Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._4

Morgan, Barrie S. 1983a ‘‘An Alternate Approach to the Development of a Distance-Based Measure of Racial Segregation.’’ American Journal of Sociology 88:1237–1249.

——— 1983b ‘‘A Distance-Decay Interaction Index to Measure Residential Segregation.’’ Area 15:211–216.

Peach, Ceri 1998 ‘‘South Asian and Caribbean Ethnic Minority Housing Choice in Britain.’’ Urban Studies 35:1657–1680.

Stearns, Linda B., and John R. Logan 1986 ‘‘Measuring Segregation: Three Dimensions, Three Measures.’’

Urban Affairs Quarterly 22:124–150.

Theil, Henri 1972 Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Am-

sterdam: North Holland.

White, Michael J. 1983 ‘‘The Measurement of Spatial Segregation.’’ American Journal of Sociology 88:1008–1019.

———1984 ‘‘Reply to Mitra.’’ American Journal of Sociology 90:189–191.

———1986 ‘‘Segregation and Diversity: Measures in Population Distribution.’’ Population Index 52:198–221.

DOUGLAS S. MASSEY

SELF-CONCEPT

The self is the central concept used to represent the individual in sociological social psychology. The importance of the self reflects the influence of symbolic interactionism in sociology. In the last twenty years social psychologists trained in psychology also have developed a strong interest in the self as their emphasis has shifted from behaviorism to cognitive theories (Baumeister, 1998).

STABLE SELF-CONCEPTS

The social psychological conception of the self is based on the idea that people are reflexive, responding to themselves just as they respond to other ‘‘objects.’’ Since reflexive thinking requires language, it is assumed that infants and nonhuman animals lack a self-concept. However, there is some evidence that chimpanzees are aware of what they look like, since they notice markings on their faces (Gallup 1977). This self-recognition suggests that some animals and prelinguistic humans have a rudimentary sense of self but that it lacks meaning or content.

Some sociologists, particularly those with a philosophical and qualitative orientation, view the

self as a process involving people’s internal conversations. Those with a more positivistic and quantitative orientation emphasize more stable aspects of the self. From their point of view, the selfconcept refers to all the ways in which people describe themselves. These linguistic descriptions refer to the way people think they are, no to their actual personal characteristics.

People describe themselves in many different ways. One way to find out about the content of the self-concept is to ask respondents to answer the question ‘‘Who am I?’’ Studies of responses to this question reveal that people often think of themselves in terms of their roles (or role identities). For example, people often describe themselves on the basis of their sex, age, race, and occupation. Stryker (1968) suggests that these and other roles are organized in a hierarchy according to their salience for a person. The salience of a role is based in part on the extent to which adequate performance of that role affects relationships with ‘‘significant others.’’ Salience is also a function of how distinctive a role is (McGuire and PadawerSinger 1976). For example, a female is more likely to mention her gender in describing herself if she is in a group of males.

People also describe themselves in terms of personal attributes, such as ‘‘lazy,’’ ‘‘smart,’’ and ‘‘attractive.’’ In contrast to roles—which usually are described with nouns—these self-concepts are more likely to be defined by adjectives. They often reflect individuals’ conceptions of their abilities or performance in different roles. For example, on a questionnaire children can be asked, ‘‘How smart in school do you think you are, among the smartest, above average, average, or below average?’’ Respondents sometimes try to be objective in answering this type of question and to place themselves according to the criteria they think the researcher is using. Sometimes they report more subjective feelings about where they stand in accordance with their own standards. For example, professional athletes may be dissatisfied with their level of play even if they think they are better than most people. Other personal attributes involve self-attri- buted traits such as ‘‘aggressive’’ or ‘‘nice.’’ Also included here are the ways in which people characterize their beliefs and attitudes. For example, people may conceive of themselves as prejudiced or not independently of whether they are prejudiced by an objective standard.

While individuals think of themselves in terms of specific roles and specific evaluations of their personal attributes, they also have a more general opinion of themselves (Gecas and Burke, 1995). This global evaluation Brown, 1993 called selfesteem and is measured by statements such as ‘‘I feel I do not have much to be proud of’’ and ‘‘At times I think I am no good at all’’ (Rosenberg 1965). The global nature of self-esteem is indicated by the tendency of individuals to describe themselves as consistently positive or negative on different personal attributes. However, self-esteem also has different dimensions, such as self-efficacy and self-worth (Gecas 1982). Self-esteem, like depression and anxiety, usually is considered an aspect of mental health. Research using longitudinal data has shown that self-esteem affects and is affected by depression among adolescents (Rosenberg et al. 1989).

There is considerable evidence that people are motivated to enhance their self-esteem. For example, respondents tend to give inflated evaluations of themselves on anonymous questionnaires. In addition, subjects in experiments are more likely to explain their successes in terms of internal attributes, such as effort and ability, while attributing their failures to external factors, such as task difficulty (Bradley 1978).

SITUATIONAL SELF-IMAGES

Some self-statements are more temporary than those described above, involving the roles or personal attributes people use to describe themselves in particular situations. For example, a woman may think of herself as a ‘‘teacher’’ when she is talking to her students and as ‘‘foolish’’ when she has made a mistake. If repeated, these situational images may become stable as people come to believe them. Emotions also can be considered temporary self-concepts if one thinks of them as statements about how people say they feel rather than as a physiological process. Thinking about emotions in this way leads to the examination of how emotions are affected by social processes.

Some scholars focus on the presentation of situational self-images to others (Goffman 1959). Borrowing language from the theater, they view behavior as a performance displayed in front of an audience, a form of self-presentation or impression

management. This approach presents a challenge to those who attempt to measure self-concepts, since it suggests that responses on questionnaires reflect self-presentation rather than privately held beliefs. Researchers try to minimize this problem by using carefully worded questions and guaranteeing anonymity.

Situational self-images often are studied in laboratory experiments. For example, subjects may be asked to respond after receiving false feedback about themselves. To determine whether a selfdescription involves impression management, the privacy of subjects’ responses may be manipulated. When behavior in front of an audience is different from behavior performed in private, this suggests that the behavior reflects impression management rather than privately held beliefs. This type of research also can tell researchers something about how behavior is affected by subjects’ awareness that they are being studied. Some behaviors in experimental settings have been shown to result from subjects doing what they think is expected of them (Orne 1962).

Self-presentation behavior is particularly likely to occur when people have done something that is apt to gain disapproval from an audience. When people find themselves in these ‘‘predicaments,’’ they are embarrassed and engage in various forms of ‘‘facework’’ to avoid a negative image. Frequently, people give excuses and justifications in an attempt to explain their behavior and avoid condemnation from others. Research shows that subjects are more likely to use self-presentation tactics when they are dependent on the audience for rewards. An important role of self-presenta- tion in conformity, altruism, aggression, and other behaviors has been demonstrated. For example, self-presentation processes are important in explaining the behavior of bullies and the tendency for people to retaliate when attacked (Tedeschi and Felson 1994).

DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-APPRAISALS

Three processes have been used to explain why people have favorable or unfavorable opinions about themselves: (1) attribution, (2) comparison, and (3) reflected appraisal. The first two processes have been emphasized by psychological social psychologists, while the third has been the focus of

sociological social psychologists, particularly those sympathetic toward symbolic interactionism.

According to attribution theory, people learn about themselves and others in similar ways. Individuals base judgments about themselves on observations of their own behavior just as they base judgments about others on their observations of those people’s behavior (Bem 1972). These judgments are socially influenced, since beliefs about the association of behaviors and personal attributes are learned from others. In judging their abilities, for example, people rely in part on observations of their performances on tasks they believe reflect those abilities. Thus, children who get high grades tend to attribute more ability to themselves. Individuals are likely to attribute a high level of ability to themselves when there is a consistent pattern of success (Kelley 1967).

When people view their behavior as being caused by external forces, they treat it as uninformative about themselves. However, when they view their behavior as being internally caused, there is likely to be some change in their selfappraisals. For example, research shows that external rewards sometimes can reduce the motivation of children to do things they have enjoyed in the past, such as playing with magic markers (Deci and Ryan 1980). If they are rewarded for playing with magic markers, they tend to lose interest when they are no longer rewarded because they attribute their behavior to the reward rather than to their intrinsic motivation. The external reward can decrease their interest in the behavior because it affects their judgments about why they did it. More generally, there is evidence that people’s behaviors can affect their attitudes, just as their attitudes can affect their behaviors (Liska et al. 1984). For example, a person may decide that she likes an activity because she observes herself voluntarily engaging in that activity.

Comparison processes are also important factors in the development of self-appraisals. They affect the standards people use in evaluating their behavior. For example, students may think a B is a good grade or a poor grade depending on the standard they use. Standards are a function of two types of comparisons. A temporal comparison is a comparison of present performance and past performance. People are likely to judge their recent performances more harshly if they have been suc-

cessful in the past. A social comparison is a comparison of one’s own behavior to the behavior of others. The more successful the others are, the higher the standard is and the more negative the self-appraisal is. Thus, subjects are more negative in describing themselves when there is another person with very positive qualities present than they are when that person has negative qualities (Morse and Gergen 1970). This implies that selfappraisals tend to be more favorable if one is a ‘‘big fish in a small pond.’’ For example, research shows that high school students tend to have more negative self-appraisals of their academic ability if their schoolmates are bright (Felson and Reed 1986). However, sometimes the performance of others has a positive effect on self-appraisal. This occurs when people ‘‘borrow status’’ from successful others with whom they are associated and ‘‘bask in reflected glory’’ (Cialdini et al. 1976).

Festinger (1954) suggested that social comparison processes result from the desire to gain accurate appraisals of one’s abilities and to find out whether one’s opinions are correct. When objective information is not available, people compare themselves to others. Further, Festinger suggested that people usually choose similar others for comparison because the behavior of those persons provides the most information. Some research has examined the hypothesis that people evaluate their abilities by comparing themselves to others who are similar to themselves on attributes (other than ability) that are related to performance. For example, comparisons with people who have engaged in a similar effort will be the most informative. Similarly, if a boy believes that gender is related to athletic performance, he will compare himself to other boys in order to decide how much athletic ability he has.

According to the reflected appraisal process, people come to see themselves as others see them, or at least as they think others see them. This notion of the ‘‘looking-glass self’’ focuses on how individuals think they appear to others (Cooley 1902). According to Mead (1934), this helps explain the initial formation of self in young children. Mead suggested that when children roleplay, they respond to themselves when they play the role of others. This role-taking process leads them to see themselves as objects. Later, the appraisals of significant others shape the specific content of people’s self-concepts. The appraisals

of others are accurately perceived and then are incorporated into the self-concept. Significant others may have special expertise or may be parents or close friends, but those who influence one aspect of the self-concept do not necessarily influence other aspects.

Experimental research suggests that subjects’ self-appraisals are affected by the false feedback they receive from others. Survey research—which examines correlations between self-appraisals, the appraisals of significant others, and a person’s perception of those appraisals—suggests that the appraisals of significant others are not perceived very accurately (Schrauger and Schoeneman 1979). Apparently, rules of politeness limit the amount of open communication—particularly criticism—mak- ing it difficult for people to find out what others think of them (Felson 1980). When feedback is given, it tends to involve specific comments about behavior rather than global evaluations. When praise is given, it often is not believed. As a result, people usually have only vague, general impressions of what others think of them and self-apprais- als tend to be idiosyncratic and idealized (Felson 1989). While others are in some agreement about a person, that person does not share in the consensus. In addition, ambiguous feedback allows people to think more favorably about themselves and thus protect their self-esteem.

This discussion also applies to global self-es- teem. Educators and parents may overemphasize the importance of praise in the development of self-esteem in children. While there is evidence that parents’ praise and other supportive behavior affects the self-esteem of children (Felson and Zielinski 1989), successful performance in activities that children value may be more important.

There are other processes that increase the correspondence between people’s appraisals of themselves and the appraisals of others. First, in some instances, people have access to the same information others have. For example, children’s self-appraisals of their ability and their friends’ appraisals of them correspond, because both are affected by the children’s grades. Second, some other people can influence self-concepts if they have control over formal evaluations. For example, evidence shows that teachers influence selfconcepts because they assign grades, but that is usually the extent of their influence in this area.

The discussion above has focused on the interpersonal environment. Social-demographic characteristics also affect self-appraisal. Social class, for example, has been shown to affect the self-esteem of adults but not that of children (Rosenberg and Pearlin 1978). Blacks and whites, by contrast, have similar levels of self-esteem (Porter and Washington, 1993; Wylie, 1979). A key element here appears to be whether people associate with others who are like themselves. The self-esteem of minority group members is likely to be lower in more heterogeneous settings where invidious comparisons are made and where members of higherstatus groups may act in prejudicial ways.

CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-CONCEPTS

The way individuals think of themselves has an important impact on how they behave. Thus, people who think of themselves in terms of particular role identities tend to act in ways that are consistent with those identities. For example, a man who identifies himself as a father will engage in the behaviors he associates with being a father. These roles provide links between the individual and society. Individuals are plugged into the social structure through the roles that are mapped onto selves. In other words, role performance reflects the way people think about themselves. Of course, people vary in terms of the importance they attach to different roles. When people must decide between roles, they tend to choose the role more salient to them (Stryker 1968). For example, the choice between doing work and playing with children on a Sunday afternoon may reflect the relative salience of family and occupational roles.

Success and failure frequently are attributed to variations in self-confidence. Self-appraisals and performance are certainly correlated, but this does not necessarily mean that the former causes the latter. Longitudinal studies, which attempt to disentangle these causal relationships, suggest that students’ global self-esteem does not affect their academic performance. However, there is evidence that specific self-appraisals of ability affect performance. Longitudinal analyses of high school students suggest that self-appraisals of academic ability have an effect on grades (Felson 1984). Selfappraisals of ability affect performance through two processes: effort and test anxiety. Those who are self-confident about their ability are likely to

work harder because they think effort will bring success. In addition, they are less anxious when they are tested, and so nervousness does not interfere with their performance. However, the effect of self-appraisal on performance probably is not as strong as people think. The effect of grades on selfappraisal is much stronger, suggesting that success is more likely to lead to self-confidence than selfconfidence is to lead to success.

Causal interpretation has been problematic in the study of the effects of self-concept on other behaviors as well. While self-esteem and various self-appraisals have been shown to correlate with behavior, it is difficult to show that the self-con- cepts cause the behaviors. Relatively few studies have attempted to sort out these relationships. Exceptions include longitudinal studies that suggest that low self-esteem increases delinquency among adolescents (e.g., Kaplan 1980; Rosenberg et al. 1989). In general, criminologists today are more likely to attribute criminal behavior to low self-control than to low self-esteem.

An interesting experimental method for examining the effects of self-concept on behavior has been suggested by Duval and Wicklund (1972). They suggest that since much human behavior is automatic or habitual, people do not always think about themselves before they engage in a behavior. These authors argue that self-concepts affect behavior when attention is directed toward the self rather than toward the environment, a condition they call ‘‘objective self-awareness.’’ Objective selfawareness is likely to occur when people are in unfamiliar surroundings, when there are disruptions in social interaction, and when people find themselves in a minority. Mirrors are commonly used in experiments to create objective self-aware- ness. These studies show that subjects are more likely to engage in behavior that is consistent with their self-standards when they are facing a mirror (e.g., Beaman et al. 1979). In addition, there are individual differences: Some people are more chronically focused on themselves as objects. The behavior of such people is more likely to be consistent with their self-appraisals and internalized standards.

A number of researchers have examined the role of self-concepts in resisting change. For example, research suggests that people are motivated to

reaffirm self-concepts when they are challenged (Swann 1984). Markus (1977) considers the generalizations people make about themselves as ‘‘selfschemas’’ that affect the way they process information. Self-schemas usually refer to personality traits (e.g., ‘‘independent’’ and ‘‘generous’’) that people attribute to themselves on the basis of past actions. Once formed, they affect the information people attend to and remember and how quickly they process it. For example, people are more likely to learn and recall information that is associated with their self-schemas. In other words, self-schemas act like filters, guiding the processing of incoming information. Thus, self-schemas have a conservative function because they lead people to focus on information that is consistent with their views of themselves.

SUMMARY

The determinants and consequences of the self have become central concerns for both sociologically and psychologically trained social psychologists. Self-concepts depend on the way individuals think they are viewed by others, on individuals’ observations of their behavior, and on the standards individuals use to judge that behavior. These judgments in turn depend on the performance (for comparison) and appraisals of others. Selfconcepts have consequences in that they affect which roles are performed and how successfully they are performed. They also affect conformity and deviance and the management of impressions. Finally, they are important in their own right as indicators of mental health.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, Roy 1998 ‘‘The Self.’’ In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Beaman, A. L., B. Klentz, E. Diener, and S. Svanum 1979 ‘‘Objective Self-Awareness and Transgression in Children: A Field Study.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:1835–1846.

Bem, Daryl 1972 ‘‘Self-Perception Theory.’’ In L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.

Bradley, G. W. 1978 ‘‘Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution Process: A Reexamination of the Fact or Fiction

Question.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

36:56–71.

Brown, J. D. 1993 ‘‘Self-esteem and Self-evaluation: Feeling is Believing.’’ In J. Suls, ed., Psychological Perspectives on the Self. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cialdini, R. B., R. J. Borden, A. Thorne, M. R. Walker, S. Freeman, and L. R. Sloan 1976 ‘‘Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (Football) Field Studies.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34:366–374.

Cooley, Charles H. 1902 Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.

Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan 1980 ‘‘The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes.’’ In L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social psychology, vol. 13. New York: Academic Press.

Duval, S., and R. A. Wicklund 1972 A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness. New York: Academic Press.

Felson, Richard B. 1980 ‘‘Communication Barriers and the Reflected Appraisal Process.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 43:223–233.

Felson, Richard B. 1984 ‘‘The Effects of Self-appraisals of Ability on Academic Performance.’’ Journal of Peronality and Social Psychology 47:944–952.

——— 1989 ‘‘Parents and the Reflected Appraisal Process: A Longitudinal Analysis.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:965–971.

———, and Mark Reed 1986 ‘‘The Effect of Parents on the Self-Appraisals of Children.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly, 49:302–308.

———, and Mary Zielinski. 1989 ‘‘Children’s Self-Es- teem and Parental Support.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:727–735.

Festinger, Leon 1954 ‘‘A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.’’ Human Relations 7:117–140.

Gallup, G. G., Jr. 1977 ‘‘Self-Recognition in Primates: A Comparative Approach to the Bidirectional Properties of Consciousness.’’ American Psychologist 32:329–338.

Gecas, Viktor 1982 ‘‘The Self-Concept.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 8:1–33.

Gecas, Viktor, and Peter J. Burke 1995 ‘‘Self and Identity.’’ In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine and J. S. House, eds.,

Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.

Goffman, Erving 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Kaplan, Howard B. 1980 Deviant Behavior in Defense of Self. New York: Academic Press.

Kelley, H. H. 1967 ‘‘Attribution Theory in Social Psychology.’’ In D. Levine, ed., Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Liska, A., R. Felson, M. Chamlin, and W. Baccaglini 1984 ‘‘Estimating Attitude-Behavior Relations within a Theoretical Specification.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly 47:15–23.

Markus, H. 1977 ‘‘Self-Schemata and Processing Information about the Self.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:63–78.

McGuire, William J., and A. Padawer-Singer 1976 ‘‘Trait Salience in the Spontaneous Self-Concept.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33:743–754.

Mead, G. H. 1934 Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Morse, S., and K. J. Gergen 1970 ‘‘Social Comparison, Self-Consistency, and the Concept of Self.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16:148–156.

Orne, Martin T. 1962 ‘‘On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications.’’

American Psychologist 17:776–783.

Porter, J. R., and R. E. Washington 1993 ‘‘Minority Identity and Self-esteem.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 19:139–161.

Rosenberg, M. 1965 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

———, and Leonard Pearlin 1979 ‘‘Social Class and Self-Esteem among Children and Adults.’’ American Journal of Sociology 84:53–87.

———, Carmi Schooler, and Carrie Schoenback 1989 ‘‘Self-Esteem and Adolescent Problems.’’ American Sociological Review 54:1004–1018.

Schrauger, J. S., and T. J. Schoeneman 1979 Symbolic Interactionist View of Self: Through the Looking Glass Darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86:549–573.

Stryker, Sheldon 1968 ‘‘Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 30:558–564.

Swann, W. B. 1984 ‘‘Self-Verification: Bringing Social Reality into Harmony with the Self.’’ In J. Suls and A. G. Greenwald, eds., Psychological Perspective on the Self, vol. 2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Tedeschi, James T. and Richard B. Felson 1994 Violence, Aggression, & Coercive Actions. Washington, D.C.: APA Books.

Wylie, Ruth 1979 The Self-Concept: Revised Edition, vol. 2: Theory and Research on Selected Topics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

RICHARD B. FELSON

SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem is a concept that has been used to explain a vast array of emotional, motivational, and behavioral phenomena. Most Americans believe intuitively that low self-esteem is undesirable; indeed, the link between low self-esteem and depression, shyness, loneliness, and alienation supports the general idea that low self-esteem is an aversive state. The view that self-esteem is a vital component of mental health is also evident in the popular media and in educational policy. Low selfesteem has been viewed as the root cause of societal problems ranging from drug abuse to teenage pregnancy to poor school performance. A number of educational and therapeutic programs have been developed to solve these problems by increasing self-esteem. Self-esteem is one of the most frequently examined constructs in sociology and psychology, with more than 15,000 research articles referring to it over the past thirty years. This entry reviews the research that has focused on the conceptual and functional basis of self-esteem.

Self-esteem is defined as the evaluative component of the self-concept, the extent to which people view themselves as likable and worthy as opposed to unlikable and unworthy. As a selfreflexive attitude, self-esteem is composed of cognitive and affective components. Self-esteem is related to personal beliefs about skills, abilities, and future outcomes as well as the strategies people use to gain self-knowledge. However, the personal experience of self-esteem is more emotional than rational. Some people dislike themselves in spite of objective evidence suggesting that they should feel very good about themselves. Many successful doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs are filled with self-loathing despite their objective career success.

The term ‘‘self-esteem’’ sometimes is used interchangeably with terms such as ‘‘self-confi- dence,’’ ‘‘self-efficacy,’’ and even ‘‘self-concept,’’ but such usage is inaccurate and should be discouraged. Self-confidence and self-efficacy refer to the belief that one can attain specific outcomes. Although people with high self-esteem often are self-confident, evaluative reactions to personal outcomes vary greatly, and it is possible for people to be confident about attaining a goal without feeling good about themselves in the process. The term ‘‘self-concept’’ refers to the components of self-

knowledge and includes things such as name, race, ethnicity, gender, occupation, likes and dislikes, and personality traits. As such, self-concept refers to cognitive beliefs and other forms of self-relevant knowledge (Felson 1992). Although self-esteem clearly is influenced by the contents of the selfconcept, they are not the same thing.

STRUCTURE AND MEASUREMENT OF

SELF-ESTEEM

An important issue in the literature on self-esteem is whether self-esteem is best conceptualized as a unitary global trait or a multidimensional trait with independent subcomponents. An example of a multidimensional trait model is Tafarodi and Swann’s (1995) differentiation between self-liking and self-competence. From this perspective, it is possible for people to like themselves generally but view themselves as not particularly efficacious at various tasks. Conversely, it is possible for people to view themselves as generally competent but not really like themselves. Mismatches between self-liking and self-competence lead to biases in the interpretation of social and performance feedback that confirm the level of self-liking. For instance, those who are high in self-liking but low in self-competence perceive negative feedback more positively than do those who are low in self-liking but high in self-competence.

Global self-esteem is best conceptualized as a hierarchical construct with three major components: performance self-esteem, social self-esteem, and physical self-esteem. Each component can be broken down into progressively smaller subcomponents. Performance self-esteem refers to one’s sense of general competence and includes intellectual ability, school performance, self-regulatory capacities, self-confidence, efficacy, and agency. People who are high in performance self-esteem believe that they are smart and capable. As will be discussed below, personal beliefs about performance are poorly related to objective outcomes. Social self-esteem refers to how people believe they are perceived by others. It is perception rather than reality that is critical here. If people believe that others, especially significant others, value and respect them, they experience high social selfesteem even if others truly dislike them or hold them in contempt. The influence of these reflected appraisals on self-esteem is an integral part

of Cooley’s (1902) ‘‘looking-glass self’’ and has been implicated in the development of self-esteem by sociological theorists such as George Herbert Mead and Stanley Rosenberg. People who are low in social self-esteem often experience social anxiety and are high in public self-consciousness. They are highly attentive to their public images and worry about how others view them. Physical self-esteem refers to how people view their physical bodies and includes things such as athletic skills, physical attractiveness, and body image as well as physical stigmas and feelings about race and ethnicity.

How are these subcomponents of self-esteem related to global self-esteem? James (1892) proposed that global self-esteem is the summation of specific components of self-esteem, each of which is weighted by its importance to the self-concept. In other words, people have high self-esteem to the extent that they feel good about the things that matter to them. Not being good at tennis is irrelevant to the self-concept of a nonathlete, and doing poorly in school may have little impact on innercity youth who do not identify with mainstream values (Steele 1997). Pelham (1995) and Marsh (1995) debated the value of global versus specific component models. Pelham’s research generally supports the Jamesian view that the centrality of self-views is an important predictor of the emotional response to the self (i.e., one’s feelings of self-esteem), whereas Marsh claims that domain importance does not have a strong impact on selfesteem. Although the jury is still out on this issue, the concept of domain importance is a central feature of most theories of self-esteem.

In terms of measurement, most research uses global measures of self-esteem, since this is viewed as having the greatest theoretical importance (Baumeister 1998). The most widely used measure of global self-esteem is the Rosenberg (1965) scale, which consists of ten general statements such as ‘‘On the whole, I am satisfied with myself,’’ ‘‘I certainly feel useless at times,’’ and ‘‘I take a positive attitude toward myself.’’ Unfortunately, scores on this scale tend to be tightly clustered around its mean, limiting its predictive value. A review of selfesteem measures conducted by Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) recommended the Revised Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (Fleming and Courtney 1984), which is a modified version of the Janis and Field (1959) scale. This scale has five factors: social

confidence, school abilities, self-regard, physical appearance, and physical ability. The total score on this scale is widely used as a measure of global self-esteem.

Another issue in the measurement and definition of self-esteem is whether it is best conceptualized as a stable personality trait or a contextspecific state. Most theories of self-esteem view it as a relatively stable trait: If one has high self-esteem today, one probably will have high self-esteem tomorrow. Around this stable baseline, however, there are fluctuations; although people generally may feel good about themselves, there are times when they may experience self-doubt and even dislike themselves. In terms of research, the selection of trait or state measures of self-esteem depends on whether one is interested in predicting long-term outcomes or in the immediate effects associated with feelings about the self. Obviously, measures of state self-esteem are more useful for the latter group. The State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton and Polivy 1991) is a commonly used measure that has been shown to be sensitive to laboratory manipulations of self-esteem. This scale measures context-specific feelings related to performance, social, and physical self-esteem. Measures of trait and state self-esteem are highly correlated. However, frequent fluctuations in state selfesteem have been found to be associated with increased sensitivity to and reliance on social evaluations, increased concern about how one views the self, and even anger and hostility (Kernis 1993). In general, those with a fragile sense of self-esteem respond extremely favorably to positive feedback and extremely defensively to negative feedback.

SOURCES AND FUNCTIONS OF

SELF-ESTEEM

A central issue in self-esteem pertains to its source. Research in psychology and sociology has focused on the role of early childhood experiences, especially in terms of parental treatment. Harter has incorporated the Jamesian and Cooley views of the development of self-esteem into a general model of self-esteem development (Harter 1993). Harter proposes that reflected appraisals about important dimensions affect the development of selfesteem but that specific domains are closely linked to potential audiences. According to her theory, parents are particularly concerned about behav-

ioral conduct and school performance, and therefore, children’s beliefs about how their parents view them on these dimensions influence selfesteem. Children who do well scholastically and behave in accordance with parental expectations believe that their parents support and love them. However, parents have less impact than do peers on self-perceptions related to physical appearance, athletic ability, and peer likability. To obtain the support of one’s peers, children believe they have to be attractive, athletic, and likable. Failure to obtain support from either parents or peers can lead to feelings of hopelessness, depression, and poor global self-esteem. Harter’s model offers a significant advance over earlier developmental theories by integrating importance and social support from a domain-specific perspective.

Further evidence for socialization processes can be found when one considers the influence of gender differences. A number of studies suggest that boys and girls diverge in their primary sources of self-esteem, with girls being more influenced by relationships and boys being more influenced by objective success. Stein et al. (1992) examined participants in an eight-year longitudinal study of adolescent growth and development. During adolescence, an agentic orientation predicted heightened self-esteem for males but not for females, whereas a communal orientation predicted heightened self-esteem for females but not for males. The possibility that males and females differ in terms of what constitutes the self-concept was also addressed by Josephs et al. (1992). In a series of studies, men and women were given false feedback indicating that they had deficits either on a performance dimension (e.g., competition, individual thinking) or on a social dimension (e.g., nurturance, interpersonal integration). Consistent with predictions, men high in self-esteem enhanced their estimates of being able to engage successfully in future performance behaviors, whereas women high in self-esteem enhanced their estimates of being able to engage successfully in future social behaviors. The authors of this entry recently compared the experiences of boys and girls in a summer tennis camp designed to increase self-esteem (Hebl et al. 1999). Scores on a children’s version of the state self-esteem scale showed that both boys and girls had increases in overall self-esteem during the tennis camp, but whereas boys gained selfesteem primarily in the performance self-esteem

domain, girls gainedself-esteem primarily in the social self-esteem domain. In each case it can be seen that boys gain self-esteem from getting ahead whereas girls gain self-esteem from getting along.

From a completely different perspective, some researchers have begun to explore the possibility that self-esteem is determined more by biology than by socialization. Although direct evidence is minimal, there is circumstantial evidence that some components of self-esteem are based in biology. Twin studies have suggested that self-esteem is moderately heritable, with estimates ranging from 30 to 50 percent (Kendler et al. 1998). In addition, traits known to be associated with self-esteem, such as extraversion and neuroticism, have long been known to have a genetic component. Kramer (1993) argues that self-esteem is rooted in activity of the serotoninergic neurotransmitter system. He notes that pharmacological treatments that increase the activity of serotonin are associated with an increased sense of self-confidence and selfesteem. However, there have not been any systematic or rigorous tests of this hypothesis. The possibility that self-esteem has a biological component remains an important empirical issue.

Some theorists have portrayed self-esteem as a mechanism that has evolved through adaptation to promote survival of the species. Accordingly, self-esteem is viewed as a force that promotes feelings of confidence and competence that may lead to superior performance across a broad range of activities. Interestingly, this perspective can be used to explain gender differences in the major sources of self-esteem. Throughout human evolutionary history, males were of value to the group primarily through their role as hunters and protectors whereas women gathered food and nurtured offspring. Hence, being good at tasks closely associated with ancestral sex roles may be associated with increased feelings of self-esteem. However, because theories of evolution and socialization predict the same gender pattern for self-esteem, it is impossible to clarify which perspective is correct or whether they are equally correct or incorrect. Baumeister (1998) has noted that simple evolutionary accounts of self-esteem are difficult to accept because of the rather negligible benefits associated with self-esteem and the possibility that high self-esteem may promote overconfidence and excessive risk taking.

A novel and important functional account of self-esteem has been proposed by Leary and his colleagues. Leary begins with the assumption that humans have a fundamental need to belong that is rooted in evolutionary history (Baumeister and Leary 1995). For most of human evolution, survival and reproduction depended on affiliation with a group. Those who belonged to social groups were more likely to survive and reproduce than were those who were excluded from groups and left to survive on their own. According to Leary, self-esteem functions as a monitor of the likelihood of social exclusion. When people behave in ways that increase the likelihood that they will be rejected, they experience a reduction in state selfesteem. Thus, self-esteem serves as a monitor, or sociometer, of social acceptance and/or rejection. At the trait level, those with high self-esteem have sociometers that indicate a low probability of rejection and therefore do not worry about how they are perceived by others. By contrast, those with low self-esteem have sociometers that indicate the imminent possibility of rejection and therefore are highly motivated to manage their public impressions.

CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING HIGH OR

LOW SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem has both cognitive and affective components. Accordingly, a number of researchers have examined the cognitive and affective reactions of those with high and low self-esteem. The overall view suggests that people process information in a way that confirms and supports their chronic self-views. People with high self-esteem actively defend their positive self-views, whereas those with low self-esteem appear to be less able to do so. This section reviews research that has examined differences between individuals with high and low self-esteem.

Self-esteem differences have been reported for a wide range of intrapsychic phenomena, including emotional reactions, cognitive processes, and motivational states. There are obvious differences in how individuals with high and low selfesteem feel about themselves; the positivity and negativity of self-feelings are of course central to self-esteem. For instance, people with low selfesteem are more likely to report being depressed and anxious than are those with high self-esteem. These differences appear to be more subjective

than objective. Researchers have used diary studies to examine whether high and low self-esteem people differ in their daily moods and emotions (Campbell et al. 1991). Compared with individuals with high self-esteem, individuals with low selfesteem judged the events in their lives more negatively and as having a greater impact on their moods. However, when outside judges read participants’ diaries, they could not distinguish between the events experienced by participants with high and low self-esteem. Thus, similar circumstances are perceived and experienced differently as a function of a person’s self-esteem level. In terms of specific emotional states, there are no differences in how high and low self-esteem individuals experience impersonal emotions (e.g., happiness), but there are differences in how they experience self-relevant emotions (e.g., pride and shame). People with high self-esteem are more likely to report pride, whereas those with low selfesteem are more likely to report shame. Once again, this pattern is independent of actual events in the lives of people with high and low self-esteem.

A robust finding in social psychological research is that everyone feels good after receiving positive feedback regardless of one’s self-esteem level. People with low self-esteem like to hear good things about themselves just as much as do people with high self-esteem, and both groups hope to be successful in life. However, people with high selfesteem are much more likely to believe positive feedback. People with low self-esteem are distrustful of overly positive feedback because it contradicts what they believe to be true about themselves. Swann (Swann et al. 1987) argues that people with low self-esteem are attracted to negative information because it validates and confirms their negative self-views. Swann likens the conflict between an emotional preference for positivity and a cognitive preference for negativity to being caught in the cross fire between two warring factions.

A consistent theme in the literature on selfesteem is that self-esteem involves a cognitive bias in processing evaluative and social information. In a world filled with ambiguities and uncertainties, people selectively construct their own reality through biased encoding, retrieval, and interpretation of life events. Research on informationprocessing styles shows that high self-esteem is associated with cognitive strategies aimed at en-