Discrepant and congruent high self-esteem: Behavioral self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy

Lupien, Shannon P.; Seery, Mark D.; Almonte, Jessica L.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.022

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, findings for malicious envy paralleled those in previous research (e.g., Jordan et al, 2003Jordan et al, , 2005Lupien et al, 2010;McGregor & Marigold, 2003) linking discrepant H-ESE to defensiveness in the face of threat.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Although the precise nature of ISE and its measures has been debated (e.g., Buhrmester, Blanton, & Swann, 2011;Olson, Fazio, & Hermann, 2007), perspectives converge to suggest that discrepant H-ESE entails a fragility in positive self-views that manifests as defensive responding (Jordan et al, 2006;Olson et al, 2007). For example, relative to congruent H-ESE, discrepant H-ESE has been associated with greater self-enhancing responses (Bosson, Brown, Zeigler-Hill, & Swann, 2003), a more boastful self-presentational style (Olson et al, 2007), larger in-group bias in a minimal group paradigm (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Brown, & Correll, 2003), greater dissonance reduction in the form of larger postdecision spread of alternatives (Jordan et al, 2003), greater expressions of conviction after a threat (McGregor & Marigold, 2003), greater derogation of out-group members (Jordan et al, 2005), poorer selfregulation (Lambird & Mann, 2006), greater verbal defensiveness when discussing a personal shortcoming (Kernis et al, 2008), more behavioral self-handicapping (Lupien, Seery, & Almonte, 2010), and greater attention to defensiveness-related words (Haddock & Gebauer, 2011).…”

Section: Self-esteem As a Predictor Of Envymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bringing you down versus bringing me up: Discrepant versus congruent high explicit self-esteem differentially predict malicious and benign envy

Smallets¹,

Streamer²,

Kondrak³

et al. 2016

Personality and Individual Differences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research supports the existence of two faces of envy: malicious envy, characterized by the desire to bring an envy target down, and benign envy, characterized by the desire to bring oneself up to the level of an envy target. In the current study, we investigated discrepant high self-esteem (high explicit, low implicit self-esteem) and congruent high self-esteem (high explicit, high implicit) as antecedents of malicious versus benign envy, respectively. Participants with discrepant high self-esteem were particularly likely to rate a target negatively across a variety of attributes and as deserving to fail when the target was an upward rather than downward social comparison, consistent with malicious envy. In contrast, unlike other participants, those with congruent high self-esteem tended to persist longer at a difficult task after an upward rather than downward social comparison, potentially consistent with benign envy. These results suggest novel antecedents of the two faces of envy and novel consequences of self-esteem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Self-esteem As a Predictor Of Envymentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing you down versus bringing me up: Discrepant versus congruent high explicit self-esteem differentially predict malicious and benign envy

Smallets¹,

Streamer²,

Kondrak³

et al. 2016

Personality and Individual Differences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this way they are able to attribute failure to lack of application, and any unlikely success to their innate talents (Lupien et al, 2010). What these results strongly suggest is that people whose high self-esteem is defensive are likely to form attitudes about their abilities that are out of step with reality.…”

Section: Secure Defensive and Damaged Self-esteemmentioning

confidence: 86%

Virtuous and Vicious Intellectual Self-Trust

Tanesini¹

2019

Trust in Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter gives a psychologically robust account of virtuous and vicious intellectual self-trust. Tanesini starts by arguing that intellectual self-trust is a set of dispositions to rely on one's cognitive faculties, together with positive epistemic feelings and confidence in one's willpower. She then distinguishes one epistemically beneficial form of intellectual self-trust, confident optimism, and three pathological ones: arrogant, timid, and servile self-trust. Drawing on psychological research, she argues that each form of intellectual self-trust arises from a corresponding form of self-esteem. Confident optimism has its roots in healthy self-esteem, which frees the agent to be motivated in her inquiry by the prospect of achieving epistemic aims. Arrogant, timid, and servile self-trust, by contrast, derive from warped forms of self-esteem that focus the agent not on epistemic goods, but rather on her own vulnerability. Confident optimism about one's faculties, then, turns out to be an intellectually virtuous form of self-trust, whereas the three pathological forms of selftrust turn out to be intellectually vicious.

show abstract

“…Beyond the simple explanation that congruence among domain-specific mindsets is not relevant for well-being, there are several possible explanations for the lack of an overall congruence effect. It may be possible that congruence is not the best way to model effects across mindset domains as it does not resemble congruency found between implicit and explicit expressions of the same constructs such as self-esteem (Lupien et al, 2010 ) or motives (Thielgen et al, 2015 ). In such cases, both the explicit and implicit construct reflect an underlying dimension, which does not seem to be the same case for mindset.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindset as Characteristic Adaptations: Using Response Surface Analysis to Assess Mindset in the Personality System

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess the congruencies and discrepancies between mindset domains in relation to well-being and sought to demonstrate that mindset falls into the characteristic adaptation level of personality. Data (N = 618, Mage = 16.07, SDage = 0.99) from Wave 1 of a longitudinal study on primarily ethnic-minority adolescents were used in response surface analyses to examine the effects of (in)congruence on well-being. The response surface analyses suggested no overall congruence effect between moral and ability mindsets. However, two-thirds of the participants demonstrated differing levels of mindsets, highlighting the domain specificity of mindsets. Results suggest that mindsets are contextual, domain-specific constructs, suiting the characteristic adaptation level of personality. Congruence for moral and ability mindset does not affect adolescent well-being.

show abstract

Discrepant and congruent high self-esteem: Behavioral self-handicapping as a preemptive defensive strategy

Cited by 22 publications

References 28 publications

Bringing you down versus bringing me up: Discrepant versus congruent high explicit self-esteem differentially predict malicious and benign envy

Bringing you down versus bringing me up: Discrepant versus congruent high explicit self-esteem differentially predict malicious and benign envy

Virtuous and Vicious Intellectual Self-Trust

Mindset as Characteristic Adaptations: Using Response Surface Analysis to Assess Mindset in the Personality System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About