1
Self Esteem Instability – Scale Development and Relations to
Appraisal and Dispositional Constructs
Joseph M. Flaxer
Thesis completed in fulfillment
of the requirements of the
Vanderbilt Honors Program in the Psychological Sciences
Under the direction of Professor Craig A. Smith
Vanderbilt University
April 2012
2
Abstract
Past literature indicates that self-esteem may not be a stable entity for all individuals, and
there may be some individuals for whom their self-esteem varies across contexts.
Research has shown that further exploring the Self Esteem Instability paradigm has the
potential to create a much more comprehensive and accurate account of SE that accounts
for this variability. Also, it is desirable to develop a viable alternative to the current
multiple assessment method of SE-stability that can measure SE-instability in a single
assessment. Participants were asked to write about a highly stressful event they had
experienced, and then responded to a long survey of questions measuring SE-level, SEinstability, appraisal style and situated appraisal, and a variety of other dispositional
constructs. Interaction between SE-instability and SE-level was predicted, as well as
relationships of these interactions to blame assignment, coping, and other appraisal and
dispositional constructs. Results indicated that a highly reliable measure of SE-instability
was produced with strong face validity. Instability was found to relate to a wide variety of
constructs in ways that were largely in line with predictions, although the exact relations
predicted were not always observed. Implications of these findings are discussed.
3
Self Esteem Instability – Scale Development and Relations to
Appraisal and Dispositional Constructs
Self-esteem can be defined as the overall evaluation of one’s own worth, value, or
importance (Blascovich, & Tomoka, 1991). Current models show that self-esteem is manifested
as a readily accessible, stable appraisal of the self that arises from multiple self-evaluations of
different personal attributes, resulting in positive and negative feelings about the self. Generally,
self-esteem has been conceptualized as an attitude that is a facet of self-concept. Self-esteem
(SE) is also studied more specifically as a perceived difference between the ideal and actual self,
and also as an adaptive function for self-protection against environmental stressors (Blascovich,
& Tomoka, 1991). In the psychology literature, it is widely assumed that SE is trait-like
(Blascovich, & Tomoka, 1991). Most measures of SE include perceptions of ability and feelings
regarding the self (Smith & Petty, 1995). Past studies have shown that compared to low-SE
individuals, high-SE individuals tend to be more confident in their abilities and more confident
that their efforts will lead to success, less susceptible to mood swings, more receptive to
favorable feedback from interaction partners and less vulnerable to depression (Smith & Petty,
1995). Self-esteem has also been shown to be useful in predicting people's reactions to adverse
events. Low-SE individuals, relative to those with high-SE, have been shown to respond to
aversive events with greater negative affect, to over-generalize from specific negative feedback
to other aspects of their identities, and to lower their self-evaluations when placed in negative
moods (Smith & Petty, 1995).
Among the many self-esteem correlates, some apparent discrepancies arise when
evaluating how people with similar levels of self-esteem respond emotionally to different
4
situations. For example, Baumeister and colleagues (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000;
Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996), contend that high self-esteem is often associated with
aggressive behavior. In a similar vein, Heatherton and Vohs (2000) report that some individuals
with high self-esteem become noticeably disagreeable when others or events threaten their egos.
In a review of the SE literature, Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, and Vohs (2003) concluded that
although SE relates to affect and motivation, it is not predictive of such markers of adaptive
functioning as academic achievement and popularity (Kernis, Lakey & Heppner, 2008).
As such, self-esteem may not be a stable entity for all individuals, and there may be
some individuals for whom their self-esteem varies across contexts. Research has shown that
further exploring within-person variability in self-esteem has the potential to create a much more
comprehensive and accurate account of SE that explores and accounts for this variability. An
important advance was the development of the SE-instability paradigm. In the earlier stages of
the SE-instability literature, Rosenberg (1986) differentiated between baseline and barometric
self-esteem, defined, respectively, as long-term fluctuations in one's self-esteem that occur
gradually over an extended time period and short-term fluctuations in one's contextually-based
global self-esteem. More recently, Michael Kernis (1993) defined unstable-SE as the magnitude
of fluctuations in momentary, contextually-based self-esteem, or, in other words, as the
propensity to exhibit variability in self-feelings across time. Although SE-stability in a
population falls on a spectrum, for expository ease, it is helpful to refer to four categories based
on level and stability of SE, which include high unstable-SE, high stable-SE, low unstable-SE
and low stable-SE (Kernis, 1993).
Those who exhibit high unstable-SE are thought to experience substantial short-term
fluctuations in their high-SE (Kernis, 1993). As a result, these individuals have feelings that are
5
highly vulnerable to change, as their high self-esteem is constantly threatened. Accordingly,
these individuals will act to maintain positive self-view by emphasizing positive self-relevant
events and obstacles they have overcome, and will act to diminish threats to their positive self
view by undermining the legitimacy of the threat and externalizing the source of the threat
(Kernis, 1993). On the other hand, those who exhibit high stable-SE feel less threatened by
negative self-relevant events, are less prone to employ other-blame, and are less likely to have
strong adverse reactions. While less is certain about those with low unstable-SE, it is
hypothesized that these individuals will not engage in direct forms of self-enhancement, as do
those with high unstable-SE (Kernis, 1993). Rather, these individuals show a tendency to employ
self-protective efforts in response to negative self-relevant events. Some of these coping
strategies include self-handicapping and excuse-making. These efforts are perhaps adaptive, in
that this group appears to be preventing an already low level of SE from staying too low (Kernis,
1993). In contrast, those with low stable-SE will tend to self-blame, cope poorly, and exhibit
depressive symptoms.
In studying individual emotional responses, it is helpful to refer to the appraisal theory
paradigm, which provides a systematic framework for explaining variability in emotional
reactions by treating emotion as an adaptive function (Smith & Kirby, 2009). Within this
framework, different emotions result from different evaluations of the implications of our
circumstances for one’s well-being. Appraisal theory sheds light on important issues in
emotional psychology like the kinds of traits, situations and contexts likely to give rise to
specific emotions for a particular individual, and as a result, serves as a useful paradigm through
which to evaluate differences in emotional responses among those with differing SE-levels and
SE-instability.
6
Out of seven appraisal dimensions, motivational relevance and motivational
congruence determine how pressing a set of circumstances is to one’s needs and goals and
whether the situation helps or hurts these goals. Self-accountability and other-accountability
differentiate between guilt and anger, as they determine whether the self or an outside force is to
blame for the given set of circumstances. Problem Focused Coping Potential (PFCP), an
evaluation of one’s ability to act directly on the situation to make or keep the circumstances
consistent with one’s goals, Accommodation Focused Coping Potential (AFCP), an evaluation of
one’s ability to psychologically adjust to the situation should it turn out not as desired, and future
expectancy, an evaluation of the extent to which one can expect a set of circumstances to
improve or worsen, can differentiate between emotions like anxiety, hope, determination and
challenge. These appraisals also relate to optimism, perceived stress, and perceived competence
(Smith & Lazarus, 1990).
No study has evaluated SE-instability in direct relation to appraisal theory, and as such,
one purpose of this study was to discover more about the SE-stability paradigm by measuring
how participants with different levels of SE and different levels of SE-instability appraise a
stressful situation. In the study, participants were asked to recall in detail a stressful incident, and
then responded to a series of questions requiring them to reflect on the incident.
Primary appraisal measures include the Appraisal Style Questionnaire (ASQ), as well
as a Situated Appraisal Measure. The ASQ rates appraisal style on the disposition level, while
the Situated Appraisal Measure rates how an individual is appraising a specific situation that
he/she is reflecting upon. This study was primarily focused on appraisals of self and other
accountability, and appraisals of problem focused coping potential and accommodation/emotion
focused coping potential. Along with these appraisal measures, a number of other correlates were
7
investigated, including, anxiety, defensiveness, perceived stress, perceived confidence,
optimism, a wide variety of discreet emotions, behavioral and emotion coping, and specific
coping techniques. The analysis was focused on main effects of SE-level independent of
stability, and SE-instability independent of level; their cross product was also evaluated to find
interactions.
In measuring SE-stability, the primary challenge was to develop a reliable scale. In the
past, Kernis (1993) has measured SE-stability by administering a global self-esteem measure
like the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale multiple times over a period of five to seven days, with the
instructions asking participants to rate how they feel at the moment. Researchers have then
computed the standard deviations of participant scores across these multiple assessments, with a
greater standard deviation indicating lower stability of self-esteem. However, to make full use of
the subject pool in this investigation, all of the questions had to come from within the single,
hour-long survey, and as a consequence, Kernis’ method could not be applied. Plus, it would be
useful for future studies to develop a viable alternative to Kernis’ repeated assessments method.
Thus, a new measure, the Self-Esteem Instability Scale (SEIS), was developed. The purpose of
this scale was to separate out those with high SE-stability from those with low SE-stability,
without presorting them into groups based on their appraisals of blame assignment, coping
potential and other correlates of interest. This scale was administered as a 15-item Likert-like
scale, and then reduced to 10 items based on reliability analysis.
As for predictions, it was expected that those with high unstable-SE would show strong
attributions of other-accountability with high emotional consequences and weak attributions of
self-accountability. As paralleled in the Kernis (1993) literature, it was predicted that attributions
of other blame would be to protect a positive self-view. Of note, these predictions hold for
8
negative, stressful circumstances, where the possibility of things reflecting badly on the self is
high. They were not predicted to apply to positive circumstances, where self-accountability could
lead to self-enhancement. Also, from this group high levels of anxiety were expected, as well as
unwillingness to reappraise attitudes, standards and expectations, partly in the form of poor
accommodation focused coping.
From the group of high stable-SE, weak attributions of other-accountability and strong
attributions of self-accountability with little emotional consequence were predicted. As such,
these individuals were not expected to show high levels of anger or guilt. In addition, they were
expected to exhibit low levels of anxiety, an ability to change attitudes, standards, and
expectations, both partly in the form of good accommodation focused coping, and in positive
forms of coping with adversity, like accepting failure. Again, these predictions hold for negative,
stressful circumstances, where the possibility of things reflecting badly on the self is high. As
paralleled in the Kernis (1993) literature, it was predicted that stable-SE would indicate that
respondents’ SE-levels would not be threatened by the negative-self relevant event, and these
individuals would not feel a need to employ other-blame, and would feel secure and calm in
admitting self blame and moving forward in reappraising and coping with the situation.
From the group of low unstable-SE individuals, low attributions of other blame were
expected. Higher levels of self-blame compared to the levels of those with high self-esteem were
expected, but lower levels of self-blame compared to those with low stable-SE was expected. In
terms of coping, this group was predicted to employ self-protective strategies like excuse making
and other forms of self-handicapping to disengage and move on. In this sense, better
accommodation-focused coping was anticipated than among the low unstable-SE individuals. As
described in the Kernis (1993) literature, for these negative, stressful circumstances, it was
9
predicted that unlike the high-unstable individuals, the low-unstable individuals would selfprotect their SE in the form of coping and other self protective strategies, as opposed to
employing other blame. As previously mentioned, the low unstable-SE, group is characterized by
attempting to keep SE-level from dipping too low, rather than protecting a high-SE level.
From the group of low stable-SE individuals, high attributions of self-blame, poor
accommodation focused coping, and as a result, poorer adaptational outcomes, like lower lifesatisfaction, were predicted.
Methods
Participants
A total of 133 participants (76.7% female) ranging from ages 16-54, (M=22.7; S.D.= 7.8)
took the survey. We took advantage of 3 different recruiting methods. Some participants were
recruited through the SONA system administered through the Vanderbilt Psychology
Department. These participants were Vanderbilt undergraduates looking to fulfill required
research participation for psychology course requirements. After signing up for the study these
participants were provided a URL that linked directly to the survey. Other participants were
recruited through of psychology experiment boards on the web. Interested volunteers were also
provided with a URL linked directly to the survey. The third group of participants consisted of
acquaintances or relatives of experimenters. These individuals received an e-mail inviting them
to participate in the study, with a URL linking to the survey.
Procedure and Design
Stressor incident: At the beginning of the survey, participants were asked to describe a
stressful incident. The prompt read: “There are many things that happen in our lives that cause
10
us extreme stress, such as loss of a loved one, moving to a new place, loss of a job, chronic
illness, academic failure, or natural disaster, etc. In the space below, please describe in detail an
extremely stressful situation that you have experienced in the past year. Describe what led to this
event, what happened, and what you did next. Describe the situation in such a way that a person
reading the description would feel stress just from hearing about the situation. Please describe
the experience in as much detail as you can. The text box will expand to accommodate your
essay.”
Participants proceeded through the self-guided survey at their own pace. All information
and instructions were self-contained within the survey. The participants were told the survey
would consist of approximately 470 items, and required approximately 1 hour to complete. The
experiences the respondents described and evaluated were entirely of their own choosing.
Participates were told that they were free to discontinue their participation in the survey at any
time, and were free to decline to answer any questions they do not wish to answer.
Measures
Self-Esteem Instability Scale (SEIS) – We developed the SEIS as a potential viable
alternative to Kernis’ repeated assessments method of measuring SE-instability. The purpose of
this scale was to separate out those with high SE-stability from those of low SE-stability without
presorting them into groups based on their appraisals of blame assignment, coping potential and
our other correlates of interest. This scale was administered as a 15-item Likert-like scale, and
then reduced to 10 items based on reliability analysis (see results section for a description of this
reduction process). The final 10-item scale has a Chronbach’s Alpha equal to 0.858.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a
10-item self-report measure of global self-esteem. It consists of 10 statements related to overall
11
feelings of self-worth or self-acceptance. The items are answered on a four-point scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This scale has demonstrated good reliability and
validity across a large number of different sample groups. In the present sample this measure
provided evidence of good reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha = .89).
Appraisal Style Questionnaire (ASQ): The Appraisal Style Inventory is a two-item 9point scale that includes 12 vignettes of hypothetical situations: 6 positive and 6 negative, 6
achievement-related and 6 affiliative. For each situational prompt, participants are asked to
imagine themselves in the situation and to answer 7 questions, assessing the 7 different appraisal
dimensions) in response to it. The items from this scale addressed in the results section included
self accountability for positive situations (alpha=.790), self accountability for negative situations
(alpha=.703), other accountability for positive situations (alpha=.671), other accountrability for
negative situations (alpha=.715), an old measure of problem focused coping potential
(alpha=.839), a new new measure of PFCP (alpha=.89) and an old measure of accommodation
focused coping potential (alpha=.913), and a new measure of AFCP (alpha=.91).
New Problem-focused Coping-Potential Scale: The new Problem-focused CopingPotential Scale was designed to measure to what extent participants utilize that particular
appraisal style, showing their general potential (or lack thereof) to act on a stressful situation to
increase its desirability. It includes 12 Likert-type, dispositional measures of the problemfocused coping potential dimension. An example of a statement that the participants must rate
the extent to which they agree with the statement is: “In general, when faced with a stressful
situation, I am confident of my ability to deal with it.” Participants then chose the extent to
which they either: strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat
agree, or strongly agree. In the present sample, this scale demonstrated an alpha of .89.
12
New Emotion-focused Coping Potential Scale: The new Emotion-focused CopingPotential Scale was designed to measure to what extent participants use emotion-focused as an
appraisal style, which ideally reflects the degree to which the participant has the general
potential, or lack of, to handle and adjust to a stressful situation, especially if the situation does
not turn out in a desirable manner. It includes 12 Likert-type, dispositional measures of the
emotion-focused coping potential dimension. An example of a statement that the participants
must rate the extent to which they agree with the statement is: “When I realize a goal is
unattainable, I change my goal to make it more reachable.” Or “When something goes wrong, I
readjust my priorities.” Participants then chose the extent to which they either: strongly disagree,
somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree. In the present
sample, this scale demonstrated an alpha of .91.
Situated Appraisal Measure: The Situated Appraisal Measure (Smith, Haynes, Lazarus,
& Pope, 1993) uses 9-point scales to assess how an individual is appraising a specific situation
that he/she is reflecting upon, based on the seven appraisal dimensions. Each of these
dimensions is assessed by a single item. The situated appraisal measures mentioned in the
results section include self-accountability, other accountability, problem focused coping
potential, and accommodation focused coping potential.
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) measures two
types of anxiety, state anxiety (S-Anxiety) and trait anxiety (T-Anxiety). We used the trait
anxiety part of the scale. T-Anxiety is characterized by anxiety-proneness, shown through
individual differences which anxiety, which are reflected through a frequency of anxiety states in
past and future probabilities. It is formatted in a 4-pont Likert scale and has a median alpha of
.90 (Spielberger & Reheiser, 2009).
13
Constructive-Thinking Inventory - Behavioral Coping: The Constructive-Thinking
Inventory (Epstein & Meier, 1989) is a self-report questionnaire that evaluates the habitual
cognitive coping assessments participants make in stressful situations. The Behavioral Coping
component refers to the tendency participants have to focus on behavioral and taking actions
when in stressful situations. This measure provides good evidence of reliability with Cronbach’s
Alpha = .84.
Constructive Thinking Inventory - Emotional Coping: The Constructive-Thinking
Inventory (Epstein & Meier, 1989) is a self-report questionnaire that evaluates the habitual
cognitive coping assessments participants make in stressful situations. The Emotion Coping
component refers to the tendency participants have to focus on cognitive evaluations and
readjustments when in stressful situations. This measure provides good evidence of reliability
with Cronbach’s Alpha = .85.
COPE Inventory: The COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) was
developed to assess a broad range of coping responses and includes at least two pairs of polaropposite tendencies. Participants reported how they responded when confronted with the difficult
and stressful experience. Ratings were made on a four-point scale (1= I usually don’t do this at
all, 4= I usually do this a lot). The Inventory consists of 18 different subscales. The subscales
included in my results section were the ones were significantly associated with one of more of
the SE-constructs. As such, I reported on the subscales labeled: denial (= .77), behavioral
disengagement (= .73), social support (= .87), religion (= .96), stoicism (= .51), selfisolation (= .85), and substance use (= .87) Sample items include: “I made a plan of action,”
“I learned something from the experience,” and “I said to myself this isn’t real.” All of the 18
subscales had reliabilities between .51 and .96.
14
Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale: Originally intended as a measure of Social
Desirability, Marlow-Crowne scale, (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960) this scale was found to be a
reliable measure of defensiveness (alpha=0.79). Persons scoring high on this scale appear to
underreport, deny, or suppress negative emotions such as anxiety and anger. (Shapiro et al.,
1995).
DEAL (measure of discrete emotions): Participants were given a number of adjective
clusters that described different emotions. Each group of adjectives was meant to convert to a
single basic emotion. Participants selected the extent to which they were feeling the emotion
during the stressful experience. For each adjective cluster, they were asked if they were
experiencing the emotion at the time [of the incident] not at all, moderately, or extremely (Smith,
Haynes, Lazarus, & Pope, 1993). The emotion clusters assessed in the results section were the
ones that were significantly associated with one or more of the SE-constructs, and included
tranquil-calm-serene, regretful-remorseful-sorry, shy-timid-bashful, mad-angry-irate, irritatedannoyed, joyful-happy-glad.
Perceived Stress Scale: The Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein,
1983) is a 14 item self-report instrument with a five-point scale: (0 = never, 1 = almost never, 2
=sometimes, 3 = fairly often, 4 = very often), is an economical and simple psychological
instrument to administer, comprehend, and score. It measures the degree to which situations in
one’s life over the past month are appraised as stressful. Items were designed to detect how
unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded respondents find their lives. The Perceived Stress
Scale poses general queries about relatively current levels of stress experienced. All items begin
with the same phrase: In the past month, how often have you felt…? In the present sample the
Perceived Stress Scale demonstrated an alpha reliability of .88.
15
The LOT (Life Orientation Test): The Life Orientation Test (LOT) was developed to
assess individual differences in generalized optimism versus pessimism. The LOT (Scheier &
Carver, 1985) consists of eight items, four of which are keyed in a positive direction, and four of
which are keyed in a negative direction. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which
they agree with each of the items, using the following response format: 4 = strongly agree, 3 =
agree, 2 - neutral, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree. In the present sample, the LOT
demonstrated an alpha reliability of .86.
Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) - Perceived Competence Scale (Smith, Wallston, &
Dobbins, 1991) evaluates one’s perceived ability to effectively interact with one’s environment.
It is composed of a four-item measure designed to assess a persons perceived ability to
personally accomplish goals that the person deems are important. The PCS has an internal alpha
of 0.72.
Results
Overview of Analyses
The results are divided into 4 main sections. Section 1 shows our final SEIS scale, its
removed items, and its reliability. Section 2 provides the means and distributions of SE-level and
SE-instability. Section 3 shows how are SE-instability, SE-level, and their interaction associated
with our appraisal measures, and other correlates of interest. Section 4 shows the regression
analysis of the four interactions we found for SE-level and SE-instability, and explains the four
graphs that correspond to each interaction.
Section 1: SEIS Scale Development
16
For the initial 15-item scale, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.823, indicating strong reliability.
Concerns about 5 of the items led us to reduce the scale to 10 items, with Chronbach’s Alpha
equal to 0.858. The final 10 item questionnaire consisted of the following items. Reported
reliability values are the corrected item-total correlations from this final 10-item scale
(alpha=0.858)
1. Despite the highs and lows of the day, I feel satisfied with myself (Item-total r=.547)*
2. My ego is pretty stable (Item-total r=.457)*
3. When I mess up with something, I am inclined to think that I am a failure (Item-total
r=0.562)
4. My self-esteem often fluctuates (Item-total r=0.667)
5. When I don’t perform well I feel really bad about myself (Item-total r=0.417)
6. My feelings of self worth usually depend on the highs and lows of the day (Item-total
r=0.656)
7. I often feel like my identity is being threatened (Item-total r=0.599)
8. How I think about myself fluctuates, depending on the situation (Item-total r=0.679)
9. I try not to get too intensely involved in competitive activities so it won’t hurt too much if
I lose or do poorly (Item-total r=0.463)
10. My self esteem usually remains stable (Item-total r=0.457)*
*item reverse coded
Five items were removed on statistical grounds, conceptual grounds or both. The
removed items included:
1. When I succeed, I want other people to know of my accomplishments.
Because this item was closely related to self-aggrandizement and emphasizing positive
self-relevant events, a hypothesized consequence of unstable SE, a concern was that inclusion of
the item would contribute to confounded analyses. This item was also removed on statistical
grounds (corrected item-total correlation = .013, alpha jumps to 0.838 when removed).
2. When I do something wrong, my first impulse is to blame the circumstances
Because this item was closely related to appraising other accountability, a hypothesized
consequence of unstable SE, a concern was that inclusion of the item would contribute to
17
confounded analyses. This item was also removed on statistical grounds (corrected item-total
correlation = 0.293).
3. I tend to make excuses for poor performances.
Because this item was closely related accommodation focused coping, a hypothesized
consequence of low unstable-SE, a concern was that inclusion of the item would contribute to
confounded analyses.
4. I will avoid a task if I don’t think I will do well at it
A concern was that this item was a consequence of unstable-SE rather than an indicator
of the construct.
5. When I succeed, I feel really good about myself
This item was eliminated on statistical grounds based on a poor inter-item correlation
(r=-0.073).
The best reliability came from items that most generally represent the SE-instability
construct. For instance, the strongest item-total correlations came from “how I think about
myself fluctuates, depending on the situation, and “my self-esteem often fluctuates.” All in all,
the highest loading items on the final 10-item scale most directly reflect the SE-instability
construct being measured. This evidence points to the SEIS having good face-validity.
Section 2 - means and distributions of SE-level and SE-instability:
As shown below in graph 1, SE-instability was negatively correlated with SE level, but
there was still a good amount of individual variability. More importantly, as shown in table 1, the
overall SE-level of our subject pool was high. This lack of low-SE individuals is important to
keep in mind when trying to make sense of the data, as discussed in Section 3.
18
Table 1: Mean SE-level and SE-instability
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
rosenberg_SE_Scale
97
1.6
5.0
3.9
.78
se_instability_scale
97
1.0
4.6
2.8
.74
Graph 2: SE-Instability as a Function of SE-Level
19
Section 3 - SE-instability, SE-level, and their Interaction:
In Table 2, a two-step multiple regression was used to examine the degree to which SElevel and SE-instability distinctly predicted relations hypothesized to be associated with the
appraisal measures and other constructs. In the first step used both SE-level and SE-instability
were used to predict the outcome measures. This step evaluated each construct differentially. In
the second step the cross-product between SE-level and SE-instability was added to see if they
interacted in predicting other-blame for negative circumstances, anxiety, accommodation
focused coping, or any other appraisal measure or dispositional construct included in our
analysis. To prevent problems with multicolinearity, before conducting these analyses both the
SE-level and SE-Instability measures were centered on their means, and these centered variables
were used in all of the reported multiple regression analyses, and were also used to create the
cross-product that was entered in the second step of these analyses. (Aiken & West, 1991).
The measures included in table 2 to compare to the SE constructs consisted of all or parts
of the following scales: 1. Appraisal Style Questionnaire: measures of accountability and coping
potential; 2. Situated Appraisal: measures of accountability and coping; 3. State-Trait Anxiety:
measures of trait anxiety; 4. Constructive Thinking Inventory: measures of behavioral and
emotional coping; 5. COPE scale: included the specific coping techniques with significant
associations with one or more of the SE-constructs; 6. The full Marlowe Crowne Social
Desirability Scale to test for defensiveness; 7. The specific discrete emotions from the DEAL
scale that were significantly associated with one or more of the SE-constructs; 8. The full
Perceived Stress Scale, LOT Optimism Scale, and Perceived Confidence Scale. The interactions
that were to associate with other accountability for negative situations, turning to religion,
tranquility and regret are further elaborated on in Section 3, table 3.
20
Despite predicting a lot of interaction, only found a few instances of interactions were
found, and by and large separate main effects of SE and separate main effects of instability were
observed. The prediction that highXunstable-SE would be associated with other blame for
negative circumstances was confirmed. However, due to a lack of interaction among SE-level
and SE-instability, it cannot conclusively stated that our predictions were confirmed. However,
there were many instances in which characteristics that were expected for highXunstable-SE, and
characteristics that were not expected for lowXunstable-SE, turned up to characterize SEinstability independent of SE-level. For example, unstable-SE was associated with high anxiety,
high perceived stress, high levels of denial, low AFCP, low behavioral and emotion coping, and
low optimism. These results led to two possible conclusions. One possible explanation is that
SE-instability is a more general, discrete trait that in several respects can be evaluated
independently of SE-level. A second viable explanation relates to the high SE-level of the
subject pool. Had the sample included a greater number of low SE individuals, and if it is the
case that manifestations of unstable-SE do actually differ for low vs. high SE individuals, then
perhaps the expected interactions would have been observed to confirm our predictions.
21
Table 2 – Relations of SE-level, SE-Instability and their Interaction to Appraisal and Dispositional Constructs.
APPRAISAL MEASURES
1. ASQ - Accountability and Coping
Self Accountability_Pos
Self Accountability_Neg
Other Accountability_Pos
Other Accountability_Neg
PFCP_Old Scale
EMCP_Old Scale
PFCP_New Scale
AFCP_New Scale
2. Situated Appraisal
Self-accountability
Other- accountability
PFCP
EFCP_accomodation
EFCP_deal emotionally
OTHER CORRELATES
3. Anxiety
STAI_Scale
4. Coping: Constructive Thinking
Inventory
Behavioral Coping
Emotional Coping
5. Coping Techniques (COPE Scale)
Denial
Behavioral disengagement
Social support
Turning to religion
Stoicism
Self isolation
Substance use
6. Defensiveness
Marlowe_Crowne
7. Discrete Emotions
Tranquil-calm-serene
Regretful-remorseful-sorry
Shy-timid-bashful
Mad-angry-irate
Irritated-annoyed
Joyful-happy-glad
8. Other
Perceived Stress Scale
LOT_Optimism Scale
Perceived Confidence
Standardized Coefficients (beta)
SE-Level
SE-Instability
0.443**
0.284*
0.222
0.368**
0.302*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
SE-Level
0.174
-0.237
-0.318*
-0.286*
-0.416***
ns
ns
ns
-0.17
0.149
SE-Instability
instabXse
See Table 3
instabXse
-0.377***
0.514***
-
0.292*
-0.241*
-0.292*
-0.903***
-
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
0.227*
0.39**
-0.199
0.369**
0.312*
0.213
-
-
-0.208
0.429**
0.399**
-0.288
ns
0.419**
0.234
-0.363*
-0.25*
0.48***
0.642***
0.45***
-0.25*
ns
Note, ns=not significant, *p < .1, ** p < .05; *** p < .01.
See Table 3
See Table 3
See Table 3
-
22
Section 4 – Regression Analysis of Interactions:
Table 3 shows the regression analysis of the SE-level X SE-Instability interactions. In
building this table, a regression equation was used to compute predicted values for hypothetical
individuals who are high versus low on SE-level and SE-instability. In order to predict the
original rating scale, the raw equation was used rather than the standardized equation with Beta
weights. The standard deviations of the original variables were 0.777 for SE-level, and 0.737 for
SE-instability. The representative values of 1 and -1 are close to, but a little more extreme than
using plus or minus 1 standard deviation. Below table 3, the four interactions are depicted
graphically and explained.
Table 3
Regression equation: measure = constant + (Rosenberg SE)+(SEIS)+(InstabilityXSE)
(1 and -1 as representative values)
Other Accountability_Neg
High SE (1) unstable (1)
High SE (1) stable (-1)
Low SE (-1) unstable (1)
Low SE (-1) stable (-1)
Tranquil-calm-serene
High SE (1) unstable (1)
High SE (1) stable (-1)
Low SE (-1) unstable (1)
Low SE (-1) stable (-1)
Regretful-remorseful-sorry
High SE (1) unstable (1)
High SE (1) stable (-1)
Low SE (-1) unstable (1)
Low SE (-1) stable (-1)
Turning to religion
High SE (1) unstable (1)
High SE (1) stable (-1)
Low SE (-1) unstable (1)
Low SE (-1) stable (-1)
Equation
5.454+0.074 (SE)+0.061 (SEIS)+0.504 (SE)(SEIS)=
5.454+0.074 (SE)-0.061 (SEIS)-0.504 (SE)(SEIS) =
5.454-0.074 (SE)+0.061 (SEIS)-0.504 (SE)(SEIS) =
5.454-0.074 (SE)-0.061 (SEIS)+0.504 (SE)(SEIS) =
Predicted Values
6.093
4.963
4.937
5.823
20.974+1.958 (SE)-2.293 (SEIS)-9.688 (SE)(SEIS) =
20.974+1.958 (SE)+2.293 (SEIS)+9.688 (SE)(SEIS)=
20.974-1.958 (SE)-2.293 (SEIS)+9.688 (SE)(SEIS)=
20.974-1.958 (SE)+2.293 (SEIS)-9.668 (SE)(SEIS) =
10.951
34.913
26.411
11.621
68.679-4.974 (SE)+4.260 (SEIS)-21.273 (SE)(SEIS) =
68.679-4.974 (SE)-4.260 (SEIS)+21.273 (SE)(SEIS) =
68.679+4.974(SE)+4.260 (SEIS)+21.273 (SE)(SEIS)=
68.679+4.974 (SE)-4.260 (SEIS)-21.273 (SE)(SEIS)=
46.692
80.718
99.186
48.12
1.886-0.396 (SE)-0.297 (SEIS)+0.441 (SE)(SEIS)=
1.886-0.396 (SE)+0.297 (SEIS)-0.441 (SE)(SEIS)=
1.886+0.396 (SE)-0.297 (SEIS)-0.441 (SE)(SEIS)=
1.886+0.396 (SE)+0.297 (SEIS)+0.441 (SE)(SEIS)=
1.634
1.346
2.426
3.02
23
Graph 2: Other Accountability for Negative Situations as a Function of
InstabilityXSE Interaction
7
6.5
6
Other
accountability for
Negative
Situations (0-9)
5.823
6.093
5.5
5
4.937
4.963
Unstable
Stable
4.5
4
3.5
3
Low SE
High SE
Instability X SE
Graph 2 illustrates the relationship of instabilityXSE to other accountability for negative
situations. The instabilityXSE association with other accountability for negative situations shows
that for individuals with unstable SE, appraising other accountability increases with increasing
SE-level. For stable-SE individuals, appraising other accountability decreases with increasing
SE-level. This interaction is a key finding, as it parallels the Kernis (1993) literature and
confirms the prediction that individuals with high unstable-SE would appraise other blame under
negative-self relevant circumstances (in this case, on the dispositional level).
24
Graph 3: Tranquility as a Function of InstabilityXSE Interaction
40
Tranquility
Rating
35
34.913
30
26.411
25
Unstable
20
Stable
15
10
11.621
10.951
5
0
Low
High
InstabilityXSE
The instabilityXSE association with tranquility shows that for high-SE individuals,
tranquility in the face of stress increases with increasing SE stability, whereas for individuals
with low SE, tranquility decreases with increasing stability. These results indicate that
individuals with high stable-SE seemed best equipped to deal with the highly stressful event,
whereas individuals with low unstable-SE were least well equipped. When considering the highSE individuals, these results support the prediction that those with high unstable-SE would
demonstrate poor accommodation focused coping, and would experience anxiety. When
considering the low-SE individuals, the low calmness among those with low unstable-SE is
counter to our prediction that those with unstable-low SE would cope better than those with low
stable SE and remain calmer. This finding sheds light on the need to learn more about SEinstability among those with low SE in furthering the SE-instability paradigm.
Graph 4 Regret as a Function of InstabilityXSE Interaction
25
100
99.186
90
Regret
Rating
80.718
80
70
60
50
48.12
46.692
40
unstable
stable
30
20
10
0
low
high
InstabilityXSE
The instabilityXSE association with regret shows that for individuals with high-SE, those
with unstable-SE show less regret than do those with stable-SE. This finding indicates that the
high unstable-SE individuals are perhaps avoiding possible self-criticism by justifying their
actions and beliefs. For the low-SE individuals, those with unstable-SE report higher levels of
regret than do those with stable-SE. Interestingly, individuals with high stable-SE were also able
to express regret about the situation. In general, one might consider the low stable-SE group and
the high-unstable-SE group to be the most vulnerable groups. As such, expressing regret would
perhaps be most damaging for these two groups.
26
Graph 5: Turning to Religion as a Function of InstabiltyXSE Interaction
3.5
Turn to
Religion
3
3.02
2.5
2.426
2
1.634
1.346
1.5
1
0.5
0
low
high
InstabilityXSE
unstable
stable
27
The instabilityXSE association with turning to religion shows that for individuals with
unstable-SE, turning to religion decreases as SE-level increases. For individuals with stable-SE,
turning to religion also decreases as SE-level increases. As depicted, individuals with low-SE
were the ones most often turning to religion. Of these low-SE individuals, those with low stableSE turned to religion most. Perhaps this finding sheds light on the differences between the
coping techniques of low unstable individuals and low stable individuals. While it was predicted
that low unstable-SE individuals would be better at coping, perhaps turning to religion represents
a less direct and hands-on type of coping that differentiates those with low stable-SE from those
with low unstable-SE. Plus, perhaps for an individual with low unstable-SE, turning to religion
represents an act of desperation, as most other forms of coping have failed.
Discussion
All in all, a highly reliable measure of SE instability has been produced. This measure
was shown to be associated with the constructs it was expected it to be related to, such as state
anxiety, perceived stress, anger, irritation, denial, behavioral disengagement, stoicism and self
isolation. Also, as expected, the measure of SE-instability was negatively associated with
accommodation-focused coping, problem focused coping, behavioral and emotional coping,
optimism, and seeking social support. Also, the interaction between InstabilityXhigh-SE was
associated with other accountability for negative situations on the trait level. While there was no
association with defensiveness as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne scale, indications of
defensiveness being positively associated with high unstable-SE did come up when considering
the negative association between unstableXhigh SE and regret. As previously mentioned, the
instabilityXSE association with regret shows that for individuals with unstable-SE, regret
28
decreases as SE-level increases. For individuals with stable-SE, regret increases as SE-level
increases. This lack of regret among individuals with high unstable-SE indicates that they are
avoiding possible self-criticism by justifying their actions and beliefs.
The high reliability of the SEIS is exciting because in certain respects it represents a more
useful and viable alternative to Kernis’ repeated assessments method. Although the Kernis
strategy by definition is highly valid in evaluating actual variation in self-esteem, with multiple
assessments across multiple occasions it can be an awkward and expensive strategy to employ
and is impractical to use in a broad array of studies. Plus, beyond the inconvenience and cost of
the assessment, the accuracy of the Kernis assessment depends on the different contexts in which
SE is assessed. For example, a key reason for SE-instability differences is how an individual
responds to negative and positive feedback. If the multiple assessments do not involve feedbackrelevant contexts, the Kernis method might systematically underestimate instability. Conversely,
if highly feedback-relevant contexts happen to be assessed for other individuals, the estimate of
SE-instability might be systematically too high. For the purpose of this study and for future
studies, it was highly desirable to develop a relatively brief measure that could be assessed in a
single administration, and that incorporated a consistent level of feedback related contexts.
In terms of our findings, first and foremost, there were many instances in which
characteristics expected for highXunstable-SE, and characteristics not expected for
lowXunstable-SE, turned up to characterize SE instability independent of SE-level. For example,
unstable-SE was associated with high anxiety, high perceived stress, high levels of denial, low
AFCP, low behavioral and emotion coping, and low optimism. One possible explanation for this
finding is that SE-instability is a more general, discrete trait that in several respects can be
evaluated independently of SE-level. However, the SE-level of our subject pool was high with a
29
mean of 3.86 (SD=0.777), and this might be why separate main effects were found for SE-level
and SE-instability, and few interactions. Had the sample included more lower SE individuals,
and if it is the case that manifestations of unstable-SE do actually differ for low vs. high SE
individuals, then perhaps the expected interactions would have been observed.
Furthermore, it is important to explain the interaction of SE-instability and SE-level when
compared to other accountability for negative situations. As previously mentioned, the limited
sample of low-SE individuals likely prevented the expected interactions. Plus SE instability was
negatively correlated with SE-level (-0.67**), meaning that SE-instability was highest in
individuals with low-SE. Also, this interaction on the dispositional level did not appear on the
situated appraisal level. Yet, one can still contend this interaction on the dispositional level
remains a valid and important finding. By looking at the scatter plot of SE instability as a
function of SE level (graph 1), one can reasonably argue that there was still a wide enough
variety of SE-instability among those with high and low SE in order to obtain an interaction,
especially when considering that other accountability for negative situations was a primary
predictor of unstableXhigh-SE. Plus, other accountability was not the only situated appraisal
measure that was not significant. In fact, none of the situated appraisal measures were
significantly associated with instabilityXSE, instability alone, nor SE-level alone. A likely
explanation for this occurrence was the fact that participants were asked to reflect on a traumatic
experience for their situated measures. Perhaps the high level of trauma caused blame
assignment to have little ambiguity, wiping out differences between those with different levels
SE-instability.
In sum, while a lot of interaction between SE instability and SE level was predicted, only
found a few instances of interactions were found, and by and large separate main effects of
30
instability and separate main effects of SE-level were found. More specifically, many of the
characteristics expected to be associated with highXunstable SE, and to not to be associated with
lowXunstable SE, were found to be associated with unstable-SE independent of SE-level. An
interaction that was found confirmed our prediction based in the Kernis literature that
highXunstable SE would be associated with other accountability for negative circumstances.
This finding indicates that the SEIS is a valid scale for measuring SE-instability. Furthermore,
the lack of low-SE individuals in our subject pool indicates that the characteristics found to
associated with unstable SE that were predicted for highXunstable SE are still likely
representative of individuals with high, unstable SE. Based on the subject pool, there is less that
can be concluded about instability among those with low-SE. Also, the possibility is still open
that certain manifestations of unstable-SE are general traits that are independent of SE level,
especially in relation to anxiety and coping.
As such, future research should aim to discover more about individuals with low-unstable
SE, and further strengthen the validity of the SEIS. One route would be to obtain a subject pool
with low-SE individuals. Perhaps it would be useful to study a depressed population to see if this
population consists mostly of individuals with low stable-SE, or if there are individuals in this
population with unstable SE, to identify what the distinguishing characteristics are. Also, in order
to more accurately test for significant results in situated appraisal measures, it would be
beneficial to replicate the study by asking that participants reflect on stressful event, rather than
specifically on a highly stressful event. On a related note, it would also be beneficial to evaluate
and code the written paragraphs in which participants described their respective traumatic event,
as researchers could create a method to categorize the kind of trauma or stressor. It would be
helpful to separate achievement vs. affiliative oriented events. Also, researchers could use a
31
Lingistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) analysis as a convenient and objective method. This
method gives a count of the various types of words written by the participant. Potentially useful
categories might include the amount of blame words, positive words and negative words that
respondents use in describing a stressful event.
In contrast to the current study, it could also be of high value to create a controlled
experiment in which participants are put in a stressful situation, as opposed to the retrospective
method that was used.
Last but not least, there are some simple methods that would help to confirm the validity
of the SEIS. For instance, as previously mentioned, this survey took about an hour to complete,
and incorporated a number of measures that were not used in this specific analysis. It would be
helpful to administer the SEIS within the context of a shorter study to ensure that participants
would be focused and discriminatory in answering the SE-based questions. Plus, a simple retest
of the SEIS would allow for increased power from a bigger “N.” Last but not least, it would be
useful to compare the SEIS directly to the Kernis multiple assessments method. A simple study
could involve first administering the SEIS, and then administering the multiple assessments
measure as Kernis did using the Rosenberg SE Scale. One could compare how the two measures
correlate to each other and to other relevant scales of interest.
In sum, this study further investigated the contention that there are likely individuals for
whom their self-esteem varies across contexts, and also developed a viable alternative to the
current multiple assessment method of SE-stability that can measure SE-instability in a single
assessment. Results indicated that a highly reliable measure of SE-instability was produced with
strong face validity. The few instances of expected interactions being found indicate that to some
degree, SE-instability is a general, discrete trait that can be evaluated independently of SE-level.
32
Yet, had the sample included a greater number of low SE individuals, perhaps the expected
interactions would have been observed to confirm more of the predictions based in the Kernis
(1993) literature. Future direction for the study of the SE-instability paradigm is promising, with
many concrete avenues available to increase the validity of the SEIS, confirm predictions related
to individuals with high unstable-SE, and discover more about unstable-SE in individuals with
low SE-levels.
33
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and
aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 141–156.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically-based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267283.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Crowne, Douglas P. Marlowe, David. A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol 24(4), Aug 1960, 349-354
Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive Thinking: A broad coping variable with specific
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332-350.
Heatherton, T. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2000). Interpersonal evaluations following threats to self: Role
of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 725–736.
Kernis, Michael H., Cornell, David P, Sun, Chuen-ru, Berry, Andrea. There's More to Self-
34
Esteem Than Whether It Is High or Low: The Importance of Stability of Self-Esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 65, Issue 6. 1993. Pages 11901204.
Kernis, Michael H. Measuring Self-Esteem in Context: The Importance of Stability of
Self-Esteem in Psychological Functioning. 7 September 2005
Kernis, H. Michael, Lakey, E. Chad, Heppner, L. Whitney. Secure Versus Fragile High SelfEsteem as a Predictor of Verbal Defensiveness: Converging Findings Across Three
Different Markers. Journal of Personality, Vol. 76, No. 3. (June 2008), pp. 477-512
Robinson, John P., Wrightsman, Lawrence S., and Andrews Frank M. Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Chapter 4 – Measures of Self
Esteem. Blascovich, Jim and Tomoka, Joseph, 1991.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence.In J.Suls& A.
G.Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self: Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the World and Changing the Self:
A Two-Process Model of Perceived Control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42(1), 5-37.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Shapiro, D., Goldstein, I., & Jamner, L.(1995). Effects of anger/hostility, defensiveness, gender,
35
and family history of hypertension on cardiovascular reactivity. Psychophysiology, 32,
425-435.
Smith, C.A. & Lazarus, R.S. (1990). Emotion and Adaptation. Handbook of Personality: Theory
and Research, 609-637.
Smith, C. A., Dobbins, C. J. and Wallston, K. A. (1991), The Mediational Role of Perceived
Competence in Psychological Adjustment to Rheumatoid Arthritis. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 21: 1218–1244.
Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the “hot”
cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 916-929.
Smith, C.A. & Lazarus, R.S. Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the
emotions. Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 7, Iss. 3-4, 2008
Smith, C.A. & Kirby, L.D. (2009) Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of
appraisal and emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 23:7,1352 -1372.
Smith, Stephen M. & Petty, Richard E. Personality moderators of mood congruency effects on
Cognition: The role of self-esteem and negative mood regulation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol 68(6), Jun 1995, 1092-1107
Spielberger, C. D. and Reheiser, E. C. (2009), Assessment of Emotions: Anxiety, Anger,
Depression, and Curiosity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1: 271–302.