DOCSLIB.ORG

Relationships and the Self: Egosystem and Ecosystem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

C HAPTER 4 RELATIONSHIPS AND THE SELF: EGOSYSTEM AND ECOSYSTEM Jennifer Crocker and Amy Canevello Most social scientists assume that people are funda- Crocker & Canevello, 2008, 2012b;ASSOCIATION Crocker, mentally self-interested, that they do what they Olivier, & Nuer, 2009). We first describe this perceive to be advantageous to themselves (Miller, system in general terms that apply to most, if not all, 1999). Unsurprisingly, this view pervades research types of relationships. Then, because romantic rela- on the self, in which people are depicted as self- tionships are the focus of a great deal of interest and enhancing and self-protective, seeking validation research, we describe the principles of romantic and affirmation, and taking credit for successes but relationships driven by egosystem motivation. dodging blame for failures. Perhaps more surprising, We next describe an emerging alternate view, in this view also pervades a great deal of research on which people have the capacity to transcend self- relationships, which presumably involve shared interestPSYCHOLOGICAL and care deeply about people and things bonds between people and feelings such as close- beyond themselves, which we call ecosystem motiva- ness, caring, affection, or love. Many researchers tion (Crocker, 2008; Crocker & Canevello, 2008, assume that people in relationships, as in the rest of 2012b; Crocker et al., 2006). In relationships, their lives, are fundamentally self-centered and people driven by ecosystem motivation seek to pro- self-serving. In this view, people want to AMERICANbe in rela- mote the well-being of the relationship partner not tionships to promote their own ends, ©they use rela- out of selfish motives to obtain benefits in return, tionship partners to satisfy their own needs, and but because they care about the partner or because they sacrifice and compromise in relationships to both people care about the well-being of someone or keep their relationship partners happy so they can something beyond themselves. We describe this per- continue to reap benefitsPROOFS the relationship brings spective in general terms and then consider the prin- them. Being desired, idealized, and accepted by ciples of romantic relationships from the ecosystem another person are peak relationship experiences, perspective. We consider factors that predict which whereas being unwanted, criticized, or rejected are set of principles—those of the egosystem or those of ultimate downers. the ecosystem—will best describe a particular rela- Although this view surely describes many rela- tionship at a particular moment. We then suggest a tionships at least some of the time, we believe that it number of issues for future research. is at best incomplete and at worst wildly misleading as a depiction of the self in relationships. In this UNCORRECTED SELF AND RELATIONSHIPS MOTIVATED chapter, we begin by articulating the self-centered BY THE EGOSYSTEM view of relationships that dominates much research and theory on relationships and the self. Consistent The egosystem is a motivational system centered on with our previous work, we call this orientation to the self; in this system, people are primarily con- relationships egosystem motivation (Crocker, 2008; cerned with ensuring that their own needs are met http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14344-004 APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 3. Interpersonal Relations, M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver (Editors-in-Chief ) 93 Copyright © 2015 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp04.indd 93 18/01/14 2:28 PM Crocker and Canevello and their desires satisfied (Crocker & Canevello, anger, fear, sadness, and happiness are self-referent; 2012a). The important quality of relationships in in the egosystem, one might feel anger at being the egosystem is that people strive for benefits that treated unfairly by a relationship partner, fear of a flow to the self from relationship partners. In this relationship partner’s negative judgment, sadness system, people are not particularly concerned about about the loss of a relationship partner, and elation others’ well-being. Accordingly, people with egosys- or joy when obtaining desired outcomes from a tem motivation in relationships prioritize their own relationship partner. needs and desires over those of other people. They At the same time, relationships in the egosystem are self-involved, focusing on what being in the tend to elicit ambivalent feelings. Because people in relationship or the quality of the relationship says this system tend to have a zero-sum view of relation- about them, in their own eyes and in the eyes of ships, positive events for the self are assumed to others. They aim to maximize their gains and mini- have negative implications for relationship partners, mize their losses in the relationship and in their and vice versa. Thus, relationships in the egosystem interactions with relationship partners. They tend to inherently put people between theASSOCIATION proverbial rock view outcomes as zero-sum in nature, such that and a hard place, because although people want satisfaction of the needs and desires of one person outcomes for themselves, they or the relationship must necessarily come at the expense of others may pay for the cost this extracts from others. (Crocker & Canevello, 2012a). Consequently, relationships in the egosystem tend In this system, other people matter only if they to involve feeling afraid, conflicted, and confused can potentially satisfy or thwart one’s own needs (Crocker & Canevello, 2008). and desires. To the extent that others matter, they Note that in the egosystem behavior is not com- are viewed as an obstacle to be overcome or as a pletely selfish; people sometimes sacrifice or give to means to an end. In this system, people do not their relationshipPSYCHOLOGICAL partners. The important question expect others to care much about their well-being is why. In this system, people give, sacrifice, and for its own sake. They feel at the mercy of relation- support relationship partners as a loan or an invest- ship partners because they must induce others to ment, to obtain something in return from the part- help them get their needs met (Crocker & Canev- ners (Van Lange et al., 1997). They might give ello, 2012a). Accordingly, when people are driven expecting their partners to reciprocate, as when by egosystem motivation, they attempt to controlAMERICAN people say “I love you” to get the other person to say others through persuasion, negotiation, ingratiation,© it in return. They might trade, giving in one area to manipulation, or intimidation (Crocker & Canev- obtain what they want in another area. They might ello, 2012a). In interpersonal contexts, they typi- give to keep their partner from leaving, to induce cally have self-image goals; that is, they try to get feelings of gratitude in their partner, to become others to view them as havingPROOFS desired qualities, and indispensable to their partner, or to create a bank of as not having undesired qualities, so that others will favors or good will they can draw on so their selfish give them what they want. They focus on proving behaviors do not destroy the relationship and there- themselves to others and obtaining validation that fore the benefits they obtain (Batson, 1979; Murray, relationship partners recognize their positive Aloni, et al., 2009; Murray, Leder, et al., 2009). In qualities (Crocker, 2008; Crocker & Canevello, the egosystem, people might sometimes give and not 2012a; Crocker et al., 2009). want their partner to reciprocate because they prefer Because relationship events in the egosystem to hold the moral high ground and be seen as the implicateUNCORRECTED the self, emotions in these relationships good person in the relationship. tend to involve high arousal. Acceptance and valida- Paradoxically, egosystem motivation in close tion from relationship partners elicit self-conscious relationships does not necessarily result in increased emotions such as pride and boosts to self-esteem, benefits for the self, in part because relationship whereas rejection and criticism elicit shame or partners appear to sense the selfish intentions humiliation. Furthermore, basic emotions such as behind giving in the egosystem (Crocker & Canevello, 94 BK-APA-HPS-V3-131232-Chp04.indd 94 18/01/14 2:28 PM Relationships and the Self 2008, 2012a). In general, egosystem motivation with the self or are included in the self but because may lead people to adopt relatively short-term and people who are separate and distinct and who have narrowly self-interested perspectives in their rela- their own needs and desires nonetheless influence tionships. Thus, in the egosystem people may not each other’s well-being. The needs and desires of think about the long-term consequences of their others are just as important and valid as the needs behaviors for the sustainability of relationships and desires of the self. This does not mean that in over time. the ecosystem people treat everyone equally, feel responsible for satisfying everyone else’s needs, or necessarily expend significant amounts of effort, RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ECOSYSTEM expense, or time to ensure that everyone else’s needs Although people often care about satisfying their are met. own needs and desires without regard for others, In the ecosystem, people care about others’ well- they also have the capacity for empathy, compas- being and assume that at least some other people sion, and generosity motivated by caring about the care about their well-being forASSOCIATION its own sake (Crocker well-being of others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). & Canevello, 2012a). In this system, people trust Although selfish motives underlie some altruistic that their own needs will be met in collaboration behavior, people sometimes genuinely care about with their social environment, not as the result of an others’ well-being (Batson, 1998; S. L. Brown, exchange of benefits or a successful investment but Brown, & Penner, 2012; Mikulincer & Shaver, because others care about their well-being. Conse- 2010).
Recommended publications
  • Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore: Implicit Egotism and Major Life Decisions

    Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore: Implicit Egotism and Major Life Decisions

    ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL COGNITION Why Susie Sells Seashells by the Seashore: Implicit Egotism and Major Life Decisions Brett W. Pelham, Matthew C. Mirenberg, and John T. Jones State University of New York at Buffalo Because most people possess positive associations about themselves, most people prefer things that are connected to the self (e.g., the letters in one’s name). The authors refer to such preferences as implicit egotism. Ten studies assessed the role of implicit egotism in 2 major life decisions: where people choose to live and what people choose to do for a living. Studies 1–5 showed that people are disproportionately likely to live in places whose names resemble their own first or last names (e.g., people named Louis are disproportionately likely to live in St. Louis). Study 6 extended this finding to birthday number preferences. People were disproportionately likely to live in cities whose names began with their birthday numbers (e.g., Two Harbors, MN). Studies 7–10 suggested that people disproportionately choose careers whose labels resemble their names (e.g., people named Dennis or Denise are overrepresented among dentists). Implicit egotism appears to influence major life decisions. This idea stands in sharp contrast to many models of rational choice and attests to the importance of understanding implicit beliefs. What role do people’s thoughts and feelings about themselves important role in major life decisions. For example, only a handful play in their important day-to-day decisions and behaviors? Con- of studies have examined whether self-regulation processes influ- temporary research on the self-concept suggests many answers to ence people’s choice of relationship partners.
  • Toplum Yanlisi Davraniştaki Toplumsal: Iç-Grupla Özdeşleşme Ve Kolektif Dayaniklilik Arasindaki Ilişki

    Toplum Yanlisi Davraniştaki Toplumsal: Iç-Grupla Özdeşleşme Ve Kolektif Dayaniklilik Arasindaki Ilişki

    Karatay Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Sayı: 6, 2021 Bahar, e-ISSN: 2651-4605 Akdeniz, S. ve Dalmış, İ. (2021). Toplum yanlısı davranıştaki toplumsal: İç-grupla özdeşleşme ve kolektif dayanıklılık arasındaki ilişki. Karatay Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, (6), 37-50. Makale Geliş Tarihi: 29.03.2021 Makale Kabul Tarihi: 29.04.2021 TOPLUM YANLISI DAVRANIŞTAKİ TOPLUMSAL: İÇ-GRUPLA ÖZDEŞLEŞME VE KOLEKTİF DAYANIKLILIK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ İbrahim DALMIŞ* Seher AKDENİZ** Öz Kolektif dayanıklılık, toplumların afet ve acil durum zamanlarında ortaya çıkan olumsuzluklara dayanma ve elindeki kaynakları kullanarak bu olumsuzluklardan kurtulma yetisi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Dayanıklılık anlayışı genel olarak kolektif panik anlayışının aksine öz-yardıma, ortak kaynakların kullanımına ve hayatta kalanların kendini toparlama ve çalışmaya devam etmesine vurgu yapmaktadır. Afet ve acil durumlarda grup oluşumunun en kritik belirleyicilerinden biri dış tehdit algısı yani ortak kader anlayışıdır. Ortak kader, çok kısa bir zaman içinde farklı bireylerden oluşan bir yığını, birleşik bir psikolojik kitleye dönüştürmektedir. Kolektif dayanıklılığın ilgili toplulukla özdeşleşme düzeyine göre farklılaşabileceği hipotezine dayalı olarak bu çalışmada, iç-grupla özdeşleşme ile kolektif dayanıklılık arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Araştırma betimsel tarama yöntemi ile gerçekleştirilmiş olup, evrendeki durumu belirlemek üzere katılımcılara çevrim-içi platformda kendileri hakkında yapılandırılmış sorular yöneltilmiştir. Araştırmaya değişik eğitim gruplarından yaşları 18 ile
  • Perceptions of Uniqueness and Similarity in Close Relationships

    Perceptions of Uniqueness and Similarity in Close Relationships

    Personal Relationships, 6 (1999), 269-289. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright 0 1999 ISSPR. 1350-4126/99$9.50 Being better than others but otherwise perfectly normal: Perceptions of uniqueness and similarity in close relationships PAUL A. M. VAN LANGE,” CARYL E. RUSBULT? ASTRID SEMIN-GOOSSENS,L’CARIEN A. GORTS,CAND MIRJAM STALPERSc aFree University, Amsterdam; bUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and ‘Free University, Amsterdam Abstract The current research addresses individuals’ self-generated thoughts regarding their own and others’ relationships,examining the ways in which perceptions of uniqueness and similarity are manifested in judgments regarding own and others’ responses to dissatisfying incidents. Consistent with the uniqueness bias, participants characterized their own relationships by a greater number of constructive responses and a smaller number of destructive responses relative to characterizations of others’ relationships. Moreover, external raters judged own constructive responses to be more constructive than others’ constructive responses. Consistent with the similarity bias, external raters judged items describing others’ responses to be less frequently occurring and more extreme than their own responses. Also, this research revealed support for the claim that the similarity bias is more pronounced for destructive responses than for constructive responses. A recall task corroborated these findings, revealing very good recall for destructive responses enacted by others and poor recall for destructive responses enacted by oneself. Virtually all relationships eventually are incidents. Broadly conceived, such re- confronted with periodic declines in satis- sponses may be construed as either con- faction-declines caused by relatively en- structive or destructive in that they either during disagreements, conflicts, or unpleas- contribute to the health and vitality of the ant events that are external to the relationship or are harmful to the well-be- relationship itself.
  • Origins of Narcissism in Children

    Origins of Narcissism in Children

    Origins of narcissism in children Eddie Brummelmana,b,1, Sander Thomaesb,c, Stefanie A. Nelemansd, Bram Orobio de Castrob, Geertjan Overbeeka, and Brad J. Bushmane,f aResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001 NG, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands; cCenter for Research on Self and Identity, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, England; dResearch Centre Adolescent Development, Department of Youth and Family, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands; eDepartment of Communication and Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1339; and fDepartment of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved February 12, 2015 (received for review November 7, 2014) Narcissism levels have been increasing among Western youth, and (9) and “are under a compulsion to ascribe every perfection to contribute to societal problems such as aggression and violence. the child—which sober observation would find no occasion to The origins of narcissism, however, are not well understood. Here, do” (10). Consequently, children might internalize the belief that we report, to our knowledge, the first prospective longitudinal they are special individuals who are entitled to privileges. In evidence on the origins of narcissism in children. We compared contrast, psychoanalytic theory holds that children are likely to two perspectives: social learning theory (positing that narcissism is grow up to be narcissistic when their parents lack warmth toward cultivated by parental overvaluation) and psychoanalytic theory them (11, 12).
  • The Dirty Dozen: a Concise Measure of the Dark Triad

    The Dirty Dozen: a Concise Measure of the Dark Triad

    Psychological Assessment © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 22, No. 2, 420–432 1040-3590/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019265 The Dirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the Dark Triad Peter K. Jonason Gregory D. Webster University of West Florida University of Florida There has been an exponential increase of interest in the dark side of human nature during the last decade. To better understand this dark side, the authors developed and validated a concise, 12-item measure of the Dark Triad: narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism. In 4 studies involving 1,085 participants, they examined its structural reliability, convergent and discriminant validity (Studies 1, 2, and 4), and test–retest reliability (Study 3). Their measure retained the flexibility needed to measure these 3 independent-yet-related constructs while improving its efficiency by reducing its item count by 87% (from 91 to 12 items). The measure retained its core of disagreeableness, short-term mating, and aggressiveness. They call this measure the Dirty Dozen, but it cleanly measures the Dark Triad. Keywords: Dark Triad, narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, measurement The Dark Triad is a term used to describe a constellation of quiring scores on each measure to be standardized (Jonason, Li, three socially undesirable personality traits: narcissism, psychop- Webster, & Schmitt, 2009). athy, and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Research Second, assessing the Dark Triad’s 91 items is inefficient, on the Dark Triad has increased exponentially over the last decade. time-consuming, and may cause response fatigue in some partic- An analysis of Google Scholar hit counts for “Dark Triad” in ipants. When studying the Dark Triad and one or more other scientific works reveals an explosive increase from one in 2002 to measures of interest (e.g., self-esteem, Big Five personality traits), at least 38 in 2009.
  • Interpersonal Goals, Others Regard for the Self, and Selfesteem

    Interpersonal Goals, Others Regard for the Self, and Selfesteem

    European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41, 422–434 (2011) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.808 Research Article Interpersonal goals, others’ regard for the self, and self‐esteem: The paradoxical consequences of self‐image and compassionate goals AMY CANEVELLO* AND JENNIFER CROCKER Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, USA Abstract People often adopt self‐image goals to increase others’ regard for them and perhaps their own self‐esteem. But do these impression management goals achieve their intended result in close relationships? And do they endure over time? We suggest that self‐image goals predict decreased self‐esteem and close others’ regard for the self through decreased responsiveness to others. In contrast, compassionate goals, which reflect a genuine concern for others’ well‐being, predict increased self‐ esteem and others’ regard through increased responsiveness. We tested these hypotheses in a longitudinal study of college roommates followed across a semester. Path analyses supported both predictions, suggesting a paradox for interpersonal goals in close relationships: explicit attempts to increase close others’ regard for the self backfire and damage self‐esteem, but having goals to meet others’ needs result in others’ positive regard and promote self‐esteem. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. People often adopt self‐image goals, attempting to gain others’ self‐esteem. In contrast, when people have compassionate esteem by constructing desired images of the self in others’ goals, reflecting genuine concern for others’ well‐being eyes (e.g., Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989; Leary & (Crocker & Canevello, 2008), they bolster close others’ Kowalski, 1990).
  • Impulsivity and the Self-Defeating Behavior of Narcissists

    Impulsivity and the Self-Defeating Behavior of Narcissists

    Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2006 by 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, 154–165 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Impulsivity and the Self-Defeating Behavior of Narcissists Simine Vazire Department of Psychology The University of Texas at Austin David C. Funder Department of Psychology University of California, Riverside Currently prominent models of narcissism (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) primarily explain narcissists’self-defeating behaviors in terms of conscious cognitive and affec- tive processes. We propose that the disposition of impulsivity may also play an impor- tant role. We offer 2 forms of evidence. First, we present a meta-analysis demonstrat- ing a strong positive relationship between narcissism and impulsivity. Second, we review and reinterpret the literature on 3 hallmarks of narcissism: self-enhancement, aggression, and negative long-term outcomes. Our reinterpretation argues that impulsivity provides a more parsimonious explanation for at least some of narcissists’ self-defeating behavior than do existing models. These 2 sources of evidence suggest that narcissists’ quest for the status and recognition they so intensely desire is thwarted, in part, by their lack of the self-control necessary to achieve those goals. Narcissists are a puzzle. Their bragging and arro- This article begins by proposing that the widely ac- gance interferes with the attainment of the status and cepted cognitive–affective processing model presented recognition they so poignantly desire. Why do they by Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) be extended to include continually undermine themselves in this way? The re- dispositional impulsivity. We then review the empirical search literature appears to have achieved some con- evidence for our proposal by presenting a sensus about the nature of sub-clinical narcissism1 meta-analysis of the relationship between narcissism with respect to underlying cognitive, social, and affec- and impulsivity, including unpublished results from tive processes (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).
  • The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem

    The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem

    Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 2004, Vol. 130, No. 3, 392–414 0033-2909/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392 The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem Jennifer Crocker and Lora E. Park University of Michigan Researchers have recently questioned the benefits associated with having high self-esteem. The authors propose that the importance of self-esteem lies more in how people strive for it rather than whether it is high or low. They argue that in domains in which their self-worth is invested, people adopt the goal to validate their abilities and qualities, and hence their self-worth. When people have self-validation goals, they react to threats in these domains in ways that undermine learning; relatedness; autonomy and self-regulation; and over time, mental and physical health. The short-term emotional benefits of pursuing self-esteem are often outweighed by long-term costs. Previous research on self-esteem is reinterpreted in terms of self-esteem striving. Cultural roots of the pursuit of self-esteem are considered. Finally, the alternatives to pursuing self-esteem, and ways of avoiding its costs, are discussed. The pursuit of self-esteem has become a central preoccupation 1998). The desire to believe that one is worthy or valuable drives in American culture (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, behavior and shapes how people think about themselves, other 2003; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Pyszczynski, people, and events in their lives (e.g., Crocker, 2002a; Greenberg, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1997; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Pinel, Simon, & Jordan, 1993; Kunda & 2001).
  • Intellectual Humility and the Curse of Knowledge

    Intellectual Humility and the Curse of Knowledge

    Forthcoming in Arrogance and Polarization. Eds. A. Tanesini and M. Lynch. Routledge. Intellectual Humility and the Curse of Knowledge Michael Hannon University of Nottingham This chapter explores an unappreciated psychological dimension of intellectual humility. In particular, I argue there is a plausible connection between intellectual humility and epistemic egocentrism. Epistemic egocentrism is a well-known cognitive bias – often called ‘the curse of knowledge’ – whereby an agent attributes his or her own mental states to other people. I hypothesize that an individual who exhibits this bias is more likely to possess a variety of traits that are characteristic of intellectual humility. This is surprising because intellectual humility is often regarded as an antidote to cognitive biases, whereas I claim that a particular cognitive bias (namely, the curse of knowledge) may help foster an intellectual virtue. Introduction Intellectual humility is widely considered a virtue.1 Although there is no consensus within philosophy or psychology on a precise definition of intellectual humility, it has been linked to an assortment of desirable traits. For example, intellectual humble people have been said to: not think too highly of themselves; not ascribe to themselves greater excellence than they possesses; show low concern for how special their talents are; take complaints and criticism seriously; generously acknowledge the contributions of others; and not demand special treatment, even 1 For example, see Church and Barrett (2016), Hazlett (2012), Roberts and Wood (2003), Samuelson et al. (2015), Tanesini (2018), and Whitcomb et al. (2017). when deserving. This virtue has been studied by philosophers, psychologists, and theologians, and it seems to involve a mix of cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and motivational components.
  • Consequences for Interpersonal Conflict, Self-Relevant Affect, And

    Consequences for Interpersonal Conflict, Self-Relevant Affect, And

    Pursuing Interpersonal Goals: Consequences for Interpersonal Conflict, Self- Relevant Affect, and Alcohol-Related Problems by Scott J. Moeller A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Psychology) in the University of Michigan 2010 Doctoral Committee: Professor Jennifer K. Crocker, Chair Professor Brad J. Bushman Professor Phoebe C. Ellsworth Professor Robert A. Zucker ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Portions of this dissertation were supported by an Institutional National Research Service Award to Scott Moeller (2T32MH015801-27), and by a National Institute of Mental Health grant to Jennifer Crocker (R01MH58869). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………ii LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………iv LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..v ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………...vi CHAPTER 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………...1 Research Paper 1…………………………………………………………….3 Research Paper 2…………………………………………………………….4 Research Paper 3…………………………………………………………….5 Summary…………………………………………………………………….6 2. Creating Hostility and Conflict: Effects of Entitlement and Self-Image Goals ………………………………...7 Studies 1A and 1B…………………………………………………………...8 Method……………………………………………………………….8 Results & Discussion………………………………………………..10 Study 2………………………………………………………………………12 Method………………………………………………………………12 Results……………………………………………………………….13 iii Discussion…………………………………………………………...17 General Discussion………………………………………………………….18 3. Drinking and Desired Self-Images: Path Models of Self-Image Goals, Coping
  • Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem in Relation to the Dark Triad

    Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem in Relation to the Dark Triad

    © 2014 WUPJ, September 2014, Volume 2 Personality Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem in Relation to the Dark Triad Lauren Stenason* Individuals with characteristics encompassing the three domains of the Dark Triad (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) are often thought to possess inflated levels of self-esteem however, there has been controversy as to whether this inflated self-esteem represents their true underlying level of self-esteem. The present study investigated the relationships between the Dark Triad, explicit, and implicit self-esteem. Participants consisted of 231 individuals from The University of Western Ontario with an age range of 17 to 45 years (M = 19.390, SD = 2.908). 81% of participants were female and 19% of participants were male. Participants completed an online survey consisting of the Short Dark Triad, Rosenberg Self- Esteem Scale, and the Name Letter Task. The analysis revealed that Machiavellianism showed a weak negative correlation with last name initial. However, Machiavellianism and explicit self-esteem were not significantly correlated with first name initial. Narcissism showed a moderate positive correlation with explicit self-esteem and a weak positive correlation with last name initial but no significant relationship between narcissism and first name initial. Psychopathy did not reveal any significant correlations with either explicit or implicit self-esteem. Multiple regression analysis revealed that narcissism and psychopathy added significantly to the prediction of explicit self-esteem. Self-esteem is involved in many domains The components of the Dark Triad are regarding personality, psychological disorders, considered maladaptive personality traits that and overall mental health. Different types of include narcissism, psychopathy, and personality characteristics involve varying Machiavellianism.
  • 1 the Pursuit of Self-Esteem

    1 the Pursuit of Self-Esteem

    1 The Pursuit of Self-Esteem: Implications for Good and Evil Jennifer Crocker, Shawna J. Lee, and Lora E. Park University of Michigan Reference: Crocker, J., Lee, S. J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The pursuit of self-esteem: Implications for good and evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil, 271- 302. New York: Guilford Press. 2 The Pursuit of Self-Esteem: Implications for Good and Evil North Americans generally view self-esteem as an unmitigated good, integral to a meaningful, satisfying, and fulfilling life. From a young age, parents, teachers, and popular culture teach us that feeling good about ourselves is a high priority (Miller, 2001, April). Thousands of self-help books, childrearing guides, and television shows hail the benefits of increasing self-esteem. The Self-Esteem Movement, based on the assumption that high self- esteem leads to positive outcomes (Benson, Galbraith, & Espeland, 1998; Glennon, 1999; Miller, 2001, April), aimed to raise children’s self-esteem to combat social problems, such as academic underachievement, high dropout rates, crime, teenage pregnancy, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and interpersonal aggression (Branden, 1994; Dawes, 1994; McElherner & Lisovskis, 1998; Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989; Seligman, 1998). Underlying this cultural concern with self-esteem is the belief that feelings of worthlessness and low self-esteem lead people to do things that are harmful and destructive to themselves and to others; in other words, low self-esteem is one source of evil. The costs of low self-esteem and the benefits of high self-esteem seem so pervasive that many psychologists have assumed that self-esteem is a universal and fundamental human need (Allport, 1955; Epstein, 1985; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986; James, 1890; Maslow, 1968; Rogers, 1961; Rosenberg, 1979; Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991; Steele, 1988; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Tesser, 1988), even arguing that humans evolved as a species to pursue self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary & Downs, 1995).