1. Positive Feedback (96th percentile)
Defensive Self-Esteem and Working Memory
Following Ego Threat
Jennifer Borton, Leah Pranschke, Barbara Singhakiat, and Jaclyn Zingman
Secure Versus Defensive Self-Esteem
(Jordan et al., 2003)
Defensive Self-Esteem and Reactions to Ego Threat
Ego threats make salient the typically subconscious negative self-evaluations of those with DSE, prompting them to engage in defensive processes to eliminate the discrepancy (Borton et al., 2012).
Following ego threat, those with defensive, relative to secure, SE:
have their attention hijacked by cues signaling social rejection (Borton et al., in press)
suppress failure-related thoughts (Borton et al., 2012)
are less able to self-regulate their behavior (Lambird & Mann, 2006)
Given that the attention of those with DSE appears to be compromised following ego threat, we speculated that they would show a decrement in working memory capacity similar to that experienced by those under stereotype threat (Johns et al., 2008).
highly sensitive to ego threat
Introduction
Hypothesis
We predicted that, under ego threat, people with defensive SE would show decreased working memory performance relative to people with secure SE because attending to the ego threat would deplete cognitive resources.
Borton, J. L. S., Crimmins, A. E., Ashby, R. S., & Ruddiman, J. F. (2012). How do individuals with fragile high self-esteem cope with intrusive thoughts following ego threat? Self and Identity, 11, doi: /
Borton, J. L. S., Oakes, M. A., & Lengieza, M. (in press). Fixated on rejection: Attentional blindness following socially rejecting faces in people with defensive self-esteem. Self and Identity.
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, doi: /
Jaeggi, S.M., Studer-Luethi, B., Buschkuehl, M., Su, Y., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W.J. (2010). The relationship between N-back performance and matrix reasoning: Implications for training and transfer. Intelligence, 38, doi: /j.intell
Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, doi: /a
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, doi: /
Lambird, K. H., & Mann, T. (2006). When do ego threats lead to self-regulation failure? Negative consequences of defensive high self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, doi: /
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, doi: / X(89)
References
Method
Positive Feedback (96th percentile)
Easy Version (1-, 2-back)
Difficult Version (2-, 3-, 4-back)
Negative Feedback
(63rd percentile)
Select the letters in the order presented.
Use the blank button to fill in forgotten items.
Results
M = 5.76
M = 3.17
*p < .001
N = 104 (45 men, 58 women, 1 transgender)
Manipulation
Check:
High
Implicit SE
Low
High Explicit SE
SECURE
DEFENSIVE
Explicit SE: 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965; expanded to 10-point Likert-type scale)
Implicit SE: Self-Esteem Implicit Association Task (IAT)
(Greenwald & Farnham, 2000)
I AM
ME, MY,
I, SELF
I AM NOT
THEY, THEM,
THEIR, OTHER
I AM I AM NOT
or or
positive negative
worthy
worthy
loveable
valuable
admirable
inferior
unloveable
inadequate
undesirable
Figure 1. Feelings about N-Back score as a function of feedback condition (higher = more positive).
Working Memory Performance (O-SPAN Score)
Ego Threat Manipulation:
Score on a working memory N-back task (Jaeggi et al., 2010)
Positive Feedback Condition
exp x imp interaction: b = .06, p = .666
(ns)
Negative Feedback Condition
exp x imp interaction: b = -.36, p = .008
b = -.47, p = .023
b = .31, p = .143
defensive SE
Figure 2. Contrary to the hypothesis, relative to those with secure SE, people with defensive SE performed significantly better after negative feedback. Explicit x implicit x condition: b = .29, p = .034.
Primary Dependent Variable: Working Memory
Operation Span Task (O-SPAN; Turner & Engle, 1989)
Discussion
As expected, no differences in working memory emerged in the positive feedback condition. Contrary to the hypothesis, however, people with DSE exhibited better working memory than did those with secure SE following ego threat.
It is possible that those with DSE dealt with the ego threat by attempting to prove the negative feedback wrong. Although this strategy has been shown to be unsuccessful for those experiencing stereotype threat, people with DSE do not have the added burden of believing that others expect them to fail, which may have rendered them better cognitively equipped to succeed. This speculation should be assessed in future research.
This study is the first to demonstrate a potentially positive effect of ego threat for people with DSE, suggesting that failure could motivate successful performance. However, the motivation to prove themselves may lead to maladaptive competitiveness or over-perseverance on unattainable goals.
(8*2) – 8 = ?
When you have solved the math problem,
click the left mouse button to continue. F H J K L N P Q R S T Y
BLANK
LRQS
CLEAR
EXIT
References
Manipulation Check
How do you feel about your score on the N-back test? (7-point scale)