Self-esteem, evaluative feedback, and preacquaintance attraction: Indirect reactions to success and failure

Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis.

“…Prior studies have investigated the importance of self-esteem in predicting important outcomes such as task performance after receiving negative feedback and ratings of how much one is liked by another (Brockner et al, 1987; Brockner & Lloyd, 1986). A typical procedure in such experimental studies is to use a median split on a self-esteem measure to assign participants to high versus low self-esteem groups (e.g., Hoyle, Insko, & Moniz, 1992; Roese & Olson, 1993; Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam, 1990; Steele et al, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1990). In such cases, when a significant self-esteem effect is reported from an ANOVA, it indicates that the high and low self-esteem groups differed in some systematic way, but it does not communicate how far apart the self-esteem means of these groups were.…”

“…13Experimental studies typically have a smaller sample size than the National Education Longitudinal Survey, which may influence the magnitude of the mean-level difference of the high and low groups that result from a median split. The Hoyle, Insko, and Moniz sample (1992), consisting of 79 undergraduates, yielded high and low self-esteem groups whose means were 1.78 SDs apart ( d = 1.78).…”

Sizing fish and ponds: The joint effects of individual- and group-based feedback

“…People with higher self-esteem are likely to be more open to receiving critical feedback about their performance and less negatively affected by this (e.g. Bernichon, Cook, & Brown, 2003;Hoyle, Insko, & Moniz, 1992). In these ways research on individual feedback has focused largely on the meaning of feedback to the individual and the individual psychological resources they have to cope with feedback.…”