1. Focus on Failure: The Involuntary Pull of Self-Threatening Information in People with Defensive Self-Esteem
Jennifer L. S. Borton1, Mark A. Oakes2, Rohan Arcot1, Abigail Quirk1, & Rebecca Rees1 1 2
Introduction
Autobiographical Memory and Self-Esteem
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).
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).
Defensive Versus Secure Self-Esteem
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 self-threatening 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.
Measures
Self-Esteem Measures
Explicit SE: Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale
Implicit SE: Self-Esteem IAT (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000)
Memory Measures
Memory Experiences Questionnaire (Sutin & Robins, 2007)
(Cronbach’s as ranged between .73 and .95)
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.”
Emotional Intensity (6 items): The strength of emotions during recall
e.g., “As I am remembering the experience now, my feelings are very intense.”
Valence (6 items): Perceived positivity/negativity of memory
e.g., “The overall tone of the memory is positive.”
Visual Perspective (6 items): Recalled from 1st vs. 3rd person view
e.g., “I see the experience in the memory through my own eyes.”
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.”
Subjective Temporal Distance (Ross & Wilson, 2002)
Feels like yesterday Feels like a long time ago Feels very close Feels very distant
Results
defensive SE
defensive SE
I AM
ME, MY, I, SELF
I AM NOT
THEY, THEM, THEIR, OTHER
warmth joy
sunshine
smile happy
friend
agony
vomit
death
evil
disease
pain
negative
I AM I AM NOT
or or
positive negative
happy
positive
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)
Figure 2. Relative to those with secure SE, those with defensive SE rated their self-threatening memory as subjectively closer in time (controlling for actual temporal distance).
(exp x imp SE interaction, b = .20, p = .056)
Defensive SE
Hypotheses
Relative to people with secure SE, those with defensive SE should:
report greater vividness, coherence, accessibility, sensory detail, and emotional intensity for a self-threatening event in their past.
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.
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)
Discussion
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.
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.
Procedure
In Lab:
SE Implicit Association Task
Write about proud or shameful memory
Memory Experiences Questionnaire
Subjective Temporal Distance Measure
Repeat for other memory
Pre-lab
online survey:
Rosenberg SE
Scale
Memory Survey
Participants:
94 Hamilton College students
(52 women; mean age = 20.0 yrs)
References
Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107, doi: / x
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: /
Haddock, G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2011). Defensive self-esteem impacts attention, attitude strength, and self-affirmation processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, doi: /J.Jesp
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: /
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, doi: /S PLI1401_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, doi: /j 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,
Sutin, A. R., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Phenomenology of autobiographical memories: The Memory Experiences Questionnaire. Memory, 15, doi: /