemed to curb anger. In contrast, when explicit self esteem was low, implicit self esteem was positively related to these feelings of anger. In this instance, high implicit self esteem, which deviates from the low explicit self esteem, seemed to provoke anger (Schroder-Abe, Rudolph, & Schutz, 2007). In a subsequent study, this incongruence between explicit and implicit self esteem predicted a depressive attributional style-the inclination to ascribe failures, but not achievements, to internal, stable, and global attributions like "I am hopeless".

According to Schroder-Abe, Rudolph, and Schutz (2007), any disparity between explicit and implicit self esteem indicates these two distinct representations of the self have not been integrated appropriately. The deliberate plans that emerge from explicit self esteem might not align to the preferences that emerge from implicit self esteem. Individuals often experience disappointment and frustration as a consequence. They experience a sense of dissonance, uncertain about their perceptions of themselves as well.

However, in response to threat, the implicit self esteem of some individuals tends to rise. In one study, conducted by Rudman, Dohn, and Fairchild (2007), some individuals were rejected from peers--a form of social threat. Subsequently, they became more likely to sign their signature with large letters, which is an implicit measure of self esteem.

Correlations across measures of implicit self esteem

Generally, the various measures of implicit self esteem do not correlate highly with one another (see Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000, for a review). Several researchers have attempted to explain the low, and sometimes negligible, relationships between various measures of implicit self esteem. These explanations tend to maintain that distinct measures represent different systems (e.g., Fazio & Olson, 2003; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2007).

To illustrate, according to Back, Krause, Hirschmuller, Stopfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2009), implicit self esteem, when gauged by the affective priming task, represents the extent to which individuals develop an association between themselves and positive affective states. If individuals are rewarded whenever they express or feel positive feelings about themselves, this association gradually evolves. If, for example, they are praised whenever they extol their virtues, implicit self esteem, as measured by the affective priming task, tends to improve.

In contrast, as Back, Krause, Hirschmuller, Stopfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2009) maintain, implicit self esteem, when gauged by the implicit association test, represents the extent to which individuals associate positive concepts with themselves. If individuals, when focused on themselves, are exposed to positive descriptions, such as "great", and rewarding contexts, these associations evolve. That is, they learn to associate desirable concepts with their personal character, which shapes their performance on the implicit association test.

Finally, Back, Krause, Hirschmuller, Stopfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2009) maintains that explicit self esteem corresponds to propositional representations. To illustrate, individuals might deliberate over feedback, such as praise or support. The conclusions that emerge from these deliberations ultimately impinge on explicit measures of self esteem.

Consistent with this framework, Back, Krause, Hirschmuller, Stopfer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2009) found these distinct measures of self esteem all predicted whether or not individuals expected they would be liked and respected by colleagues. Each of these predictions remained significant even after the other measures of self esteem were controlled; each measure, thus, seems to represent distinct, rather than redundant, systems.

Determinants of fragile self esteem

Avoidance of emotions and intuitions

Several scholars argue that individuals are more inclined to experience a fragile self esteem if they disregard their emotional, intuitive experiences. In a study conducted by Jordan, Whitfield, and Zeigler-Hill (2007), some participants were encouraged to trust their intuition; they were informed that intuitive judgments tend to be accurate. In these participants, explicit and implicit self esteem tended to be high correlated. In contrast, other participants were encouraged to disregard their intuition; they were told that intuitive judgments tend to be misleading. In these participants, explicit and implicit self esteem were negative related to one another.

This pattern of findings is consistent with the proposition, submitted by Jordan, Whitfield, and Zeigler-Hill (2007), that individuals do experience an intuitive sense of whether they are worthy or not. This intuitive sensation governs their implicit self esteem. If they disregard this intuition, however, their explicit self esteem will diverge from their implicit self esteem.

Consistent with this argument, Kernis (2003) maintained that children who are encouraged to reject their subjective experiences might develop a fragile self esteem. That is, some children are, inadvertently, encouraged to neglect their emotional experience. They might be instructed to refrain from crying, for example, and thus dismiss their dejected state. This neglect of their emotional, intuitive experience might foster a discrepancy between their explicit and implicit self esteem. Furthermore, this neglect does not enable individuals to pursue their core, intuitive values--which can thwart the evolution of a true self esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995).

Similarly, Kernis (2003) argued that individuals who do not reflect upon their private mental states, manifested as limited levels of private self consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), might also experience a fragile self esteem. Again, without these reflections, individuals might disregard their intuitive attitudes towards themselves or neglect their core values and needs.

Finally, as Kernis (2003) maintained, individuals who shun disclosure and intimacy to other individuals might also be more likely develop a fragile self esteem. These individuals might suppress their emotional experiences.

Biased attention, memories, and interpretation

Some individuals are more susceptible to biases (Stanovich & West, 1998, 2008). Indeed, Stanovich and West developed a series of questions to assess the susceptibility of individuals to biases. Individuals who recognize their beliefs and attitudes might not have been the same had they been raised by different parents, for example, are less inclined to exhibit biases. According to Kernis (2003), individuals who are susceptible to biases, and thus do not challenge their assumptions, might be more likely to exhibit self enhancement biases.

Clarity of social identity

When the social or cultural identity of individuals is ambiguous and uncertain, individuals are not as certain of their personal qualities, traits, and motivations. Self concept clarity--which entails stability of self esteem--diminishes, compromising the wellbeing of individuals (Usborne & Taylor, 2010). Specifically, when individuals consider their qualities and traits, they need to compare themselves to some benchmark or norm. For example, to perceive themselves as intelligent, they need to feel they are more gifted than some standard. According to Taylor (1997, 2002), individuals will often compare themselves to the standards or norms of their social or collective identity. If they are not certain to which groups they belong, they cannot compare themselves to a definitive standard or norm. Their self clarity diminishes.

Similarly, McAdams (2006) maintained that social norms, historical events, and cultural underpinnings infuse the life stories and personal identities of individuals. If their cultural identity is uncertain and ambiguous, these life stories also seem incoherent.

As the clarity of their personal identity diminishes, wellbeing dissipates as well. Indeed, according to Erikson (1968), a personal sense of coherence--the feeling that identity is enduring--is perhaps the key to psychological adjustment. Indeed, Campbell (1990) found that self concept clarity, representing the extent to which individuals perceive their qualities as stable, consistent with one another, and unambiguous, is related to self esteem.

Usborne and Taylor (2010) conducted some research to demonstrate the importance of clarity in cultural or social identity. First, participants completed a scale that assesses the clarity of cultural identity. Typical items include "In general, I have a clear sense of what my cultural group is", "My beliefs about my cultural group often conflict with one another". (reverse scored), or "If I were asked to describe my cultural group, my description might end up being different from one day to another day"(reverse scored). Thus, like self concept clarity, cultural identity clarity also comprises three features: the defining features of their culture is unequivocal, these features or characteristics are consistent with each other, and this identity as stable over time. In addition, participants completed a measure of self concept clarity and self esteem.

In this study, clarity of cultural identity was positively related to clarity of self concept, which in turn was associated with self esteem. Subsequent studies showed this clarity of self concept was inversely related to feelings of inadequacy, negative affect, and life satisfaction as well (Usborne & Taylor, 2010). This pattern was observed in individuals who often adopt two distinct cultures, such as Aboriginal Canadians and Chinese North Americans.

According to Usborne and Taylor (2010), Aboriginal cultures should be granted sufficient autonomy to embrace their norms and customs. This opportunity might instill a sense of clarity that, ultimately, improves the well-being of members. Individuals who identify with more than one culture, such as Chinese Americans, should be granted opportunities to understand the meaning of this bicultural identity (for a similar perspective, see Schwartz, Montgomery, and Briones, 2006).

Controversies

Kernis (2003) characterized four manifestations of fragile and optimal self esteem. Nevertheless, as Kernis concedes, these various manifestations do not always correlate with each other--although the associations across measures does warrant further research (see Zeigler-Hill, 2006, for a relevant study).

Related concepts

The counterfeit self

Gino, Norton, and Ariely (2010) introduced the concept of a counterfeit self. In short, according to Gino, Norton, and Ariely (2010), individuals sometimes engage in behavior that feels contrived or phony. They might, for example, wear counterfeit products--replica products of prestigious brands. Consequently, they feel inauthentic. This feeling then increases the sensitivity of individuals to inauthentic behavior: They often behave unethically and perceive other people as unethical as well.

In one of the studies, published by Gino, Norton, and Ariely (2010), participants wore either authentic or counterfeit sunglasses. Later, participants completed a numerical task and then transcribed their own performance on a piece of paper. Relative to other participants, individuals who wore the counterfeit sunglasses were more likely to inflate their actual performance.

In a subsequent study, participants answered a series of questions about the behavior of other people. They were, for example, asked to report the extent to which people they know would engage in unethical acts, such as return clothes after wearing the garments. They were also asked to estimate the likelihood that various statements, like "Sorry I'm late; the traffic was terrible", are usually lies. Compared to other participants, individuals who believed they wore counterfeit sunglasses were more likely to assume that people, in general, tend to be unethical. A final study showed that feelings of inauthenticity, as measured by questions like "Right now, I feel out of touch with the real me", mediated these associations (Gino, Norton, & Ariely, 2010).

A possible implication of this finding is that job applicants are especially likely to distort their responses to questions if they feel inauthentic. Wearing a suit they do not own could, theoretically, amplify this tendency.

References

Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. J. (2004). Increasing implicit self-esteem through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15, 498-502.

Back, M. D., Krause, S., Hirschmuller, S., Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2009). Unraveling the three faces of self-esteem: A new information-processing sociometer perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 933-937.

Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and if...then contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1130-1141.

Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 26-29.

Borton, J. L. S., Markovitz, L. J., & Dieterich, J. (2005). Effects of suppressing negative self-referent thoughts on mood and self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 172-180.

Bosson, J. K., Brown, R. P., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). Self-enhancement tendencies among people with high explicit self-esteem: The moderating role of implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 2, 169-187.

Bosson, J. K., Swann, W. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 631-643.

Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.

Campbell, J. D., Assanand, S., & Di Paula, A. (2003). The structure of the self-concept and its relation to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 115-140.

Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141-156.

Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80, 1041-1068.

Crocker, J. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-regulation and psychological vulnerability. Self and Identify, 1, 143-150.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, S. A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908.

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392-414.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 108-593.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human agency: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-50). New York: Plenum.

Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). I like myself but I don't know why: Enhancing implicit self-esteem by subliminal evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 345-355.

Epstein, S., & Morling, B. (1995). Is the self motivated to do more than enhance and/or verify itself In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 9-30). New York: Plenum Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.

Farnham, S. D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1999). Implicit self-esteem. In D. A brains, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 230-248). London: Blackwell.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 43, 522 528.

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2007). What do we know about implicit attitude measures and what do we have to learn? In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 265-286). New York: Guilford.

Gawronski, B., Hofmann, W., & Wilbur, C. J. (2006). Are "implicit" attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 485-499.

Gawronski, B., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Becker, A. P. (2007). I like it, because I like myself: Associative self-anchoring and post-decisional change of implicit evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 221-232.

Gebauer, J. E., Riketta, M., Broemer, P., & Maio, G. R. (2008). "How must do you like your name"? An implicit measure of global self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1346-1354.

Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21, 712-720.

Greenier, K. G., Kernis, M. H., Whisenhunt, C. R., Waschull, S. B., Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C. E., & Abend, T. (1999). Individual differences in reactivity to daily events: Examining the roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 67, 185-208.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.

Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022-1038.

Grum, M., & von Collani, G. (2007). Measuring Big-Five personality dimensions with the implicit association test-Implicit personality traits or self-esteem? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2205-2217.

Hetts, J., Sakuma, M., & Pelham, B. (1999). Two roads to positive regard: Implicit and explicit self-evaluation and culture. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 512-559.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization. New York: Norton.

Jones, S. C. (1973). Self and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 185-199.

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2003). "I love me...I love me not:" Implicit self-esteem, explicit self-esteem, and defensiveness. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 9. (pp. 117-145). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2005). Types of high self-esteem and prejudice: How implicit self-esteem relates to ethnic discrimination among high explicit self-esteem individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 693-702.

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 969-978.

Jordan, C. H., Whitfield, M., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2007). Intuition and the correspondence between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1067-1079.

Kernis, M. H. (2000). Substitute needs and fragile self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 298-300.

Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26.

Kernis, M. H., Abend, T. A., Goldman, B. M., Shrira, I., Paradise, A. N., & Hampton, C. (2005). Self-serving responses arising from discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-esteem. Self & Identity, 4, 311-330.

Kernis, M. H., Greenier, K. D., Herlocker, C. E., Whisenhunt, C. W., & Abend, T. (1997). Self-perceptions of reactions to positive and negative outcomes: The roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Personality & Individual Differences, 22, 846-854.

Kernis, M. H., Jadrich, J., Stoner, P., & Sun, C. R. (1996). Stable and unstable components of self-evaluations: Individual differences in self-appraisal responsiveness to feedback. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 15, 430-448.

Kernis, M. H., Paradise, A. W., Whitaker, D., Wheatman, S., & Goldman, B. (2000). Master of one's psychological domain? Not likely if one's self-esteem is unstable. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 297-305.

Kitayama, S., & Karasawa, M. (1997). Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name letters and birthday numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 736-742.

Koole, S. L., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2001). What's in a name: Implicit self-esteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 669-685.

Koole, S. L., & Pelham, B. W. (2003). On the nature of implicit self-esteem: The case of the name letter effect. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 9, pp. 93-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McAdams, D. P. (2006). The redemptive self: Generativity and the stories Americans live by. Research in Human Development, 3, 81-100.

McGregor, I., & Marigold, D. C. (2003). Defensive zeal and the uncertain self: What makes you so sure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 838-852.

Nuttin, J. M. (1985). Narcissism beyond gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 353-361.

Nuttin, J. M. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 381-402.

Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (1999). Implicit and explicit personal and social identity: Toward a more complete understanding of the social self. In T. Tyler & R. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Riketta, M., & Ziegler, R. (2007). Self-ambivalence and reactions to success versus failure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 547-560.

Rudman, L. A., Dohn, M. C., & Fairchild, K. (2007). Implicit self-esteem compensation: Automatic threat defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 798-813.

Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164-1178.

Sakellaropoulo, M., & Baldwin, M. W. (2006). The hidden sides of self esteem: Two dimensions of implicit self esteem and their relations to narcissistic reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 995-1001.

Schneider, D. J., & Turkat, D. (1975). Self-presentation following success or failure: Defensive self-esteem models. Journal of Personality, 43, 127-135.

Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2008). Broadening the study of the self: Integrating the study of personal identity and cultural identity. Social and Personality Compass, 2, 635-651.

Schroder-Abe, M., Rudolph, A., & Schutz, A.(2007). High implicit self-esteem is not necessarily advantageous: discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-esteem and their relationship with anger expression and psychological health. European Journal of Personality, 21, 319-339.

Spalding, L. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1999). Unconscious unease and self-handicapping: Behavioral consequences of individual differences in implicit and explicit self-esteem. Psychological Science, 10, 535-539.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672-695.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 322-342.

Taylor, D. M. (1997). The quest for collective identity: The plight of disadvantaged ethnic minorities. Canadian Psychology, 38, 174-189.

Taylor, D. M. (2002). The quest for identity: From minority groups to generation Xers. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Usborne, E., & Taylor, D. M. (2010). The role of cultural identity clarity for self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 883-897.

Vaillant, G. (1992). Ego mechanisms of defense: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Implications for narcissism and self-esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74, 119-143.

Zeigler-Hill, V., & Showers, C. J. (2007). Self-structure and self-esteem stability: The hidden vulnerability of compartmentalization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 143-159.

Created by Dr Simon Moss on 13/08/2009

Free Personality Tests : Relationships - Personality - Beliefs - Wellbeing - Attitudes - Behaviour - Cognitive Abilities