The Self-Enhancement Motive PDF

5f THE SELF AS A COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTION: THE SELF-ENHANCEMENT MOTIVE WE ARE RARELY OBJECTIVE IN THINKING ABOUT THE SELF It is very hard to be objective when it comes to thinking about the self. Because an individual’s self-concept is obviously highly personal, this topic tends to en...

5f THE SELF AS A COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTION: THE SELF-ENHANCEMENT MOTIVE WE ARE RARELY OBJECTIVE IN THINKING ABOUT THE SELF It is very hard to be objective when it comes to thinking about the self. Because an individual’s self-concept is obviously highly personal, this topic tends to engage strong motivations that can bias how we think. Indeed, social psychologists have documented a variety of cognitive biases that skew how we process self-relevant information, including how we seek out and interpret such information. In this section and the next, we will review, in depth, two of the most well-studied biases in how we think about the self – specifically, the self-enhancement motive and the self-verification motive. TRY AND APPLY This activity asks you to integrate and apply the concepts you have learned in this module to a real world scenario or something that is personal to you and your life. A similar question may appear on the quiz, so taking the time to record and save your answer to this question on your computer (e.g., using Word) now will help you prepare for the quiz. 1. For each of the following traits, estimate what percentile among Waterloo students you fall in. A percentile score indicates the percentage of Waterloo students performing below your level. So, if you place yourself in the 80th percentile on a given trait this means  you believe that 80% of Waterloo students score below you on that trait, while if you place yourself in the 20th percentile on a given trait this means that you think only 20% of Waterloo students score below you on that trait. Record your answers on a piece of paper or your computer, we'll return to these ratings. sensitive: ___ percentile sophisticated: ___ percentile idealistic: ___ percentile disciplined: ___ percentile sensible: ___ percentile ingenious: ___ percentile quick: ___ percentile 2. Examine the percentile scores that you gave yourself. Do you notice any patterns? For how many of the traits did you rank yourself above the 50th percentile? For how many did you rank yourself below the 50th percentile? For how many did you rank yourself at the 50th percentile? THE ABOVE AVERAGE EFFECT Did you rank yourself above the 50th percentile more often than you ranked yourself below the 50th percentile? If so, then you are not alone. Indeed, research shows that the average person – or, at least, the average person who grew up in a modern, Western cultural context – tends to think they are above-average across a wide range of positive traits and abilities. In other words, if you ask a sample of people to compare themselves to the average person on various traits and skills and you then average together all of the individual self-rankings within the sample, the average person tends to rank themselves above the 50th percentile. In other words, the average person sees themselves as above-average. This is a paradox because if people had an accurate view of where they stood relative to other people on various traits and abilities then logically we would expect that when we average together the self-rankings of a sample of people then their average self-ranking should be close to the 50th percentile. Of course, we would expect 49% of the population who are actually above-average to rank themselves above the 50th percentile. But these should be balanced out by the 49% of the population who are actually below-average ranking themselves somewhere below the 50th percentile and the people who are actually average ranking themselves at the 50th percentile. Thus, we would expect that if we combined everyone’s self-rankings they should average somewhere close to the 50th percentile. So, the fact that the average of people’s self-rankings tends to be above the 50th percentile suggests that there is a tendency of people to overestimate their standing on positive traits and abilities. This bias is known as the above-average effect and it is one of the most well-documented biases in self-perception.  Above-average Effect. Most people tend to rank themselves above the 50th percentile, however, in reality and by definition, 50% of people will fall below the 50th percentile. © Course Author and University of Waterloo THE SELF-ENHANCEMENT MOTIVE The above-average effect is an example of a more general bias called the self-enhancement motive, which leads people to process information in ways that tend to reflect favourably on the self. This self- enhancement motive leads us to preferentially seek out and be  relatively uncritical towards information that is favourable to the self while we tend to avoid and are relatively skeptical of information that is unfavourable to the self. Further, when evidence is ambiguous and it could be interpreted in a variety of ways then the self-enhancement motive leads us to preferentially interpret the evidence is ways that have more rather than less favourable implications for the self. To provide more insight into this self-enhancement motive we will review a number of social-cognitive mechanisms that explain how the average person is able to maintain the belief that they are above-average. Adopting Self-serving Definitions of Ambiguous Traits TRY AND APPLY This activity asks you to apply the concepts you are learning about in this module. This activity will give you more insight into these concepts, which will help you prepare better for the quiz. Record and save your answer on your computer (e.g., using Word). 1. Let’s do the self-rating task again with another set of traits. For each of the following traits, estimate what percentile among Waterloo students you fall in. Remember that a percentile score indicates the percentage of Waterloo students performing below your level. Record your answers on a piece of paper or your computer. Neat: ___ percentile Well-read: ___ percentile Mathematical: ___ percentile Thrifty: ___ percentile Athletic: ___ percentile Studious: ___ percentile  Punctual: ___ percentile 2. Compare your percentile rankings for this list of traits with your rankings for the list of traits in the previous Try and Apply activity. Do you notice any differences? Perhaps you found that you were less likely to rank yourself above the 50th percentile on this list of traits compared to the previous list. If so, you are not alone. Indeed, when social psychologist David Dunning and his colleagues (1989) presented this list of traits and the previous list of traits to Cornell University students they found that, on average, the participants were more likely to rank themselves above the 50th percentile on the traits from the previous list compared to the traits in the current list. Why might that be? Let’s put the two lists side-by-side so that you can easily compare them. List A List B sensitive neat sophisticated well-read idealistic mathematical disciplined thrifty sensible athletic ingenious studious quick punctual List of Traits. Comparison of two lists of traits from Dunnings et al., (1989). What key differences do you notice between the types of traits that are included on List A and List B? You may have noticed that the traits in List A are more ambiguous in meaning and open to interpretation than the traits in List B. When a trait is high in ambiguity different criteria could be used to define whether or not the trait is present. However, when a trait is low in ambiguity a more narrow, specific set of criteria define whether or not the trait is present. For example, the criteria for deciding whether someone is sophisticated are quite fuzzy. One definition might consider someone sophisticated if they are well-read and have a lot of general knowledge. A different definition might consider someone sophisticated if they have upper-class tastes in the cultural arts. By contrast, the criteria defining what it means to be mathematical are much narrower and less open to different definitions. Most definitions would require that someone has knowledge of mathematical principles and skill at solving mathematical problems to consider them high in mathematical ability. There is thus greater latitude for subjectivity in the definition of the ambiguous traits than the unambiguous traits. Research on Self-serving Definitions of Ambiguous Traits Social psychologist David Dunning and his colleagues (1989) hypothesized that when a positive trait has an ambiguous definition people will tend to define the criteria for the trait in a self-serving way. In other words, individuals will idiosyncratically define the trait by emphasizing criteria that match their own personal qualities and they will downplay criteria that do not match their own personal qualities. For example, an individual who is well-read and has a lot of general knowledge, but does not have upper-class tastes in the cultural arts will tend to focus on general knowledge and broad reading interests as key criteria for defining what it means to be sophisticated and their definition will tend to downplay the relevance of having upper-class cultural tastes. By contrast, someone who has upper-class cultural tastes but is not particularly well-read and knowledgeable will tend to emphasize the relevance of cultural tastes and downplay the relevance of general knowledge in their definition of what it means to be sophisticated. These idiosyncratic definitions would allow each of these individuals to consider themselves as above-average in sophistication. By contrast, for a relatively unambiguous trait like mathematical ability, different individuals are likely to share the same common definition of the criteria for defining mathematical ability and thus only the individuals who are actually above-average in their levels of these commonly recognized criteria will be able to rate themselves above- average. To test this hypothesis, Dunning et al. (1989) had Cornell University students estimate their own percentile ranking on the ambiguous traits from List A and the unambiguous traits from List B. (Note that in the actual study these traits were intermixed within a single survey, not grouped together in clustered lists.) Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, the Cornell students on average placed themselves in the 64th percentile for the ambiguous traits (e.g., sophisticated) but only in the 55th percentile for the unambiguous traits (e.g., mathematical). In a follow-up experiment Dunning et al. (1989) manipulated how much latitude participants had to choose a self-serving definition of a given trait. This was done by manipulating how many criteria participants were provided to consider when defining each trait. For each trait, participants were either given just 2 criteria (narrow definition condition) or 6 criteria (flexible definition condition) to consider when defining that trait. The participants were then asked to estimate their percentile ranking relative to other Cornell students on that trait. For instance, participants were either given just 2 (narrow definition condition) or all 6 (flexible definition condition) of the following criteria to consider for the definition of athletic: Does aerobics; runs; plays a racket game (e.g., tennis, squash); plays a team sport; lifts weights, works out; skis. As another example, participants were either given just 2 (narrow definition condition) or all 6 (flexible definition condition) of the following criteria to consider for defining the trait active in extracurriculars: Performs in theater, music on campus; in intramural sports; in student government; in fieldwork/ internship; belongs to service club; involved in research. Dunning et al. (1989) reasoned that when only 2 criteria were listed a participant would only be able to rank themselves high on the trait if they happened to have at least one of the two listed traits; whereas, if all 6 criteria were listed participants could selectively focus on whatever criteria they were personally strong on and choose those criteria as the basis to compare their standing to other students. For example, if a participant only received the criteria “plays a racket game (e.g., tennis, squash)” and “plays a team sport” to define athletic then a participant who happens to play on the intramural basketball team would feasibly be able to rank themselves above the 50th percentile but a student who regularly works out by lifting weights would not be able to rank themselves above the 50th percentile; whereas, both of these participants might be able to rank themselves above the 50th percentile if they were given the full set of 6 criteria because the student who doesn’t play intramural sports but regularly lifts weights could focus on the ‘lifts weights’ criterion whereas the student who plays on the intramural team but doesn’t lift weights could focus on the criterion that mentions intramural team sports. Consistent with these predictions the results showed that participants were significantly more likely to rank themselves above the 50th percentile in the flexible criteria condition than in the narrow criteria condition. On average, participants in the flexible criteria condition ranked themselves in the 58th percentile; whereas, participants only ranked themselves in the 48th percentile when they were given a narrow set of criteria to choose from. WATCH THIS (~4 MINS.) People’s bias to adopt idiosyncratic definitions of traits that have self- serving implications is illustrated memorably by the character Major General in his famous song in Gilbert and Sullivan’s musical “The Pirates of Penzance.” In this song, the character ranks himself very highly, boasting that he is “the very model of a modern major general.” He then lists off a number of skills and talents that he believes support this claim. However, the knowledge and skills that he lists are quite idiosyncratic - e.g., “Of the binomial theorem, I’m teeming with a lot of news, with many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse” - and hardly fit most people’s definition of the qualities that are essential to being a good military leader. Watch the following clip from "The Pirates of the Penzance" (~ 3 mins) and take note of the absurd attributes that Major General manically lists off to justify his boast that he represents the ideal of his profession. Major-General's Song from The Pirates of Penzance - live and with l… l… English National Opera. (2015, June 24). Major-General's Song from The Pirates of Penzance - live and with lyrics! [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs3dPaz9nAo Most of us don’t go quite as far as Major General in distorting our definitions of high achievement in our field of interest to match our own personal attributes. However, the research by Dunning et al. (1989) shows that if the standards for defining excellence are sufficiently ambiguous people are biased to select any plausible definitions that have more rather than less favourable implications for the self. Incompetence and the Lack of Metacognitive Insight Social psychologist David Dunning (2011) gained further insight into the above-average effect when they discovered that people who are incompetent in a given domain are especially likely to overestimate their ability in that domain. This so-called Dunning-Kruger effect has been strongly documented across a variety of domains including logical reasoning ability and sense of humour. In one of the most disturbing examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect Joyce Ehrlinger and colleagues administered a test of gun safety knowledge to a sample of participants in a shooting competition at a gun club (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008). Participants whose actual rank score was in the 25th percentile estimated that they ranked in the 64th percentile. Also, although the average raw score for the participants in the bottom 25th percentile was 7% correct answers, they estimated that they had correctly answered 37% of the questions. This overestimation of safety knowledge obviously has dangerous implications. WATCH THIS (~6 MINS.) In the following TedEd video, Why the incompetent thingk they’re amazing, David Dunning provides further information about the Dunning-Kruger effect. In particular, keep note of Dunning’s description of the psychological mechanisms that explain why the least competent people are especially likely to overestimate their ability. They attribute this effect to a shortcoming in people’s metacognitive insight. Metacognition refers to one’s reflection on the contents and processes of one’s own mind - i.e. it is called metacognition because it involves cognition about cognition. In the video, Dunning explains why people who are low in competence in a given domain might also lack the ability to recognize their own errors in that domain.  Why incompetent people think they're amazing - David Dunning TED-Ed. (2017, November 9). Why incompetent people think they're amazing - David Dunning. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E Biased Recall to Support Positive Self-perceptions Ziva Kunda (1990), who was a social psychologist at the University of Waterloo, conducted some of the most ground-breaking work on how people use motivated reasoning to enhance their self-views. Kunda (1990) proposed a theoretical model that explains how people’s desire to perceive themselves positively leads them to selectively seek out, process, and remember information that has rather than less favourable implications for the self. Kunda and her collaborators conducted a number of experiments to test some of the cognitive mechanisms that people use to maintain these favourable self-views. For example, Sanitioso, Kunda, and Fong (1990) designed an experiment to test their hypothesis that if people believe that a trait is a positive quality then this will motivate them to selectively recall examples of past behaviours in which they displayed that trait in order to convince themselves that they possess that positive quality. In one of the experiments testing this hypothesis Sanitioso et al. (1990) had University of Waterloo students read about a study that they were told had been conducted by psychologists at Stanford University (the study was actually fictitious). The students were randomly assigned to two groups: one group read that the results of the research had showed that extroverts did better than introverts in academic or professional settings after graduating from college the other group read that introverts did better than extroverts on the same dimensions. The students then wrote explanations for why this might be true. The experimenter then thanked the participants and led them to another room, where a second study was to be conducted (you will have guessed already that although the participants did not think so, the two experiments were really part of the same experiment). In this second experiment, these same participants were given a questionnaire that supposedly was investigating what different personality dimensions meant to people in terms of their own experience and behavior. The students were asked to list behaviors that they had performed in the past that related to the dimension of “shy” versus “outgoing”—a dimension that is very close in meaning to the introversion-extroversion dimension that they had read about in the first experiment. The figure, Self-serving Information Retrieval, shows the number of students in each condition who listed an extroverted behavior first, and the number who listed an introverted behavior first. You can see that the first memory listed by participants in both conditions tended to reflect the dimension that they had read was related to success according to the research presented in the first experiment. In fact, 62% of the students who had just learned that extroversion was related to success listed a memory about an extroverted behavior first, whereas only 38% of the students who had just learned that introversion was related to success listed an extroverted behavior first. Self-serving Information Retrieval. Description (/sites/courses/PSYCH- 253/media/transcripts/module-5/description-self-serving-information-retrieval.aspx) Sanitioso et al, (1990) It appears that the participants drew from their memories those instances of their own behavior that reflected the trait that had the most positive implications for their self-esteem—either introversion or extroversion, depending on the experimental condition. The desire to  self-enhance made events that were consistent with a positive self- perception more accessible, and thus they were listed first on the questionnaire. SELF-ESTEEM AND THE SELF-ENHANCEMENT MOTIVE Self-esteem refers to the positive (high self-esteem) or negative (low self-esteem) feelings that we have about ourselves. We experience the positive feelings of high self-esteem when we believe that we are good and worthy and that others view us positively. We experience the negative feelings of low self-esteem when we believe that we are inadequate and less worthy than others. Self-esteem. In Western cultures people tend to show high self-esteem on both explicit and implicit measures.  Tempura/E+/Getty Images Our self-esteem is determined by many factors, including how well we view our own performance and appearance, and how satisfied we are with our relationships with other people (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). Self- esteem is in part a trait that is stable over time, with some people having relatively high self-esteem and others having lower self-esteem. But self- esteem is also a state that varies day to day and even hour to hour. When we have succeeded at an important task, when we have done something that we think is useful or important, or when we feel that we are accepted and valued by others, our self-concept will contain many positive thoughts and we will therefore have high self-esteem. When we have failed, done something harmful, or feel that we have been ignored or criticized, the negative aspects of the self-concept are more accessible and we experience low self-esteem. Self-esteem can be measured using both explicit and implicit measures, and both approaches find that most people tend to view themselves positively, at least most people who developed their self-concept in a Western cultural context. One common explicit self-report measure of self-esteem is the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Higher scores on the scale indicate higher self-esteem. TRY AND APPLY This activity asks you to integrate and apply the concepts you have learned in this module to a real world scenario or something that is personal to you and your life. A similar question may appear on the quiz, so taking the time to record and save your answer to this question on your computer (e.g., using Word) now will help you prepare for the quiz. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Please rate yourself on the following items by writing a number in the blank before each statement, where you 1= Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree 1 _____I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on any equal base with others. 2 _____I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3 _____All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure (R). 4 _____I am able to do things as well as other people. 5 _____I feel I do not have much to be proud of. (R) 6 _____I take a positive attitude towards myself. 7 _____On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 8 _____I wish I could have more respect for myself. (R) 9 _____I certainly feel useless at times. (R) 10 _____At times I think I am no good at all. (R) Note. (R) denotes an item that should be reverse scored. Subtract your response on these items from 5 before calculating the total. Data are from Rosenberg (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Numerous studies have used the Rosenberg scale to assess people’s self-esteem in many areas of the world. An interesting finding in many samples from the Western world, particularly in North America, is that the average score is often significantly higher than the mid-point. University of British Columbia psychologists Steve Heine and Derren Lehman (1999), for example, reported meta-analytic data indicating that less than 7% of participants scored below the mid-point! One interesting implication of this is that participants in such samples classified as having low self-esteem on the basis of a median split will typically actually have at least moderate self-esteem. Individual Differences in Self-esteem While self-esteem scores, at least in Western societies, tend to be skewed towards the positive side of the scale, there is interesting variability in people’s levels of self-esteem. One source of variability is gender -across many countries, women have been found to report lower self-esteem than men (Sprecher, Brooks, & Avogo, 2013). However, these differences have generally been found to be small, particularly in nations where gender equality in law and opportunity is higher (Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999). These findings are consistent with the sociologist George Herbert Mead’s (1934) suggestion that self-esteem in part relates to the view that others have of our importance in the wider world, a topic that we will explore in more depth in the section on the interpersonal construction of the self. As women’s opportunities to participate in careers outside of the home have increased in many nations, so the differences between their self-esteem and that of men have decreased.  Individual Differences in Self-esteem. From adolescence to about the age of 60 self-esteem increases and then starts to drop. Women tend to have lower self-esteem than men. Description (/sites/courses/PSYCH-253/media/transcripts/module-5/description-individual- differences-in-self-esteem.aspx) Robins & Trzesniewski (2005) There are also some interesting age differences in self-esteem that have been uncovered. In a large Internet survey, Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, and Potter (2002) found that self-esteem tends to decrease from childhood to early adolescence, and then rises steadily from adolescence into adulthood, usually until people are well into their sixties, after which point it begins to decline. One interesting implication of this is that we often will have higher self-esteem later in life than in our early adulthood years, which would appear to run against ageist stereotypes that older adults have lower self-worth. What factors might help to explain these age-related increases in self-esteem? One possibility relates back to our discussion of self-discrepancy theory earlier in this module. Recall that this theory states that when our perceived self-discrepancy between our current and ideal selves is small, we tend to feel more positive about ourselves than when we see the gap as being large. Could it be that older adults have a current view of self that is closer to their ideal than younger adults, and that this is why their self-esteem is often higher? Evidence from Ryff (1991) suggests that this may well be the case. In this study, elderly adults rated their current and ideal selves as more similar than either middle-aged or young adults. In part, older adults are able to more closely align these two selves because they are better able to realistically adjust their ideal standards as they age (Rothermund & Brandstadter, 2003) and because they engage in more favorable and age-appropriate social comparisons than do younger adults (Helgeson & Mickelson, 2000). Maintaining and Enhancing Self-Esteem For those of us who are actively seeking higher self-esteem, one way is to be successful at what we do. When we get a good grade on a test, perform well in a sports match, or get a date with someone we really like, our self-esteem rises. One reason that many of us have positive self-esteem is because we are generally successful at creating positive lives. When we fail in one domain, we tend to move on until we find something that we are good at. We don’t always expect to get the best grade on every test or to be the best player on the team. Therefore, we are often not surprised or hurt when those things don’t happen. In short, we feel good about ourselves because we do a pretty good job at creating decent lives. Another way we can boost our self-esteem is through building connections with others. Forming and maintaining satisfying relationships helps us to feel good about ourselves. A common way of doing this for many people around the world is through social  networking sites. There are a growing number of studies exploring how we do this online and the effects that it has on our self-worth. One common way on Facebook is to share status updates, which we hope that our friends will then “like” or comment on. When our friends do not respond to our updates, however, this can negatively impact how we feel about ourselves. In one experiment, regular Facebook users were allowed to post material to Facebook, but half of the participants’ profiles were set up by the researchers not to receive any responses, whether “likes” or comments, to their status updates. In line with predictions, that group reported lower self-esteem, level of belonging, level of control, and meaningful existence than the control group who did receive feedback (Tobin, Vanman, Verreynne, & Saeri, 2014). Whether online or offline, then, feeling ignored by our friends can dent our self-worth NARCISSISM AND THE LIMITS OF SELF-ENHANCEMENT Our discussion to this point suggests that many people will generally try to view themselves in a positive light. We emphasize our positive characteristics, and we may even in some cases distort information—all to help us maintain positive self-esteem. There can be negative aspects to having too much self-esteem, however, particularly if that esteem is unrealistic and undeserved. Narcissism is apersonality trait characterized by overly high self-esteem, self-admiration, and self- centeredness. Narcissists tend to agree with statements such as the following: “I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so.” “I can usually talk my way out of anything.”  “I like to be the center of attention.” “I have a natural talent for influencing people.” Narcissists can be perceived as charming at first, but often alienate others in the long run (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). They can also make bad romantic partners as they often behave selfishly and are always ready to look for someone else who they think will be a better mate, and they are more likely to be unfaithful than non- narcissists (Campbell & Foster, 2002; Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002). Narcissists are also more likely to bully others, and they may respond very negatively to criticism (Baumeister et al., 2003). People who have narcissistic tendencies more often pursue self-serving behaviors, to the detriment of the people and communities surrounding them (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005). Perhaps surprisingly, narcissists seem to understand these things about themselves, although they engage in the behaviors anyway (Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2011). The negative outcomes of narcissism raise the interesting possibility that high self-esteem in general may not always be advantageous to us or to the people around us. One complication to the issue is that explicit self- report measures of self-esteem, like the Rosenberg scale, are not able to distinguish between people whose high self-esteem is realistic and appropriate and those whose self-esteem may be more inflated, even narcissistic (Baumeister et al., 2003). Implicit measures also do not provide a clear picture, but indications are that more narcissistic people score higher on implicit self-esteem in relation to some traits, including those relating to social status, and lower on others relating to relationships (Campbell, Bosson, Goheen, Lakey, & Kernis, 2007). A key  point is that it can be difficult to disentangle what the effects of realistic versus unrealistic high self-esteem may be. Nevertheless, it is to this thorny issue that we will now turn. DOES HIGH SELF-ESTEEM CAUSE HAPPINESS OR OTHER POSITIVE OUTCOMES? Teachers, parents, school counselors, and people in many cultures frequently assume that high self-esteem causes many positive outcomes for people who have it and therefore that we should try to increase it in ourselves and others. Perhaps you agree with the idea that if you could increase your self-esteem, you would feel better about yourself and therefore be able to work at a higher level, or attract a more desirable mate. If you do believe that, you would not be alone. Baumeister and colleagues (2003) describe the origins and momentum of what they call the self-esteem movement, which has grown in influence in various countries since the 1970s. For example, in 1986, the state of California funded a task force under the premise that raising self-esteem would help solve many of the state’s problems, including crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, school underachievement, and pollution. Positive Outcomes Associates with High Self-esteem Baumeister and colleagues (2003) conducted an extensive review of the research literature to determine whether having high self-esteem was as helpful as many people seem to think it is. They began by assessing which variables were correlated with high self-esteem and then considered the extent to which high self-esteem caused these outcomes. They found that high self-esteem does correlate with many positive outcomes. People with high self-esteem get better grades, are  less depressed, feel less stress, and may even live longer than those who view themselves more negatively. The researchers also found that high self-esteem is correlated with greater initiative and activity; people with high self-esteem just do more things. They are also more likely to defend victims against bullies compared with people with low self- esteem, and they are more likely to initiate relationships and to speak up in groups. High self-esteem people also work harder in response to initial failure and are more willing to switch to a new line of endeavor if the present one seems unpromising. Thus, having high self-esteem seems to be a valuable resource—people with high self-esteem are happier, more active, and in many ways better able to deal with their environment. Negative Outcomes Associated with High Self-esteem On the other hand, Baumeister and his colleagues also found that people with high self-esteem sometimes delude themselves. They tend to believe that they are more likable and attractive, have better relationships, and make better impressions on others than people with low self-esteem. But objective measures show that these beliefs are often distortions rather than facts. Furthermore, people with overly high self-esteem, particularly when it is accompanied by narcissism, defensiveness, conceit, and the unwillingness to critically assess one’s potential negative qualities, have been found to engage in a variety of negative behaviors (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). For example, people with high self-esteem are more likely to be bullies (despite also being more likely to defend victims) and to experiment with alcohol, drugs, and sex. Todd Heatherton and Kathleen Vohs (2000) found that when people with extremely high self-esteem were forced to fail on a difficult task in front of a partner, they responded by acting more unfriendly, rudely, and arrogantly than did those with lower self-esteem. And research has  found that children who inflate their social self-worth—those who think that they are more popular than they really are and who thus have unrealistically high self-esteem—are also more aggressive than children who do not show such narcissistic tendencies (Sandstrom & Herlan, 2007; Thomaes, Bushman, Stegge, & Olthof, 2008). Such findings raise the interesting possibility that programs that increase the self-esteem of children who bully and are aggressive, based on the notion that these behaviors stem from low self-esteem, may do more harm than good (Emler, 2001). Self-esteem Likely Does not Cause Positive Outcomes Furthermore, despite the many positive variables that relate to high self- esteem, when Baumeister and his colleagues looked at the causal role of self-esteem they found little evidence that high self-esteem caused these positive outcomes. For instance, although high self-esteem is correlated with academic achievement, it is more the result than the cause of this achievement. Programs designed to boost the self-esteem of pupils have not been shown to improve academic performance, and laboratory studies have generally failed to find that manipulations of self-esteem cause better task performance. Baumeister and his colleagues concluded that programs designed to boost self-esteem should be used only in a limited way and should not be the only approach taken. Raising self-esteem will not make young people do better in school, obey the law, stay out of trouble, get along better with other people, or respect the rights of others. And these programs may even backfire if the increased self-esteem creates narcissism or conceit. Baumeister and his colleagues suggested that attempts to boost self-esteem should only be carried out as a reward for good behavior and worthy achievements, and not simply to try to make children feel better about themselves. Although we naturally desire to have social status and high self-esteem, we cannot always promote ourselves without any regard to the accuracy of our self-characterizations. If we consistently distort our capabilities, and particularly if we do this over a long period of time, we will just end up fooling ourselves and perhaps engaging in behaviors that are not actually beneficial to us. Most of us probably know someone who is convinced that he or she has a particular talent at a professional level, but we, and others, can see that this person is deluded (but perhaps we are too kind to say this). Some individuals who audition on television talent shows spring to mind. Such self-delusion can become problematic because although this high self-esteem might propel people to work harder, and although they may enjoy thinking positively about themselves, they may be setting themselves up for long-term disappointment and failure. Their pursuit of unrealistic goals may also take valuable time away from finding areas they have more chance to succeed in. CHECK AND REFLECT Answer the following questions to test your understanding of key concepts, get feedback on your learning, and help you prepare for the end of module quiz. 1. Suppose that we survey a sample of players from university basketball teams and we ask each player to rate their basketball skills by estimating what percentile their skills rank in compared to other university basketball players. Based on the information that  we reviewed about the above-average effect, for which of the following skills do you think the average player would be most likely to rank themselves above the 50th percentile? ⅃ a. Teamwork skills b. Rebound skills c. Free throws d. Passing skills e. The average player should be equally likely to rank themselves above the 50th percentile for all of the skills listed in A, B, C, and D Correct! REFERENCES Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., & Tice, D. M. (2007). How emotions facilitate and impair self- regulation. In J. J. Gross & J. J. E. Gross (Eds.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 408–426). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Campbell, W., Bosson, J. K., Goheen, T. W., Lakey, C. E., & Kernis, M. H. (2007). Do narcissists dislike themselves ‘deep down inside?’. Psychological Science, 18(3), 227-229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01880.x Campbell, W., Bush, C., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005). Understanding the Social Costs of Narcissism: The Case of the Tragedy of the Commons. Personality And Social Psychology