Distinguishing Between Fragile and Secure Forms of High Self-esteem: The Importance of Stability of Self-

esteem

Michael Kernis

University of Georgia

Overview

• What’s wrong with this picture?• Secure versus fragile high self-esteem• Stability of self-esteem as marker• Research findings

– Perceptions of parent-child communication

– Self-regulatory styles

– Authenticity

– Relationship functioning

– Psychological adjustment

• Conclusions

Collaborators

• Josh Foster• Brian Goldman• Whitney Heppner• Alison Herrmann• Chad Lakey• Andrew Paradise

• Wormer (“Worm”)• Patches (“Psycho”)• Mischief (“Queen”)• Woody (“Brainiac”)

Secure High Self-esteem

• Feel worthwhile and valuable

• Like and satisfied with oneself

• Accept weaknesses

• Built upon solid foundation

• Does NOT require continual validation or promotion

Fragile High Self-esteem

• Feel very proud and seemingly confident

• Do not like to see weaknesses in themselves

• Quick to defend against possible threats to self-worth

• Engage in excessive self-promoting activities

Synthesis

• Whereas some people possess fragile high self-esteem, other people possess secure high self-esteem.

• This raises the difficult issue of how to distinguish between them. Traditional measures are not very helpful.

Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-esteem Scale

• I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others

• I feel like a person who has a number of good qualities

• I take a positive attitude toward myself• I wish that I could have more respect

for myself ®

Markers

Fragile High Secure High

Unstable vs StableContingent vs TrueLow Implicit vs High ImplicitDefensive vs Genuine

Kernis (2003). Psychological Inquiry

Level of Self-esteem

• People’s general or typical feelings of self-worth: High or Low

• Self-esteem scale completed once, based on “how you generally or typically feel about yourself”

Stability of Self-esteem• Magnitude of short-term fluctuations in

situationally-based feelings of self-worth

• Self-esteem measure completed multiple times over 5-7 days based on “how you feel at this moment”

Stable vs Unstable Self-esteem

• Unstable Self-esteem: Substantial short-term fluctuations in contextually based immediate feelings of self-worth

• Stable Self-esteem: Minimal short-term fluctuations

People With Unstable Self-esteem

• Self-feelings more affected by everyday negative and positive events (Greenier, Kernis, et al. ,1999)

• Greater increases in depressive symptoms when faced with daily hassles (Kernis et al., 1998),

(Cont.)• Overgeneralize negative implications of

specific failures (Kernis et al., 1998)• Adopt a cautious, self-esteem protective

orientation toward learning as opposed to curiosity and challenge seeking (6th grade children; Waschull & Kernis, 1996)

• Impoverished self-concepts (Kernis et al., 2000)

• Goal directed behaviors regulated suboptimally (Kernis et al., 2000)

Children’s Perceptions of Their Father’sCommunication Patterns

• Compared to children with stable SE, children with unstable SE were more likely to report that their fathers

– Nagged, bothered, and insulted them when he was angry

– Called them names like stupid and lazy– Were psychologically controlling –e.g., “If you

loved me, you would do what I want you to do” – Infrequently talked about the good things they

had done– Did not offer verbal encouragement, physical

affection, or to do something together when he was happy with them or their behavior

Self-regulation and Goal Strivings (from Deci & Ryan’s work)

• Intrinsic: interest and enjoyment

• Identified: growth and development

• Introjected: avoiding guilt and anxiety, self-worth contingencies, “shoulds”

• External: rewards and punishments

Michael Kernis

Patches• I always spray against the inside of the

kitchen door in the morning—I can’t help myself. I’d feel really guilty if I missed a day (Introjected).

• I chase Mischief because I have to prove to myself that I still “have it.” I feel so proud when I corner her (Introjected).

Wormer• I always touch somebody–at the least, I

stretch a paw so that I have some contact. It’s so much fun! I hope that my new brother Woody likes to “spoon” (Intrinsic).

• I eat too much food too quickly and I vomit it all back up, always close to my parents so they can see it. As soon as it’s clean, I start eating again. I believe it’s important to have a full stomach (Identified).

Woody

• I try to do what I should do to be “cute” so my brothers will accept me (Introjected)

• I already get my parents to bring me kitty milk and treats. Now I have to figure out what I need to do to get catnip (External)

• I’m too young to know what I think is important to my cat-concept–check back with me after I’ve been neutered

Self-esteem Stability and Self-regulatory Styles (Kernis et al., 2000)

• Intrinsic: -.31

• Identified: -.30

• The more unstable, the less intrinsic and identified

• Introjected: .21

• Extrinsic: .33

• The more unstable, the more extrinsic and introjected

Authenticity• The unimpeded operation of one’s true

or core self in one’s daily enterprise

• Four components:

• (1) awareness

• (2) unbiased processing

• (3) behavior

• (4) relational orientation

Awareness• Awareness of, and trust in, one’s motives,

feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions.

• “I am in touch with my motives and desires”

• “I understand why I believe the things I do about myself”

Unbiased Processing

• Not denying, distorting, exaggerating, nor ignoring private knowledge, internal experiences, and externally based self-evaluative information.

• “I’d rather feel good about myself than objectively assess my personal limitations and shortcomings” (reverse scored)

Behavior• Acting in accord with one’s values,

preferences, and needs versus acting merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments

• “I find that my behavior typically expresses my values”

• “I’ve often done things that I don’t want to do merely not to disappoint people” (reverse scored)

Relational• Valuing and achieving openness and

truthfulness in one’s close relationships

• “My openness and honesty in close relationships are extremely important to me”

• “It is important for me to understand my close others' needs and desires”

Correlations Between Self-esteem Level, Stability, and Authenticity

• Level Stability

• Aware .26* -.29**

• Process .08 -.33**

• Behave .35** -.24**

• Relate .22* -.01

• Total .32** -.29**

• * = p < .05 ** = p < .01

Preview

• People with UNSTABLE HIGH self-esteem:

– defensive and self-aggrandizing– lower in psychological health and well-

being – e.g., especially prone toward anger and

hostility

Predicted Values on Novaco Inventory (Kernis et al., 1989)

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

Unstable High

Stable High

Self-promotion Among Unstable High SE Individuals

• Report being likely to boast about success to their friends (Kernis et al., 1997)

• Report success in spite of interfering factors (Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1992)

Implications for Relationship Functioning (Kernis, Goldman, &

Paradise, in preparation)

• People with unstable high self-esteem will be highly sensitive to potentially aversive partner actions

• This heightened sensitivity will undermine relationship quality

Relationship Study (Kernis, Goldman, & Paradise)

• Developed Relationship Reaction Inventory (RRI)

• Inventory consists of nine scenarios depicting potentially aversive partner behaviors

• For each scenario, four possible responses depicted

• Two suggest overinvestment of self: “internalize” and “get even”

• Two suggest minimal investment of self: “benign” and “minimize”

Your Partner Leaves a Note Around With a Person Named Pat and You Don’t Know

Anyone Named Pat…

• Minimize: think that the note is nothing to be concerned about

• Benign: think that it’s okay for your partner to know people whom you don’t

• Internalize: think that your partner is untrustworthy and might be betraying you

• Get even: plan to leave a similar note for your partner to find in the next several days

Your Partner Gives You a Nice Birthday Present, but It Isn’t What You Subtly Let Him/her Know That You Really Wanted…

• Minimize: Enjoy the present that you got

• Benign: Think that circumstances beyond his/her control must have prevented it

• Internalize: Think that you must not be important enough to him/her

• Get even: In the future, give him/her a present other than what she/he really wants

Your Partner Does Not Look Up From What He or She Is Doing When You First Enter the Room and Begin Talking. You Ask Several Questions and Still Your

Partner Answers Without Looking Up …

• Minimize: not think very much about it

• Benign: think that your partner is engrossed in something very interesting or important

• Internalize: think that your partner does not care, value, or respect you enough

• Get even: go about your business, but treat your partner that very same way when he/she later approaches you

“Benign”

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Unstable High

Stable High

“Minimize”

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

Unstable High

Stable High

“Get Even”

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Unstable High

Stable High

“Internalize”

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

Unstable High

Stable High

Perceptions of Relationship Quality (Spanier measure)

• Affection: Agree on amount of affection, displays of love

• Cohesiveness: Stimulating conversation, laugh, discuss, work together on something

• Satisfaction: Want relationship to succeed, happy with relationship, think things are going well, don’t quarrel, don’t get on each other’ nerves

“Affection”

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

10

Unstable High

Stable High

“Cohesiveness”

15

16

17

18

19

20

Unstable High

Stable High

“Satisfaction”

28

30

32

34

36

Unstable High

Stable High

Mediation Summary

Affection

Satisfaction

Cohesiveness

Overall

Benign NO YES NO NO

Minimize NO YES NO NO

Internalize

YES YES NO YES

Get Even YES YES YES YES

Conclusions from Relationship Study

• Unstable High SEs report lower relationship quality than do Stable High SEs

• Unstable High SEs report higher “get even” and “internalize” responses than do Stable High SEs

• The degree to which people report these responses accounts for this difference in perceived relationship quality

Self-esteem Stability and Overall Psychological Adjustment (Paradise &

Kernis, 2002)• Unstable high less than stable high

– Self-acceptance– Positive relations with others– Autonomy– Environmental mastery– Purpose in lifeSubscales of Ryff’s (1989)

Multidimensional Well-Being Scale

Environmental Mastery

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

Unstable High

Stable High

Overall Summary and Implications

• High self-esteem can be fragile or secure• Stable = Secure; Unstable = Fragile• This distinction has important implications

for how high self-esteem relates to interpersonal functioning and psychological adjustment

• A full understanding of self-esteem processes requires consideration of both stability and level of self-esteem