Content area
Full Text
Contents
- Abstract
- Compensatory and Defensive Self-Esteem
- The Function of Compensatory Self-Esteem
- The Social Consequences of Self-Esteem Defense
- Explicit Versus Implicit Self-Esteem
- Overview of Research
- Experiment 1
- Method
- Participants
- Materials
- Computerized knowledge tests
- The self-esteem IAT
- Explicit self-esteem
- Procedure
- Results and Discussion
- Experiment 2
- Method
- Participants
- Materials
- IAT measures
- Threat manipulation
- Explicit measures
- Procedure
- Results and Discussion
- Experiment 3
- Method
- Participants
- Materials
- Attitude measures
- Anxiety index
- Self-affirmation manipulation
- Personality profile
- Threat manipulation
- Procedure
- Results and Discussion
- Does Self-Affirmation Moderate Threat-Induced ISEC and Implicit Bias?
- Does ISEC Mediate the Relationship Between Threat and Implicit Bias?
- The Effect of Threat and Self-Affirmation on Anxiety
- Does Anxiety Mediate the Relationship Between Threat and Implicit Self-Esteem?
- Experiment 4
- Method
- Participants
- Materials
- Threat manipulation
- Signature effect
- Explicit measures
- Procedure
- Results and Discussion
- The Signature Effect
- Does ISEC Regulate Threat-Induced Anxiety?
- Explicit Self-Esteem
- General Discussion
- The Role of ISEC in Automatic Emotion Regulation
- The Social Consequences of ISEC
- Implications of the Research for the IAT
- Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem Discrepancies
- Limitations and Future Directions
- Conclusion
Figures and Tables
Abstract
Four experiments demonstrated implicit self-esteem compensation (ISEC) in response to threats involving gender identity (Experiment 1), implicit racism (Experiment 2), and social rejection (Experiments 3–4). Under conditions in which people might be expected to suffer a blow to self-worth, they instead showed high scores on 2 implicit self-esteem measures. There was no comparable effect on explicit self-esteem. However, ISEC was eliminated following self-affirmation (Experiment 3). Furthermore, threat manipulations increased automatic intergroup bias, but ISEC mediated these relationships (Experiments 2–3). Thus, a process that serves as damage control for the self may have negative social consequences. Finally, pretest anxiety mediated the relationship between threat and ISEC (Experiment 3), whereas ISEC negatively predicted anxiety among high-threat participants (Experiment 4), suggesting that ISEC may function to regulate anxiety. The implications of these findings for automatic emotion regulation, intergroup bias, and implicit self-esteem measures are discussed.
On a daily basis, people suffer both large and small events that are likely to threaten their self-esteem. Events that encompass criticism, betrayal by loved ones, or vivid mortality reminders are likely to shake people's faith in themselves, at least temporarily. When the “stern and...