Self-Esteem Maintenance Processes: Why Low Self-Esteem may be Resistant to Change

Josephs, Robert; Bosson, Jennifer K.; Jacobs, Christopher G.

doi:10.1177/0146167203029007010

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, clinical psychology has made excellent progress in diagnosing and treating mental illnesses and personality disorders (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Researchers in social psychology have conducted groundbreaking studies on the existence of implicit prejudice and negative outcomes associated with low selfesteem (e.g., Josephs, Bosson, & Jacobs, 2003;Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997). Health psychology has shown us the detrimental effects that environmental stressors have on our physiological systems (e.g., Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004).…”

Section: Why a Positive Psychology Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

What (and Why) is Positive Psychology?

Gable

Haidt

2005

Review of General Psychology

1,276

590

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions. In this brief introduction, the authors give examples of current work in positive psychology and try to explain why the positive psychology movement has grown so quickly in just 5 years. They suggest that it filled a need: It guided researchers to understudied phenomena. The authors close by addressing some criticisms and shortcomings of positive psychology, such as the relative lack of progress in studying positive institutions.The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. (Kennedy, 1968) Robert F. Kennedy's lament about the gross national product is analogous to positive psychology's lament about what might be called the "gross academic product" of psychology. In January 2000, when Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi edited a special issue of American Psychologist devoted to positive psychology, they claimed that psychology was not producing enough "knowledge of what makes life worth living" (p. 5). In the second half of the 20th century, psychology learned much about depression, racism, violence, self-esteem management, irrationality, and growing up under adversity but had much less to say about character strengths, virtues, and the conditions that lead to high levels of happiness or civic engagement. In one metaphor, psychology was said to be learning how to bring people up from negative eight to zero but not as good at understanding how people rise from zero to positive eight.In just 5 years since that special issue, quite a bit has happened in what has become known as the positive psychology movement. Many edited volumes and handbooks have been published (e.g., Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Keyes & Haidt, 2003;Lopez & Snyder, 2003;Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Schmuck & Sheldon, 2001;Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Dozens of conferences have brought researchers together from all over the world. Numerous grants have facilitated the research of young investigators and created collaborations among researchers from many countries. Courses in positive psychology are springing up in scores of universities and high schools. Those of us involved in positive psychology are often amazed at how fast the train has been moving.However, scholars who are not involved in positive psychology may be skeptical about both the cargo and the destination of the train. In this introduction, we would like to address those who are doubtful about positive psychology, or just unfamiliar with it. We relate our view of positive psychology, how we...

show abstract

Section: Why a Positive Psychology Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

What (and Why) is Positive Psychology?

Gable

Haidt

2005

Review of General Psychology

1,276

590

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several hypotheses have been put forward, and some have received empirical support. For instance, people with low self-esteem do not find their own self-generated positive feedback credible (Josephs, Bosson, & Jacobs, 2003).…”

Section: Raising and Lowering Self-esteemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Why's the Limit: Curtailing Self‐Enhancement With Explanatory Introspection

Sedikides

Horton

Gregg

2007

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-enhancement is linked to psychological gains (e.g., subjective well-being, persistence in adversity), but also to intrapersonal and interpersonal costs (e.g., excessive risktaking, antisocial behavior). Thus, constraints on self-enhancement may sometimes afford intrapersonal and interpersonal advantages. We tested whether explanatory introspection (i.e., generating reasons for why one might or might not possess personality traits) constitutes one such constraint. Experiment 1 demonstrated that explanatory introspection curtails selfenhancement. Experiment 2 clarified that the underlying mechanism must (a) involve explanatory questioning rather than descriptive imagining, (b) invoke the self rather than another person, and (c) feature written expression rather than unaided contemplation. Finally, Experiment 3 obtained evidence that an increase in uncertainty about oneself mediates the effect. Introspection and Self-Enhancement 3The Why's the Limit: Curtailing Self-enhancement with Explanatory IntrospectionMost people, most of the time, see themselves through rose-colored glasses. Whether rating themselves as above-average on personality traits and abilities (Alicke, 1985) or believing themselves less susceptible to bias than the average person (Pronin, Yin, & Ross, 2002)-whether showing selective recall for flattering autobiographical episodes (Sanitioso, Kunda, & Fong, 1990) or engaging in social comparisons that validate a positive self-view (Dunning, 1999)-whether attributing their successes internally and their failures externally (Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004) or thinking that their own future will surpass that of their peers (Weinstein, 1980)-people by and large evaluate themselves more favorably either than the objective facts warrant (Gosling, John, Craik, & Robins, 1998) or than external observers think justified (Epley & Dunning, 2000). Tellingly, people even believe that they outdo their own doppelgangers: they rate themselves more favorably than they rate their peers on the basis of identical behavioral evidence (Alicke, Vredenburg, Hiatt, & Govorun, 2001). Moreover, egocentric biases like the better-than-average effect are pervasive existing not only in (selfpromoting) individualistic cultures, but also in (self-deprecating) collectivistic cultures (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003).All such phenomena can be viewed as forms of self-enhancement. Although perhaps irrational in the normative sense-half of us being forever doomed to be below average 1 -selfenhancement is nonetheless linked to substantial benefits. These include good psychological health (Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003), better coping with physical illness (Taylor et al., 2003) and traumatic loss (Bonanno, Rennicke, & Dekel, 2005), greater persistence in the face of adversity (Taylor & Brown, 1988), and good social adjustment (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005).However, self-enhancement is also linked to several substantial costs. Intrapersonal costs include imprudent risk...

show abstract

“…In the case of a deliberate transgression, this means that one has committed oneself to willfully achieving harm. Given that the consequences of such intentions can translate into devastating effects for the victim including humiliation, moral indignation, and loss of face (Goffman, 1955;Heider, 1958;Josephs, Bosson, & Jacobs, 2003;Sabini, Siepmann, & Stein, 2001), it is not surprising that intentional transgressions can make victims of an offense cautious and self-protective (Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989;Maltby & Day, 2004;Steele, 1988). Moreover, given that intentional actions leave little room for situational causes, they are also likely to lead to the formation of dispositional inferences about offenders by discounting situational factors and focusing the victim's attention on the transgressor's behavior and motive (Fein, 2001;Gilbert, 1998;Gilbert & Malone, 1995;Jones & Davis, 1965;Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham, & Lawrence, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%