Transcript High (+1 SD)

Focus on Failure: The Involuntary Pull of Self-Threatening Information
1
2
in People with Defensive Self-Esteem
Introduction
• In addition to feeling temporally closer, positive self-relevant events are also
remembered more vividly by those with high SE, because they are an important
part of the self-concept (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000).
• High self-esteem (SE), however, is not a unitary construct (e.g., Jordan et al.,
2003; Kernis, 2003). Defensive self-esteem (SE), defined as a combination of
high explicit and low implicit SE (Jordan et al., 2003), has a variety of negative
correlates, including greater verbal defensiveness when discussing selfthreatening events (Kernis et al., 2008) and increased attention to defensive
words (Haddock & Gebauer, 2011).
• Given these findings, people with defensive SE may find negative self-relevant
events more personally threatening than those with secure (high explicit and
implicit) SE do, because such events are at odds with their conscious sense of
self-worth. Consequently, they may more strongly encode and hence better recall
such events. However, because these memories are threatening, they may
attempt to distance their current self from them.
Results
Measures
Self-Esteem Measures
Low explicit (-1 SD)
Explicit SE: Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale
Implicit SE: Self-Esteem IAT (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000)
I AM
Defensive Versus Secure Self-Esteem
ME, MY, I, SELF
I AM
or
positive
I AM NOT
or
negative
I AM NOT
THEY, THEM, THEIR,
OTHER
positive
warmth
joy
friend
happy
sunshine
smile
happy
agony
vomit
death
evil
disease pain
1. report greater vividness, coherence, accessibility, sensory detail,
and emotional intensity for a self-threatening event in their past.
2. attempt to distance themselves more from their self-threatening
memory and report feeling as though their current self differs from
the self in the memory.
Memory Measures
Participants:
Vividness (6 items): Visual clarity and intensity
e.g., “My memory for this event is clear.”
Coherence (8 items): Logical flow for the events in the memory
e.g., “The order of events in this memory is clear.”
Accessibility (5 items): How easily the memory can be retrieved
e.g., “This memory just sprang to my mind when I read the instructions.”
Sensory Detail (8 items): How well the senses are re-experienced
e.g., “As I remember this event, I can hear it in my mind.”
Memory Survey
Pre-lab
online survey:
Rosenberg SE
Scale
Valence (6 items): Perceived positivity/negativity of memory
e.g., “The overall tone of the memory is positive.”
3
defensive SE
2
1
Low (-1 SD)
High (+1 SD)
Implicit Self-Esteem
Figure 1. Relative to those with secure SE, those
with defensive SE rated their self-threatening
memory as significantly more accessible.
(exp x imp SE interaction, b = -.24, p = .025)
High explicit (+1 SD)
6
5
4
3
2
Defensive
SE
(2-way interaction: b = -.39, p = .002)
1
Low (-1 SD)
High (+1 SD)
Implicit Self-Esteem
High explicit (+1 SD)
40
30
20
defensive SE
10
0
Low (-1 SD)
High (+1 SD)
Implicit Self-Esteem
Figure 2. Relative to those with secure SE,
those with defensive SE rated their selfthreatening memory as subjectively closer in
time (controlling for actual temporal distance).
(exp x imp SE interaction, b = .20, p = .056)
Self-Threatening Memory First
Low explicit (-1 SD)
High explicit (+1 SD)
6
5
(ns)
4
3
2
(2-way interaction: b = .18, p = .369)
1
Low (-1 SD)
High (+1 SD)
Implicit Self-Esteem
Figure 3. People with defensive SE reported greater emotional intensity for their self-threatening
memory than people with secure SE, but only after first reporting their self-enhancing memory.
(exp SE x imp SE x order interaction, b = -.49, p = .018)
• Self-threatening events may be particularly meaningful and attention-commanding
for those with defensive SE, as they are at odds with their explicit views of
themselves.
• The self-enhancing memory may have served as a self-affirmation, allowing those
with defensive self-esteem to report more truthfully about their threatening memory.
Distancing (6 items): The degree of separation from the experience
e.g., “I don’t have much in common with the person in the memory.”
• People with defensive self-esteem—despite their high explicit self-esteem—
responded similarly to people with low explicit and implicit self-esteem. This finding
underscores the importance of examining both explicit and implicit self-esteem.
References
In Lab:
SE Implicit
Association
Task
4
Low explicit (-1 SD)
50
Discussion
Visual Perspective (6 items): Recalled from 1st vs. 3rd person view
e.g., “I see the experience in the memory through my own eyes.”
94 Hamilton College students
(52 women; mean age = 20.0 yrs)
5
Low explicit (-1 SD)
Emotional Intensity (6 items): The strength of emotions during recall
e.g., “As I am remembering the experience now, my feelings are very intense.”
Procedure
6
Self-Enhancing Memory First
(Cronbach’s as ranged between .73 and .95)
Relative to people with secure SE, those with defensive SE should:
High explicit (+1 SD)
negative
Memory Experiences Questionnaire (Sutin & Robins, 2007)
Hypotheses
& Rebecca
1
Rees
Mean Emotional Intensity
of Negative Memory
• People tend to recall past events in a way that constructs a coherent life story
consistent with their self-concept. For those with high SE, positive past events
feel closer to the present time than negative events do (Ross & Wilson, 2002).
Abigail
1
Quirk ,
Mean Accessibility of
Threatening Memory
Autobiographical Memory and Self-Esteem
Rohan
1
Arcot ,
Mean Subjective Temporal
Distance of Threatening
Memory (higher = farther)
Mark A.
2
Oakes ,
Mean Emotional Intensity
of Negative Memory
Jennifer L. S.
1
Borton ,
Repeat
for other
memory
Subjective Temporal Distance (Ross & Wilson, 2002)
Feels like yesterday
Feels like a long time ago
Feels very close
Feels very distant
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological
Review, 107, 261-288. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.261
Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 1022-1038. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1022
Haddock, G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2011). Defensive self-esteem impacts attention, attitude strength, and self-affirmation processes. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1276-1284. doi: 10.1016/J.Jesp.2011.05.020
Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 969 - 978. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.969
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01
Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., & Heppner, W. L. (2008). Secure versus fragile high self-esteem as a predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging
findings across three different markers. Journal of Personality, 76, 477-512. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00493.x
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ross, M., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). It feels like yesterday: Self-esteem, valence of personal past experiences, and judgments of subjective
distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 792 - 803.
Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Phenomenology of autobiographical memories: The Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 15, 390411. doi: 10.1080/09658210701256654