The effects of group expectations and self-esteem upon self-evaluation.

Self‐presentation following success or failure: Defensive self‐esteem models

“…As Homey (1937) and Cohen (ig54) have pointed out, not all people who report high selfesteem have "true" high self-esteem The very expression of the high self-esteem may be an attempt to gain approval Cohen (1954) hypothesized that individuals with high selfesteem vnR respond to threat by repudiation and depersonahzation of the stimulus in order to maiutain high self-esteem This has come to be regarded as the hypothesis of defensive selfesteem In some ways high self-esteem subj'ects may act as though they have low self-esteem, as though the fact that they report high self-esteem reveals a certain defensiveness Experimental investigation of this theory has revealed interesting, though somewhat complex results Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen, and Zander (1957) predicted that if high self-esteem individuals protect themselves from negative evaluations, then they would deemphasize objective failure and would emphasize an obj'ective success. It was found that self-esteem affected evaluation of one's performance in failure, but not in success Individuals with high self-esteem rated their failure performance significantly better than did individuals with low self-esteem It has been found that individuals with high self-esteem will exhibit a greater degree of interpersonal infiuence (Cohen, 1959), are less likely to identify with negative attnbutes (Stotland & Hillmer, 1962), are less persuasible by threatenmg communications (Leventhal & Perloe, 1962, Nisbett & Cordon, 1967, are less persuasible after failure (Silverman, 1964b) and improve more after a success (Silverman, 1964a).…”

“…As Homey (1937) and Cohen (ig54) have pointed out, not all people who report high selfesteem have "true" high self-esteem The very expression of the high self-esteem may be an attempt to gain approval Cohen (1954) hypothesized that individuals with high selfesteem vnR respond to threat by repudiation and depersonahzation of the stimulus in order to maiutain high self-esteem This has come to be regarded as the hypothesis of defensive selfesteem In some ways high self-esteem subj'ects may act as though they have low self-esteem, as though the fact that they report high self-esteem reveals a certain defensiveness Experimental investigation of this theory has revealed interesting, though somewhat complex results Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen, and Zander (1957) predicted that if high self-esteem individuals protect themselves from negative evaluations, then they would deemphasize objective failure and would emphasize an obj'ective success. It was found that self-esteem affected evaluation of one's performance in fail-…”

“…In the literature on self-concept, there has been considerable speculation about how people of varying levels of self-esteem would respond to success and failure experiences One position has been that people of low self-esteem should generally be more hungry for success experiences than high self-esteem people, and that the low self-esteem people would respond more hostilely to failure This kind of hypothesis is based on the idea that low selfesteem represents a kind of approval deficit, and since approval is generally desired by people, the low self-esteem subiects should desire it more One problem in testmg this or other models involving self-esteem is in correctly identifying people of low and high self-esteem While there are few ambigmties surrounding low self-esteem responses on a questionnaire, there are problems with high self-esteem responses. As Homey (1937) and Cohen (ig54) have pointed out, not all people who report high selfesteem have "true" high self-esteem The very expression of the high self-esteem may be an attempt to gain approval Cohen (1954) hypothesized that individuals with high selfesteem vnR respond to threat by repudiation and depersonahzation of the stimulus in order to maiutain high self-esteem This has come to be regarded as the hypothesis of defensive selfesteem In some ways high self-esteem subj'ects may act as though they have low self-esteem, as though the fact that they report high self-esteem reveals a certain defensiveness Experimental investigation of this theory has revealed interesting, though somewhat complex results Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen, and Zander (1957) predicted that if high self-esteem individuals protect themselves from negative evaluations, then they would deemphasize objective failure and would emphasize an obj'ective success. It was found that self-esteem affected evaluation of one's performance in fail-ure, but not in success Individuals with high self-esteem rated their failure performance significantly better than did individuals with low self-esteem It has been found that individuals with high self-esteem will exhibit a greater degree of interpersonal infiuence (Cohen, 1959), are less likely to identify with negative attnbutes (Stotland & Hillmer, 1962), are less persuasible by threatenmg communications (Leventhal & Perloe, 1962, Nisbett & Cordon, 1967, are less persuasible after failure (Silverman, 1964b) and improve more after a success (Silverman, 1964a).…”

Symbolic Interaction Theory / Zur Theorie des symbolischen Interaktionismus

“…On the question of the origins of and change in the phenomenal self, SIT's tour de force, one finds much work, yet of the four best studies in the area, one supports the theory (STOTLAND et al 1957), one does not (JONES 1968), one partially supports it (STOT LAND & ZANDER 1958), and one partially supports and partially contradicts it (GERARD 1961). In the area of the organization of the self the theory shows promise, but work here has only begun.…”

The Social Environment and Mental Health: A Review of Past Research at the Institute for Social Research

“…We cannot infer the existence of threat from knowledge of environmental conditions alone, since persons with low self-esteem or with low ego strength have been observed to be more threatened by uncertain conditions than those who have high self-esteem (Cohen, 1959) or high ego strength (Thomas, 1956). Personality variables alone are not sufficient for our purpose either since, in studies where situational and personality variables were both employed, the personality variables often had significant effects only when situational determinants were in their weakest degree, and few effects where environmental conditions were strong (Cohen, 1959;Thomas, 1956;Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen, & Zander, 1957;Stotland & Zander, 1958). Higher ego strength, for example, was associated with significantly greater control of tension than lower ego strength where pressures on persons were weak, but not where pressures were strong.…”