Collective self-esteem

Last updated

Collective self-esteem is a concept originating in the field of psychology that describes the aspect of an individual's self-image that stems from how the individual interacts with others and the groups that the individual is a part of. The idea originated during the research of Jennifer Crocker, during which she was trying to learn about the connection between a person's self-esteem and their attitude towards or about the group that the person is part of.

Contents

Collective self-esteem is talked about subjectively as a concept as well as measured objectively with various scales and assessments. The data from such research is used practically to give importance and weight to the idea that most individuals benefit from being in a group setting for at least sometime as well as being able to identify with being a part of a group. Or not.

History

Jennifer Crocker and Riia Luhtanen were the first to study collective self-esteem. They believed there was a relationship between people's self-esteem and how they felt about groups they were a part of. Crocker hypothesized that people who were high in the trait of collective self-esteem would be more likely to “react to threats to collective self-esteem by derogating out-groups and enhancing the in-group.” [1] The idea of collective self-esteem rose out of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner). [1] Social identity theory focused on an individual's personal beliefs about themselves and beliefs that stemmed from the groups they were part of. Collective self-esteem described a more group-oriented idea of self-esteem. It focused more on how groups, when they are threatened or perceive to be threatened will increase bias in favor of the in-group and increase prejudice toward the out-group. [1] Crocker published a paper titled “Collective self-esteem and in-group bias.” It was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Crocker developed a scale that consisted of four categories to measure collective self-esteem. [1]

  1. Private collective self-esteem – positive evaluation of one's group.
  2. Membership esteem – how one sees themselves in a group. Are they a good member?
  3. Public collective self-esteem – how the group one belongs to is evaluated by others.
  4. Importance to identity – how important membership in a group is to self-concept.

The study concluded that prejudice and discrimination toward out-groups were not so much motivated by personal self-esteem needs but rather they were attempts to increase or enhance collective self-esteem. [1]

Research

Collective Self-Esteem Scale

The Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) was developed by Luhtanen and Crocker as a measure to assess individuals’ social identity based on their membership in ascribed groups such as race, ethnicity, gender, and the like. [2] The CSES has been one of the most widely used instruments in the field of psychology to assess collective group identity among racial and ethnic populations. In the initial CSES development study, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques were used to examine the underlying factor structure of the proposed four-factor CSES. The preliminary prototype of the CSES consisted of 43 items. To shorten the instrument, Crocker and Luhtanen selected the four items with the highest factor loadings from each subscale to represent the final 16-item CSES. The actual scale is a list of statements that pertain to the person's membership in a group or category and each is rated on a seven-point scale. The scoring is done through four subscales that are categorized as follows: 1) Items 1, 5, 9, and 13 = Membership self-esteem. 2) Items 2, 6, 10, and 14 = Private collective self-esteem. 3) Items 3, 7, 11, and 15 = Public collective self-esteem. 4) Items 4, 8, 12, and 16 = Importance to identity. First, reverse-score answers to items 2,4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15, such that (1=7), (2=6), (3=5), (4=4), (5=3), (6=2), (7=1). Then sum the answers to the four items for each respective subscale score, and divide each by four. Because the subscales measure distinct construct, it is strongly recommended against creating an overall or composite score for collective self-esteem.

Race

In the context of cross-cultural research using the CSES, Crocker Luhtanen, Blaine, and Broadnax explored the nature of collective self-esteem in Asian, Black, and White college students. Crocker et al. found that collective self-esteem was a significant predictor of psychological adjustment and that among the Black students in their sample, the correlation between public and private collective self-esteem was essentially zero. Based on this later finding, Crocker et al. surmised that Black college students might separate how they privately feel about their group from how they believe others may evaluate them. [3] This separation between public and private evaluations may represent an important survival strategy for Black Americans because of the prejudice and discrimination they face in the United States. The literature has suggested that Black Americans may generally feel good about their own racial group [4] but still believe that external perceptions of their racial group may be negative or derogatory. [5] This phenomenon might indicate a CSES factor structure for Black Americans that is different from that of other racial or ethnic groups in the United States.

In-group and out-group bias

Cremer et al. began a study expecting that people high in CSE engaged in indirect enhancement of the in-group. This finding suggests that predictions made by Social Identity Theory are more applicable to individuals with a high level of CSE. In this study, Cremer et al. found that participants identified more with the in-group than with the out-group. Participants high in CSE evaluated in-group members as fairer and more competent than participants low in CSE. [6] Cremer et al. also found that women expressed a higher level of CSE than men. These findings provide additional evidence that individuals high in CSE are more likely to engage in in-group distorting evaluations when there is a possible threat to their CSE. [7] Applying the CSE scale in situations of a potential threat to the in-group (i.e., success or failure feedback), Crocker and Luhtanen found that, in contrast to people low in CSE, people high in CSE showed in-group favoritism, thereby indirectly enhancing the in-group. Individuals high in CSE will evaluate in-group members more positively than those low in CSE. The results concerning the in-group and outgroup evaluations seem to suggest that people with high CSE can be considered more confident about their esteemed social identity, making them search for more opportunities to enhance the collective self. As a result, those people will feel a greater need to evaluate their in-group members more positively (i.e., in-group favoritism) than people low in CSE. On the other hand, people low in CSE do not feel very confident about their social identity and, in order to avoid failure, they will consider out-group derogation as a more useful strategy to protect their social identity.

Real-world application

Collective self-esteem can be seen in real-world applications through the use of BIRGing and CORFing. Both different concepts but both effect and incorporate collective self-esteem into our everyday lives.

BIRGing (basking in reflected glory) is when a person uses the association of another person's success to boost their own self-esteem or self-glory. The act of BIRGing is often used to offset any threats made to a person's or a group's self-esteem. Sometimes, this act is actually made unknowingly and unintentional. An example of BIRGing can be seen when your favorite sports team, say the University of Kansas men's basketball team, has just won the national title. You will notice when walking around campus or reading the local newspaper, you will be more likely to hear or read “We won!” or “We are the champs!” instead of "KU won!"

CORFing (cutting off reflected failure) can be seen in this same example, except when the team suffers a loss, the fans will change “we” to “they”. For example, “They did not show enough heart” or “They really got outplayed today”.

When someone uses BIRGing or CORFing, their collective self-esteem will be altered in either a positive or negative way and one must not only be careful on the frequency they are using these techniques, but also that these are often used unintentionally and can be taken out of context in many situations. In an article titled “BIRGing and CORFing: From the Hardcourt to the Boardroom” by Kevin Meyer, the author provides an example of BIRGing and CORFing being used in the workplace for job security. This can be seen when an employee aligns them self only with good projects or products and distances them self from poor outcomes and products. Employees must be careful when using these techniques often, because their coworkers may start to believe that that individual is only doing certain things to benefit themself and as Meyer states “throwing us under the bus” when hard times arise. [8] Meyer also states “An effective leader must be willing to weather the storm, sharing in the collective successes but also standing up for their team when things don't go to plan. For most, BIRG and CORF can be more difficult to accomplish in the workplace as our affiliation with a particular team or project is often more obvious”. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social comparison theory</span> Theory in social psychology

Social comparison theory, initially proposed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, centers on the belief that there is a drive within individuals to gain accurate self-evaluations. The theory explains how individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others in order to reduce uncertainty in these domains, and learn how to define the self. Comparing oneself to others socially is a form of measurement and self assessment to identify where an individual stands according to their own set of standards and emotions about themselves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory (SJT) is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Self-compassion is extending compassion to one's self in instances of perceived inadequacy, failure, or general suffering. Kristin Neff has defined self-compassion as being composed of three main elements – self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black sheep</span> Idiom for oddness or disreputability

In the English language, black sheep is an idiom that describes a member of a group who is different from the rest, especially a family member who does not fit in. The term stems from sheep whose fleece is colored black rather than the more common white; these sheep stand out in the flock and their wool is worth less as it will not dye.

Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) is a self-serving cognition whereby an individual associates themselves with known successful others such that the winner's success becomes the individual's own accomplishment. The affiliation of another's success is enough to stimulate self glory. The individual does not need to be personally involved in the successful action. To BIRG, they must simply associate themselves with the success. Examples of BIRGing include anything from sharing a home state with a past or present famous person, to religious affiliations, to sports teams. For example, when a fan of a football team wears the team's jersey and boasts after a win, this fan is engaging in BIRGing. A parent with a bumper sticker reading "My child is an honor student" is basking in the reflected glory of their child. While many people have anecdotal accounts of BIRGing, social psychologists seek to find experimental investigations delving into BIRGing. Within social psychology, BIRGing is thought to enhance self-esteem and to be a component of self-management.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-image</span> Mental picture of self that comes from different sources

Self-image is the mental picture, generally of a kind that is quite resistant to change, that depicts not only details that are potentially available to an objective investigation by others, but also items that have been learned by persons about themselves, either from personal experiences or by internalizing the judgments of others.

Ambivalent prejudice is a social psychological theory that states that, when people become aware that they have conflicting beliefs about an outgroup, they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as cognitive dissonance. These feelings are brought about because the individual on one hand believes in humanitarian virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in individualistic virtues such as working hard to improve one's life.

In social psychology, collective narcissism is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. The group may be defined by ideology, race, political beliefs/stance, religion, sexual orientation, social class, language, nationality, employment status, education level, cultural values, or any other ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

Core self-evaluations (CSE) represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual's subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. People who have high core self-evaluations will think positively of themselves and be confident in their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations will have a negative appraisal of themselves and will lack confidence. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) and involves four personality dimensions: locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.

Contingent self-esteem (CSE) is self-esteem based on the approval of others or on social comparisons. Certain events will shape one's self-esteem when the individual bases their self-worth on the outcome of those events. The success or failure of any situation can result in fluctuations of an individual's self-esteem. A manifestation of someone with contingent self-esteem is excessive self-consciousness. Such excessive self-consciousness, as occurs with contingent self-esteem, involves extreme criticism of one's self, concern of how they are perceived by their peers, and feelings of discomfort in social settings. One's self-esteem is directly affected when domains of contingencies are used to measure one's self-worth. Self-esteem can also be affected when an individual compares their appearance or success to that of someone else or when their self-esteem is contingent to the relationships around them.

Dr. Jennifer Crocker is a professor and Ohio Eminent Scholar in Social Psychology at Ohio State University. She is also a former president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Her publications are on the subject of self-esteem and the contingencies and interpersonal goals that individuals have that are a clear reflection of their level of self-esteem.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Crocker, Jennifer. Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. (pp. 60-67).
  2. ↑ Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
  3. ↑ Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). “Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial.” European Journal of Social Psychology 24, no. 6: 641-657. Academic Search Complete, EBSCO host (accessed December 4, 2012)
  4. ↑ Verkuyten, M. (2007), Ethnic In-Group Favoritism Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Self-Esteem Hypothesis Among Preadolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 486–500.
  5. ↑ Shawn O. Utsey & Madonna G. Constantine (2006): A Confirmatory Test of the Underlying Factor Structure of Scores on the Collective Self-Esteem Scale in Two Independent Samples of Black Americans, Journal of Personality Assessment, 86:2, 172-179.
  6. ↑ David De Cremer & Annerieke Oosterwegel (1999): Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations, 18:4, 326-339.
  7. ↑ Cremer, D., Van Vugt, M., & Sharp, J. (1999). Effect of collective self-esteem on ingroup evaluations. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 530-532
  8. 1 2 Meyer, Kevin. (2012). BIRGing and CORFing: From the Hardcourt to the Boardroom. Hogan Assessments.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.