How Do Individuals with Fragile High Self-esteem Cope with Intrusive Thoughts Following Ego Threat?

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that individuals with fragile (defensive, unstable, or contingent) self-esteem are more likely to engage in defensive, selfpromoting or self-protective behavior than are individuals with secure high self-esteem. The current study is the first to examine how well all three fragile self-esteem markers predict coping with negative intrusive thoughts following an ego threat. Consistent with the hypothesis, fragile self-esteem was associated with suppressing negative test-related thoughts, punishing the self for experiencing such thoughts, and downplaying the importance of the threat. The results add to the growing body of evidence documenting the maladaptive nature of fragile self-esteem, and suggest a mechanism by which these individuals may be vulnerable to anxiety and depression.

A model of perceived parenting, authenticity, contingent self-worth and internalized aggression among college students

“…We hypothesize that individuals with higher contingent self-worth will be more likely to respond to negative situations with both self-directed aggression, a tendency to "berate oneself or to become disproportionately angry with oneself" (Tangney et al, 1996, p. 781), and anger held in, ruminating thoughts of an anger-eliciting event or the repression of bitter, resentful feelings (Tangney et al, 1996). In support of this, Borton, Crimmins, Ashby, and Ruddiman (2012) found that contingent self-worth predicted self-directed punishment. Similarly, Paradise and Kernis (1999;as cited in Kernis, 2002) reported that among women, contingent self-worth was related to greater internalization of anger.…”

A systematic review and meta-analysis of CBT interventions based on the Fennell model of low self-esteem

“…However, this could lead to a heightened sense of threat if circumstances beyond their own control lead to a failure or rejection by others. (Baumeister et al, 2003(Baumeister et al, , 1996Borton et al, 2012;Crocker and Park, 2004). Furthermore, self-esteem has also been described as a 2dimensional construct, combining self-competency and self-liking (Mruk, 2013a;Tafarodi and Swann, 1995).…”

“…Firstly, as one of the most studied concepts in the field of psychology, selfesteem is a complicated and hotly contested construct (Baumeister et al, 2003;Cameron et al, 2013;Crocker and Park, 2004;Mruk, 2013b;Ryan and Brown, 2003;Trzesniewski et al, 2013;Zeigler-Hill, 2013). It has come to have different definitions, such as whether it is stable or unstable (Kernis et al, 1993(Kernis et al, , 1989Kernis and Goldman, 2006), externally or internally contingent (Crocker and Luhtanen, 2003;Crocker and Park, 2004;Vonk and Smit, 2011) (Borton et al, 2012;DeHart et al, 2013;Koole and Pelham, 2003). Rather than treating selfesteem as binary or unidimensional in terms of "High" and "Low", the argument has been made that it would be more beneficial to consider self-esteem along a "Secure" vs. "Fragile" continuum, consisting of multi-dimensional components (Goldman, 2006;Kernis, 2003).…”

“…It is also possible that cognitive restructuring might be beneficial to increase explicit selfesteem, but might not impact implicit self-esteem (Sava et al, 2011). By treating low selfesteem with cognitive techniques, one might have the paradoxical impact of engendering a discrepancy between explicit and implicit self-esteem, which can have deleterious effects (Borton et al, 2012;Bosson et al, 2000;Jordan et al, 2003).…”

The Role of Metacognition in Self-Critical Rumination: An Investigation in Individuals Presenting with Low Self-Esteem

“…Thirdly, levels of trait self-criticism, rumination and/or the selfcritical rumination were not measured. Fourthly, individuals with genuine high self-esteem or fragile high self-esteem (where positive judgments of the self are either contingent on external criteria, incongruent with low emotional and implicit feelings toward the self, or unstable over time) were not investigated (Borton et al, 2012;Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008). Lastly, the structured interview, although widely used and useful to elicit relevant aspects of metacognition, may also introduce biases, both by the participants' self-reports and investigator evaluations.…”