Ironic effects of feedback on contingency of self-worth: Why self-reports of contingency are biased

Abstract

Contingent self-worth has been studied as an individual differences variable affecting how self-relevant information is processed. We examined the effects of self-relevant information on contingent self-worth as a dependent variable. In Experiment 1 (N = 79, college students), participants’ performance contingency was higher after negative than positive performance feedback. In Experiment 2 (N = 3764, community sample), social approval and appearance contingencies were lower in a social approval condition than in control conditions. Mediation analyses suggested this effect was mediated by enhanced self-esteem. Thus, self-esteem increased due to the very source that participants came to regard as less important: Social approval. Results are explained in terms of sociometer theory and limited introspection abilities: All self-esteem is sensitive to external contingencies, people just become more aware of this when it is threatened.

Keywords:

• Self-esteem
• contingent self-worth
• sociometer theory
• social approval
• self-threat

Acknowledgement

We thank Igor Boog, who designed and programmed the website and webtools for Study 2; Lettice Beukenboom, Pieternel Dijkstra, and Monique Weiland who helped respond to the diaries from participants in Study 2; and Johan Karremans and two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments.

Notes

1. We replicated this finding in a second experiment with 83 participants, in which we also showed that the difference between the two feedback conditions was reduced after a self-compassion manipulation (Radstaak, 2009).

2. In fact the study lasted much longer (four months) and feedback was given for six weeks, but contingency of self-esteem was assessed after two weeks. In this paper, we describe only the parts of the study that are relevant to the present purposes. A description of the entire study and of all variables assessed can be obtained from the first author.

3. We looked at performance contingency and internal standards separately as well; these two scales produced the same pattern of results. Note that the “internal standard” items in the Kernis & Paradise scale do reflect performance to quite some extent, i.e.,: “A big determinant of how much I like myself is how well I perform up to the standards that I have set for myself” and “When I perform up to my expectations, I feel especially good about myself in general”.

4. As noted (Footnote 2), this study involved more than the variables described here, and the feedback intervention went on for four weeks after contingencies of self-worth were assessed. At this point, among other variables, participants’ state self-esteem was measured. The intervention had similar effects on state self-esteem: The effect of Condition was significant, F(1, 3532) = 6.93, MSE = .89, p = .008, g = .23, M(feedback) = 5.64, SD = .79, 95%-CI = [5.48; 5.80] vs. M(control) = 5.42, SD = .95, 95%-CI = [5.39; 5.46].

5. Note that such underestimation in the absence of a real threat may be a more general phenomenon. For instance, results by Park, Young, and Eastwick (2015) indicate that men may be attracted to more intelligent women at a distance, but almost literally take a step back when a woman who outsmarts them becomes closer to them, producing a threat to their self-evaluations.