Self-presentation following success or failure: Defensive self-esteem models David J. Schneider and David Turkat, Brandels University
In the literature on self-concept, there has been considerable speculation about how people of varying levels of self-esteem would respond to success and failure experiences One position has been that people of low self-esteem should generally be more hungry for success experiences than high self-esteem people, and that the low self-esteem people would respond more hostilely to failure This kind of hypothesis is based on the idea that low selfesteem represents a kind of approval deficit, and since approval is generally desired by people, the low self-esteem subiects should desire it more One problem in testmg this or other models involving self-esteem is in correctly identifying people of low and high self-esteem While there are few ambigmties surrounding low self-esteem responses on a questionnaire, there are problems with high self-esteem responses. As Homey (1937) and Cohen (ig54) have pointed out, not all people who report high selfesteem have "true" high self-esteem The very expression of the high self-esteem may be an attempt to gain approval Cohen (1954) hypothesized that individuals with high selfesteem vnR respond to threat by repudiation and depersonahzation of the stimulus in order to maiutain high self-esteem This has come to be regarded as the hypothesis of defensive selfesteem In some ways high self-esteem subj'ects may act as though they have low self-esteem, as though the fact that they report high self-esteem reveals a certain defensiveness Experimental investigation of this theory has revealed interesting, though somewhat complex results Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen, and Zander (1957) predicted that if high self-esteem individuals protect themselves from negative evaluations, then they would deemphasize objective failure and would emphasize an obj'ective success. It was found that self-esteem affected evaluation of one's performance in fail-
128
Schneider and Turkat
ure, but not in success Individuals with high self-esteem rated their failure performance significantly better than did individuals with low self-esteem It has been found that individuals with high self-esteem will exhibit a greater degree of interpersonal infiuence (Cohen, 1959), are less likely to identify with negative attnbutes (Stotland & Hillmer, 1962), are less persuasible by threatenmg communications (Leventhal & Perloe, 1962, Nisbett & Cordon, 1967), are less persuasible after failure (Silverman, 1964b) and improve more after a success (Silverman, 1964a). All of these findings are consistent with the theory of defensive self-esteem Seemingly then, subjects with high self-esteem are less acceptmg of failure or threatenmg expenences This does not have to reflect defensive processes, of course, smce a vanety of consistency theones would make eqmvalent predictions However, despite a body of research which supports the notion of consistency strivings m response to personally relevant information ( e g , Deutsch & Solomon, 1959, Wilson, 1965), most studies find httle if any consistency effect ( e g , Skohuck, 1971, Walster, 1965), or find it only under special conditions ( e g , Jones & Schneider, 1968, Eagley & Acksen, 1971, Jones, 1973). In general, when subjects have high self-evaluations it is hard to disentangle consistency stnvmg and defensiveness, since both predict a more positive evaluation to positive information However, it is reasonable to beheve that there are at least two kmds of high self-esteem On the one hand there is a defensive style where failure should be actively guarded against and made unimportant when it occurs On the other hand, a more genuine high self-esteem person should be less concemed to avoid or repudiate failure, smce failure is not particularly threatemng People with genumely high self-esteem may be better able to Ignore failure, or they may be more hkely to try to improve areas of relative failure rather than repudiating evaluations m those areas The present study seeks a clanfication through independent defimtion of defensiveness Crowne and Marlowe (1964) have proposed that high scores on the Marlowe-Crovrae scale are characterized by high need for approval, and they note the similanty between high scorers on the scale and the prototypic defensive self-esteem subject. For example, people high in need for
Self-presentation and self-esteem
129
approval are less hkely to contmue m psychotherapy than are people who are low Ford and Hersen (1967) also found that subjects high on the Ford Social Desirability Scale which is conceptually and empirically closely related to the Marlowe-Crowne scale reject failure more than low scorers In this study, subjects who scored high on a self-esteem test and also high on the Marlowe-Crowne scale were classified as defensively high self-esteem subjects, while those with high self-esteem but low MarloweCroviTie scores were labeled genumely high self-esteem individuals Defensively high self-esteem individuals ought to do more than react to success or failure, they ought to engage in active attempts to change their pubhc defimtion after failure, to gain approval when possible, and to structure social situations to maximize self-enhancement possibihties. Self-presentations are one way of manipulating sociai situations to gam approval (Jones, 1964) Schneider (1969) found that subjects who were told they had failed were sigmficantly more self-enhancing in their pubhc presentations than were success subjects It was also found that faihng mdividuals with high self-evaluations showed high positive correlations between positiveness of self-presentation and need for approval scores (as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirabihty Scale) In other words, mdividuals v^ath high selfesteem and high need for approval (which is our conception of the mdividual with defensive high self-esteem) exhibited particularly positive self-presentations m reaction to failure The higher the need for approval, the more positive was the selfpresentation of the failing, high self-esteem subject. Thus for the defensive mdividual, it seems that a self-presentation strategy of positiveness may be employed to maintain the high level of selfesteem that he reported The analysis m the Schneider (1969) study was, however, a post hoc affair, and there were several problems such as the fact that the self-evaluation was measured after the self-presentation and was at best an inadequate measure of self-esteem Therefore the present study was conceived as a more direct exploration of the self-presentation responses of high or low defensive selfesteem individuals to success and failure. Following the results reported by Schneider, it was hypothesized that for subjects with defensive high self-esteem, self-presentations would be higher
130
Schneider and Turkat
after failure than success, while there would be less difference or no difference for subjects with non-defensive high self-esteem METHOD
Subjects Forty male undergraduates from Brandeis Umversity were run individually in the four ejqpenmental conditions Smce only high selfesteem subjects were to be tested, only those subjects who scored above a cut-off pomt were asked to partiapate in the second portion of the expenment The forty subjects that completed the expenment were paid two dollars each for approximately one hour of work. Procedure Upon amval the subject was mstructed that he would be given a number of paper and pencil tests The subject then filled out the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and the Personal Reaction Inventory (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). After completmg the two scales the subject was told that there has
been a sharp increase in the formation of sensitivity groups around the country, and that the success of these groups is usually dependent upon the abihty of the members of the group to be able to understand, commimicate and relate to others It was stressed that this abihty to be "socially sensitive" seems to be becommg an important abihty m our soaety The subject was then told that the expenmenter was workmg vnth "Dr Hoffstem" (fictitious) of the Psychology Department, who had been domg research m the area of regional ifferences m sociai sensitivity The subject was then told that he would be given a test that has been found to be a fairly good mdicator of one's social sensitivity. Before the test administration the subject was asked to "rate the percentage of the Brandeis population that you think is less soaally sensitive than yourself on a scale from zero to one hundred percent, and to rate how certam the subject was of this evaluation on a scale of one (certam) to five (imcertain). The subject was then given the Feldman-Collier Personahty Inference Test, a bogus sociai sensitivity test which has been used successfully (Jones & Schneider, 1968, Schneider, 1969) to mampulate success and failure While the subject took the test ihe expenmenter marked the Rosenberg and Marlowe-Crowne Scales in order to determine if the individual should be run through the complete e^^enment After finishing the test the subject was told that his test would be scored by the expenmenter, and that he would be able to compare
Self-presentation and self-esteem
131
his score to the average scores received by students at other institutions across the country. The subject was given either an arbitrary high score (success condition) or an arbitrary low score (failure condition) on his social sensitivity test. Norms for other schools were also provided which further emphasized the subject's relatively high or low score The subject was then told that Dr HoflEstem was mterested in findmg out more about mdividuals who have taken this test so that there were a few more items for him to fill out The subject was told that he imght receive a call from Dr Hoffstem at a later time to discuss this information Subjects were then given the Schneider SelfPresentation Form (Schneider & Eustis, 1972) to fill out After fimshmg this form the subject was asked to wnte a short paragraph descnbmg "your positive and negative quahties, and why they would make you a good or bad companion Include references to your mtelhgence, style of hvmg, and mterpersonal abdities " It was made clear that Dr Hoffstem would see the subject's responses After completing the essay the subject was again asked to rate his sociai sensitivity and how certam he was of this ratmg The subject was then debnefed and told how to receive his payment Dependent Measures Schneider Self-Presentation Form This form consists of 20 phrases, 10 of which were socially desirable ( e g , "content with Me") and ten of which were soaally undesirable ("gloomy"). Each phrase was rated on a scale from one (not descnptive) to five (very descnptive) A rating of five on a socially desirable item and a ratmg of one on a socially xmdesirable item were both scored as five (that is, socially undesirable items were reverse scored) The higher the total score of the subject, the more positive the self-presentation. Self-presentation essay Subjects were asked to descnbe their positive and negative qualities m a short paragraph This served as a second measure of self-presentation The essays were rated mdividually by the judges on a scale from one (very negative) to ten (very positive) Manipulation check The subject rated the percentage of the Brandeis population that he thought was less socially sensitive than himself on a scale of zero to one hundred percent Subjects rated themselves on this scale before and after the sociai sensitivity mampulation Independent Measures Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale This scale consists of ten short statements, five of vMch are socially desirable ( e g , "I feel that I have a
132
Schneider and Turkat
number of good quahties") and five of which are socially undesirable ( e g , "at times I feel I am no good at all") m altematmg order The sconng of this scale is descnbed m Rosenberg (1965) Scores of zero and one were considered to be indicative of high self-esteem and only these subjects were accepted for the expenment In a large pretest, scores of zero and one defined approximately the upper half of the self-esteem scores obtained by Brandeis males Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale This scale consists of 33 statements of which a high score indicated a display of a socially desirable response set ( e g , "I have never dishked anyone") A score of 15 or more was considered as high social desirability while a score of 14 or less was considered as low social desirabihty This decision was based on the median score m pretesting results For the selected sample employed, the self-esteem scores of the high and low Marlowegroups were virtually identical. RESULTS
Manipulation check. Subjects rated their sociai sensitivity before and after the expenmental manipulation These data were not amenable to the use of parametnc tests due to the large number of subjects who did not change In the success conditions six subjects rated their social sensitivity more positively while 14 subjects made no changes In the failure conditions nme subjects changed their ratings m a negative direction while 11 made no changes. A chi-square test was significant x^ "= 15-36, df = 2, p < 01)
Self-presentation scores. Analyses on the Schneider Self-Presentation Forms were conducted separately for total scores, socially desirable items and socially undesirable items Civen the results of Schneider and Eustis (1972) it was expected that stronger results would be obtained on the socially undesuable ltenfis than on the socially desirable items or total scores For the analysis of vanance on the total scores, defensive high self-esteem individuals were more positive than genmne high self-esteem individuals (F = 6 58, d/ = 1/36, p < 02) with significant interaction in the predicted direction (F = 500, df=il^6, p< 05). The means presented m table 1 show that as predicted the defensive subjects were more positive after failure to a greater extent than the nondefensive subjects For the socially undesirable items defensives were more positive than genmnes (F = 1272, df = 1/36, p < .001) with a sigmficant interaction m the predicted direction
Self-presentation and self-esteem
133
Table l Mean scores for subject's self-presentatioii following success or failure Success
Genuine high self-esteem Defensive high self-esteem
Failure
Total
Positive Items
Negative Items
Totol
Positive Items
Negative Items
75 6
38 7
36 9
71 5
35 5
36 0
76 4
38 3
38 1
83 0
39 7
433
(F — 66o, t?f = 1/36, p < 05) There was also a marginally significant success-failure effect (F = 325, df = 1/36, p < 10). For the desirable items only the mteraction approached sigmficance (F = 3 28, df=i/s6, p< 10) The self-presentation essays were rated independently by two judges The correlabon between ratings over the 40 essays was (''' ~ 39) These ratmgs were combmed to add stability to the analysis Failure subjects presented themselves more positively than success subjects (F = 1746, df = 1/36, p < 001) with a sigmficant mteraction m the predicted direction (F = 5 70, (if = / 05) The means are presented in table 2 Table 2 Mean scores for subject's essay self-presentation (sum of two raters' ratings) Success
Failure
118 113
13 0 15 7
Genuine high self-esteem Defensive high self-esteem
DISCUSSION
The results of the expenment strongly support the hypotheses that were suggested. Defensive high self-esteem mdividuals presented themselves more positively than genmne high self-esteem individuals in reaction to negative information, while there were no differences m reaction to positive information To the extent that positive self-presentations indicate a need for approval, it appears that defensive high self-esteem individuals may be differentiated from genmne high self-esteem individuals by their stronger need for approval m the face of negative information In a failure situation, defensive high self-esteem mdividuals
134
Schneider and Turkat
be strongly affected by and more dependent upon the eval\iations of others for their feelmgs of self-worth Thus, they would be more concerned with the presentation of a socially desirable appearance than mdividuals with genmne high self-esteem. As we have seen, the reaction to challenging or threatening information IS to compensate v^nth a positive self-presentation The genmne high self-esteem individual seems to be less dependent upon the evaluations of others for his feelings of worth This result rephcates a result reported by Schneider (1969) that for subjects who evaluate themselves positively after failure, the Marlowe-Crowne test is a strong predictor of self-presentation The results of this study provide additional evidence that subjects use self-presentations to seek approval and that approval seekmg is particularly hkely after failure but not after success. In this study the success-failure difference was apparent only for subjects who reported high self-esteem but who seemed to be defensive. There was a shght suggestion that the self-presentations of the nondefensive subjects mirrored their success or failure, but this tendency was not significant. SUMMARY
Based on various ideas about defensive high self-esteem, it was proposed that defensive high self-esteem subjects should react to failure by active attempts to gain approval; whereas genmne high self-esteem subjects should not react as defensively to the failure In this experiment positiveness of self-presentation was used as an mdex of approval seekmg. Only males whose scores indicated high self-esteem on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were used as subjects, and a differentiation into high and low defensive subjects was made on the basis of the Marlowe-Crowne scale. As predicted, defensive high self-esteem subj'ects presented themselves more positively after failure than success, and they did this to a greater extent than did geniiine high self-esteem subjects. REFERENCES
Cohen, A R The efFects of individual self-esteem and situabonal structure on threat oriented reactions to power Doctoral dissertation, Umversity of Michigan, 1953. Cohen, A R. Situabonal structure, self-esteem, and threat-onented reactions to power In Cartwnght, D (Ed ), Studies in social power Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press, 1939, pp 35-52.
Self-presentation and self-esteem
135
Crowne, D P , & Marlowe, D The apprcwal motive Studies m ecaluattcie despondence New York Wiley, 1964 Deutsch, M , & Solomon, L. Reactions to evaluations by others as influenced by self-evaluations Soaometry, 1939, 22, 93-112 Eagley, A. H , & Acksen, B A. The efEect of expectmg to be evaluated on change toward favorable and unfavorable information about oneself Soctometry, 1971, 34, 411-422 Ford, L H , & Hersen, M Need approval, defensive denial, and direction of aggression m a fadure-frustration situation Joumal of Personahty b- Socud Psychology, 1967, 6, 228-232 Homey, K The neurotic personally of our time New York Norton, 1937 Jones, E E. IngratuUton New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967 Jones, S C Self and mterpersonal evaluations Esteem theones vs consistency theones. Psychological BuUettn, 1973, 79, 185-199 Jones, S C , & Schneider, D J Certamty of self-appraisal and reactions to evalulabons from others Soctometry, 1968, 31, 395-403 Leventhal, H , & Perloe, S A relabonship between self-esteem and persuasibJity Joumal of Abnormal 6- Socud Psychology, 1962, 64, 385-388 Nisbitt, R., & Cordon, A Self-esteem and suscepbbility to sociai mfluence Jourrud of Personality b- Soctal Psychology, 1967, 5, 268-276 Rosenberg, M Society and the adolescent self^mage Pnnceton, N J Prmceton Umversity Press, 1965 Schneider, D J Tacbcal self-presentabon after success and failure Joumal of Personaltty b- Soctal Psychology, 1969, 13, 262-268 Schneider, D J , & Eusbs, A C EflEect of mgratiabon mobvabon, target posibveness and reveahngness on self-presentation Journal of Persorudtty & Socttd Psychology, 1972, 22, 149-155 Silverman, I Self-esteem and diflFerenbal responsiveness to success and failure Jourrud of Abrtormal b Soctal Psychology, 1964, 69, 115-119 (a) Silverman, I Differenbal effects of ego-threat iipon persuasibihty for high and low self-esteem subjects Journal of Abrtormatb Socud Psychology, 1964, 69, 567-572 (b) Skolmck, P Reactions to personal evaluabons A failure to rephcate Jourtud of Personaltty b Sociai Psychology, 1971, 18, 62-67
Stotland, E., & Hillmer, M. R., Jr. Identification, authontanan defenseness, and self-esteem Joumal of Abnormal b Socud Psychology, 1962, 64, 334-342 Stotland, E , Thorley, S, Thomas, E , Cohen, A R , & Zander, A The effects of group expectabons and self-esteem upon self-evaluabon Joumal of Abnormal b Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 55-63 Walster, E. The effect of self-esteem on romanbc likmg Joumal of Expenmental Soctd Psychology, 1965, 1, 184-197 Wdson, D T Abihty evaluabon, post-decision dissonance and co-worker atbacbveness Jourrud of Persorudtty b Socud Psychology, 1965, 1, 486-489 Manuscript received March 21,1974
In the literature on self-concept, there has been considerable speculation about how people of varying levels of self-esteem would respond to success and failure experiences One position has been that people of low self-esteem should generally be more hungry for success experiences than high self-esteem people, and that the low self-esteem people would respond more hostilely to failure This kind of hypothesis is based on the idea that low selfesteem represents a kind of approval deficit, and since approval is generally desired by people, the low self-esteem subiects should desire it more One problem in testmg this or other models involving self-esteem is in correctly identifying people of low and high self-esteem While there are few ambigmties surrounding low self-esteem responses on a questionnaire, there are problems with high self-esteem responses. As Homey (1937) and Cohen (ig54) have pointed out, not all people who report high selfesteem have "true" high self-esteem The very expression of the high self-esteem may be an attempt to gain approval Cohen (1954) hypothesized that individuals with high selfesteem vnR respond to threat by repudiation and depersonahzation of the stimulus in order to maiutain high self-esteem This has come to be regarded as the hypothesis of defensive selfesteem In some ways high self-esteem subj'ects may act as though they have low self-esteem, as though the fact that they report high self-esteem reveals a certain defensiveness Experimental investigation of this theory has revealed interesting, though somewhat complex results Stotland, Thorley, Thomas, Cohen, and Zander (1957) predicted that if high self-esteem individuals protect themselves from negative evaluations, then they would deemphasize objective failure and would emphasize an obj'ective success. It was found that self-esteem affected evaluation of one's performance in fail-
128
Schneider and Turkat
ure, but not in success Individuals with high self-esteem rated their failure performance significantly better than did individuals with low self-esteem It has been found that individuals with high self-esteem will exhibit a greater degree of interpersonal infiuence (Cohen, 1959), are less likely to identify with negative attnbutes (Stotland & Hillmer, 1962), are less persuasible by threatenmg communications (Leventhal & Perloe, 1962, Nisbett & Cordon, 1967), are less persuasible after failure (Silverman, 1964b) and improve more after a success (Silverman, 1964a). All of these findings are consistent with the theory of defensive self-esteem Seemingly then, subjects with high self-esteem are less acceptmg of failure or threatenmg expenences This does not have to reflect defensive processes, of course, smce a vanety of consistency theones would make eqmvalent predictions However, despite a body of research which supports the notion of consistency strivings m response to personally relevant information ( e g , Deutsch & Solomon, 1959, Wilson, 1965), most studies find httle if any consistency effect ( e g , Skohuck, 1971, Walster, 1965), or find it only under special conditions ( e g , Jones & Schneider, 1968, Eagley & Acksen, 1971, Jones, 1973). In general, when subjects have high self-evaluations it is hard to disentangle consistency stnvmg and defensiveness, since both predict a more positive evaluation to positive information However, it is reasonable to beheve that there are at least two kmds of high self-esteem On the one hand there is a defensive style where failure should be actively guarded against and made unimportant when it occurs On the other hand, a more genuine high self-esteem person should be less concemed to avoid or repudiate failure, smce failure is not particularly threatemng People with genumely high self-esteem may be better able to Ignore failure, or they may be more hkely to try to improve areas of relative failure rather than repudiating evaluations m those areas The present study seeks a clanfication through independent defimtion of defensiveness Crowne and Marlowe (1964) have proposed that high scores on the Marlowe-Crovrae scale are characterized by high need for approval, and they note the similanty between high scorers on the scale and the prototypic defensive self-esteem subject. For example, people high in need for
Self-presentation and self-esteem
129
approval are less hkely to contmue m psychotherapy than are people who are low Ford and Hersen (1967) also found that subjects high on the Ford Social Desirability Scale which is conceptually and empirically closely related to the Marlowe-Crowne scale reject failure more than low scorers In this study, subjects who scored high on a self-esteem test and also high on the Marlowe-Crowne scale were classified as defensively high self-esteem subjects, while those with high self-esteem but low MarloweCroviTie scores were labeled genumely high self-esteem individuals Defensively high self-esteem individuals ought to do more than react to success or failure, they ought to engage in active attempts to change their pubhc defimtion after failure, to gain approval when possible, and to structure social situations to maximize self-enhancement possibihties. Self-presentations are one way of manipulating sociai situations to gam approval (Jones, 1964) Schneider (1969) found that subjects who were told they had failed were sigmficantly more self-enhancing in their pubhc presentations than were success subjects It was also found that faihng mdividuals with high self-evaluations showed high positive correlations between positiveness of self-presentation and need for approval scores (as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirabihty Scale) In other words, mdividuals v^ath high selfesteem and high need for approval (which is our conception of the mdividual with defensive high self-esteem) exhibited particularly positive self-presentations m reaction to failure The higher the need for approval, the more positive was the selfpresentation of the failing, high self-esteem subject. Thus for the defensive mdividual, it seems that a self-presentation strategy of positiveness may be employed to maintain the high level of selfesteem that he reported The analysis m the Schneider (1969) study was, however, a post hoc affair, and there were several problems such as the fact that the self-evaluation was measured after the self-presentation and was at best an inadequate measure of self-esteem Therefore the present study was conceived as a more direct exploration of the self-presentation responses of high or low defensive selfesteem individuals to success and failure. Following the results reported by Schneider, it was hypothesized that for subjects with defensive high self-esteem, self-presentations would be higher
130
Schneider and Turkat
after failure than success, while there would be less difference or no difference for subjects with non-defensive high self-esteem METHOD
Subjects Forty male undergraduates from Brandeis Umversity were run individually in the four ejqpenmental conditions Smce only high selfesteem subjects were to be tested, only those subjects who scored above a cut-off pomt were asked to partiapate in the second portion of the expenment The forty subjects that completed the expenment were paid two dollars each for approximately one hour of work. Procedure Upon amval the subject was mstructed that he would be given a number of paper and pencil tests The subject then filled out the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and the Personal Reaction Inventory (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). After completmg the two scales the subject was told that there has
been a sharp increase in the formation of sensitivity groups around the country, and that the success of these groups is usually dependent upon the abihty of the members of the group to be able to understand, commimicate and relate to others It was stressed that this abihty to be "socially sensitive" seems to be becommg an important abihty m our soaety The subject was then told that the expenmenter was workmg vnth "Dr Hoffstem" (fictitious) of the Psychology Department, who had been domg research m the area of regional ifferences m sociai sensitivity The subject was then told that he would be given a test that has been found to be a fairly good mdicator of one's social sensitivity. Before the test administration the subject was asked to "rate the percentage of the Brandeis population that you think is less soaally sensitive than yourself on a scale from zero to one hundred percent, and to rate how certam the subject was of this evaluation on a scale of one (certam) to five (imcertain). The subject was then given the Feldman-Collier Personahty Inference Test, a bogus sociai sensitivity test which has been used successfully (Jones & Schneider, 1968, Schneider, 1969) to mampulate success and failure While the subject took the test ihe expenmenter marked the Rosenberg and Marlowe-Crowne Scales in order to determine if the individual should be run through the complete e^^enment After finishing the test the subject was told that his test would be scored by the expenmenter, and that he would be able to compare
Self-presentation and self-esteem
131
his score to the average scores received by students at other institutions across the country. The subject was given either an arbitrary high score (success condition) or an arbitrary low score (failure condition) on his social sensitivity test. Norms for other schools were also provided which further emphasized the subject's relatively high or low score The subject was then told that Dr HoflEstem was mterested in findmg out more about mdividuals who have taken this test so that there were a few more items for him to fill out The subject was told that he imght receive a call from Dr Hoffstem at a later time to discuss this information Subjects were then given the Schneider SelfPresentation Form (Schneider & Eustis, 1972) to fill out After fimshmg this form the subject was asked to wnte a short paragraph descnbmg "your positive and negative quahties, and why they would make you a good or bad companion Include references to your mtelhgence, style of hvmg, and mterpersonal abdities " It was made clear that Dr Hoffstem would see the subject's responses After completing the essay the subject was again asked to rate his sociai sensitivity and how certam he was of this ratmg The subject was then debnefed and told how to receive his payment Dependent Measures Schneider Self-Presentation Form This form consists of 20 phrases, 10 of which were socially desirable ( e g , "content with Me") and ten of which were soaally undesirable ("gloomy"). Each phrase was rated on a scale from one (not descnptive) to five (very descnptive) A rating of five on a socially desirable item and a ratmg of one on a socially xmdesirable item were both scored as five (that is, socially undesirable items were reverse scored) The higher the total score of the subject, the more positive the self-presentation. Self-presentation essay Subjects were asked to descnbe their positive and negative qualities m a short paragraph This served as a second measure of self-presentation The essays were rated mdividually by the judges on a scale from one (very negative) to ten (very positive) Manipulation check The subject rated the percentage of the Brandeis population that he thought was less socially sensitive than himself on a scale of zero to one hundred percent Subjects rated themselves on this scale before and after the sociai sensitivity mampulation Independent Measures Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale This scale consists of ten short statements, five of vMch are socially desirable ( e g , "I feel that I have a
132
Schneider and Turkat
number of good quahties") and five of which are socially undesirable ( e g , "at times I feel I am no good at all") m altematmg order The sconng of this scale is descnbed m Rosenberg (1965) Scores of zero and one were considered to be indicative of high self-esteem and only these subjects were accepted for the expenment In a large pretest, scores of zero and one defined approximately the upper half of the self-esteem scores obtained by Brandeis males Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale This scale consists of 33 statements of which a high score indicated a display of a socially desirable response set ( e g , "I have never dishked anyone") A score of 15 or more was considered as high social desirability while a score of 14 or less was considered as low social desirabihty This decision was based on the median score m pretesting results For the selected sample employed, the self-esteem scores of the high and low Marlowegroups were virtually identical. RESULTS
Manipulation check. Subjects rated their sociai sensitivity before and after the expenmental manipulation These data were not amenable to the use of parametnc tests due to the large number of subjects who did not change In the success conditions six subjects rated their social sensitivity more positively while 14 subjects made no changes In the failure conditions nme subjects changed their ratings m a negative direction while 11 made no changes. A chi-square test was significant x^ "= 15-36, df = 2, p < 01)
Self-presentation scores. Analyses on the Schneider Self-Presentation Forms were conducted separately for total scores, socially desirable items and socially undesirable items Civen the results of Schneider and Eustis (1972) it was expected that stronger results would be obtained on the socially undesuable ltenfis than on the socially desirable items or total scores For the analysis of vanance on the total scores, defensive high self-esteem individuals were more positive than genmne high self-esteem individuals (F = 6 58, d/ = 1/36, p < 02) with significant interaction in the predicted direction (F = 500, df=il^6, p< 05). The means presented m table 1 show that as predicted the defensive subjects were more positive after failure to a greater extent than the nondefensive subjects For the socially undesirable items defensives were more positive than genmnes (F = 1272, df = 1/36, p < .001) with a sigmficant interaction m the predicted direction
Self-presentation and self-esteem
133
Table l Mean scores for subject's self-presentatioii following success or failure Success
Genuine high self-esteem Defensive high self-esteem
Failure
Total
Positive Items
Negative Items
Totol
Positive Items
Negative Items
75 6
38 7
36 9
71 5
35 5
36 0
76 4
38 3
38 1
83 0
39 7
433
(F — 66o, t?f = 1/36, p < 05) There was also a marginally significant success-failure effect (F = 325, df = 1/36, p < 10). For the desirable items only the mteraction approached sigmficance (F = 3 28, df=i/s6, p< 10) The self-presentation essays were rated independently by two judges The correlabon between ratings over the 40 essays was (''' ~ 39) These ratmgs were combmed to add stability to the analysis Failure subjects presented themselves more positively than success subjects (F = 1746, df = 1/36, p < 001) with a sigmficant mteraction m the predicted direction (F = 5 70, (if = / 05) The means are presented in table 2 Table 2 Mean scores for subject's essay self-presentation (sum of two raters' ratings) Success
Failure
118 113
13 0 15 7
Genuine high self-esteem Defensive high self-esteem
DISCUSSION
The results of the expenment strongly support the hypotheses that were suggested. Defensive high self-esteem mdividuals presented themselves more positively than genmne high self-esteem individuals in reaction to negative information, while there were no differences m reaction to positive information To the extent that positive self-presentations indicate a need for approval, it appears that defensive high self-esteem individuals may be differentiated from genmne high self-esteem individuals by their stronger need for approval m the face of negative information In a failure situation, defensive high self-esteem mdividuals
134
Schneider and Turkat
be strongly affected by and more dependent upon the eval\iations of others for their feelmgs of self-worth Thus, they would be more concerned with the presentation of a socially desirable appearance than mdividuals with genmne high self-esteem. As we have seen, the reaction to challenging or threatening information IS to compensate v^nth a positive self-presentation The genmne high self-esteem individual seems to be less dependent upon the evaluations of others for his feelings of worth This result rephcates a result reported by Schneider (1969) that for subjects who evaluate themselves positively after failure, the Marlowe-Crowne test is a strong predictor of self-presentation The results of this study provide additional evidence that subjects use self-presentations to seek approval and that approval seekmg is particularly hkely after failure but not after success. In this study the success-failure difference was apparent only for subjects who reported high self-esteem but who seemed to be defensive. There was a shght suggestion that the self-presentations of the nondefensive subjects mirrored their success or failure, but this tendency was not significant. SUMMARY
Based on various ideas about defensive high self-esteem, it was proposed that defensive high self-esteem subjects should react to failure by active attempts to gain approval; whereas genmne high self-esteem subjects should not react as defensively to the failure In this experiment positiveness of self-presentation was used as an mdex of approval seekmg. Only males whose scores indicated high self-esteem on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were used as subjects, and a differentiation into high and low defensive subjects was made on the basis of the Marlowe-Crowne scale. As predicted, defensive high self-esteem subj'ects presented themselves more positively after failure than success, and they did this to a greater extent than did geniiine high self-esteem subjects. REFERENCES
Cohen, A R The efFects of individual self-esteem and situabonal structure on threat oriented reactions to power Doctoral dissertation, Umversity of Michigan, 1953. Cohen, A R. Situabonal structure, self-esteem, and threat-onented reactions to power In Cartwnght, D (Ed ), Studies in social power Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press, 1939, pp 35-52.
Self-presentation and self-esteem
135
Crowne, D P , & Marlowe, D The apprcwal motive Studies m ecaluattcie despondence New York Wiley, 1964 Deutsch, M , & Solomon, L. Reactions to evaluations by others as influenced by self-evaluations Soaometry, 1939, 22, 93-112 Eagley, A. H , & Acksen, B A. The efEect of expectmg to be evaluated on change toward favorable and unfavorable information about oneself Soctometry, 1971, 34, 411-422 Ford, L H , & Hersen, M Need approval, defensive denial, and direction of aggression m a fadure-frustration situation Joumal of Personahty b- Socud Psychology, 1967, 6, 228-232 Homey, K The neurotic personally of our time New York Norton, 1937 Jones, E E. IngratuUton New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967 Jones, S C Self and mterpersonal evaluations Esteem theones vs consistency theones. Psychological BuUettn, 1973, 79, 185-199 Jones, S C , & Schneider, D J Certamty of self-appraisal and reactions to evalulabons from others Soctometry, 1968, 31, 395-403 Leventhal, H , & Perloe, S A relabonship between self-esteem and persuasibJity Joumal of Abnormal 6- Socud Psychology, 1962, 64, 385-388 Nisbitt, R., & Cordon, A Self-esteem and suscepbbility to sociai mfluence Jourrud of Personality b- Soctal Psychology, 1967, 5, 268-276 Rosenberg, M Society and the adolescent self^mage Pnnceton, N J Prmceton Umversity Press, 1965 Schneider, D J Tacbcal self-presentabon after success and failure Joumal of Personaltty b- Soctal Psychology, 1969, 13, 262-268 Schneider, D J , & Eusbs, A C EflEect of mgratiabon mobvabon, target posibveness and reveahngness on self-presentation Journal of Persorudtty & Socttd Psychology, 1972, 22, 149-155 Silverman, I Self-esteem and diflFerenbal responsiveness to success and failure Jourrud of Abrtormal b Soctal Psychology, 1964, 69, 115-119 (a) Silverman, I Differenbal effects of ego-threat iipon persuasibihty for high and low self-esteem subjects Journal of Abrtormatb Socud Psychology, 1964, 69, 567-572 (b) Skolmck, P Reactions to personal evaluabons A failure to rephcate Jourtud of Personaltty b Sociai Psychology, 1971, 18, 62-67
Stotland, E., & Hillmer, M. R., Jr. Identification, authontanan defenseness, and self-esteem Joumal of Abnormal b Socud Psychology, 1962, 64, 334-342 Stotland, E , Thorley, S, Thomas, E , Cohen, A R , & Zander, A The effects of group expectabons and self-esteem upon self-evaluabon Joumal of Abnormal b Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 55-63 Walster, E. The effect of self-esteem on romanbc likmg Joumal of Expenmental Soctd Psychology, 1965, 1, 184-197 Wdson, D T Abihty evaluabon, post-decision dissonance and co-worker atbacbveness Jourrud of Persorudtty b Socud Psychology, 1965, 1, 486-489 Manuscript received March 21,1974
