26, Mark R. Leary and Meredith Terry Self- Evaluation and Self-Esteem Abstract tricately linked to heir views of other people. Not oni chat decision rluaton. of sch ay hawe te see < dements © the sath mle ett To decid I rrr arrest nid ne eo sepeoples sefevaleaons affected by their bei 3 people, bu als ais yrnsance ctr porcoptone and jdarmens of ote, Th eed caavior | sf self-evaluations (personal observation 2 in ops all rp etary sources fs evaluations (oor atonal and cognitive reasons that peoples are natn he Ieachackc and information that they have about th : The second mor section explores the nature of 5 ceeaia en . cs nd ene quasdon of whether people posts a need for sel-aia ; Barc examine th effects of people's sef-evahations on their Perceptions and ; Judgments of other peopl fe Key Words: se ovalvation,selt-estem,se-enhancement the “culeural big Ba Self-Evaluation and Self-Esteem vase 7 Arson poincduring the course of human evo- im dence of bodily ad ie tank consciously abour themselves. The capacity iFrigeenribstrace clic for self-awareness and self-r nt thought ns aintings of sonal yerien T 9 involve a number of distinct mental abilit ple could etl : BEeeeseticon, thinking about oneself in ally, and symb Leary & Buttermory (OF the capacity for sef-cognition probably evolve hought ing about and plan , separately a different times. For example, evidence the alyzing one’s rien that prefumans could think consciously about — specting on one nd mot themselves in the future can be found as far back oneself, ferring her people’ npr Miia years ago when Homo 5 arriéd oneself, and exerting self-control (Lengua 0 rocks for long distances to make stone tools and these important self. ive proc pe then tried those tools from place to place, sug- in this chapter is on self-evaluation and i gesting an ability to imagine oncslf needing a tool cousin, self-es j in the future (Leary & Buttermore, 2003), But evi Mielec aa ; dence that people could think about themselves in one’s characte: s, abil and be emiiatcratid syinBolicways that modern hum cna bE " an a valenced continuum of bad-good of 8 Beings dois not seen unc 40,000 to 60,000 year positive is tn 7 534 |ly the cal At chat mbol € ped 2003: sof . OF close pan raking. Wh to take a particular coune oy ahh are capable i eo Rees. sch Bee se or people evaltate th her | ee exces ‘ ‘whether their capaci | iby di fe decile poste aber btn bain: me siton fs when students w reability to take an upper level 's ertially n people ate ery, and theit behay. of this sluations involve haractersticn, nder whether Bee lar ways, people often try to infer how oth Se yeand evaiate them. For example, whenever E aluate the degree to which th t alec en liner how ting perceived (or are likely 10 b bfhence other people, and Hlsteem. People hold many beliefs abour chem Bhs, beliefs both about ir st act Mand about chemsc in the cu a Mh ire cognit 1 tion Hats of one's personal characteris ' Heduations ase valence f the con Mitofa self-belicf alor pntinuu n to Pile or bad to good. Although self-evaluan Blinked to self-belicfs, there is not a one-to Be spondenc berween them. Two people migh the same belief about thi s bur evaluate Biches quite differently in light of that beet Ry selFevaluations acknowledge that s°™ inal attribute or behavior is zt = involves state self-esteem, and hi trait alee Historically, the field of the Person has no affective reaction ro tha evalua ‘ton. However other self-evaluation lead to positive ‘oF negative feelings about oneself and those feelings that even whenec over ced bel and fluence on tation, they sti ir own behaviors 1 estimate heat oe ee =e ee eras: h biased) inferen ial oe har their own reactions are typical tend to surround themselves with cause they people who think and behave like they do (Marks & Mille Whitley, 1998). In addition, wae ee hee Dy they may fssume that most other ple would natural feact similarly to those situations (e.g, I gor ane ecause the situation was objectively unfuiy most other people would as well} # Some explanations, however, explain false cor ensus in terms of people’s desire to evaluate them Selves favorably or to feel good about themselve Although secing one’s decisions and reactions a and confidence. Furthermore, researc people display the false Pe P for undesirable traits an Sherman, Presson, & Presson, & Chassin, 1 1988). By assuming that o:her peor ea negative characte 1 bad judgment, p feel better about themselv« undesirable attributes Tn fact, people tend nov with respect to their posi meta-analytic review earch. sensus effect sho at the prevalence of their p plishments—a false uniq) 1 a fau Goethals, 1990), Pres failures as common but one 46 fare promotes postive sel-feclings Related to false consensus is attributive P their ot tion, the tende cee cy for people and mou 978), Important cs primar Prope tend o projec heir own abu Po Waits, attitudes, emotion et Specific other people (Holm. ilyon people whom they view favors) Milles, 1982), By secing their own cl ih a competent, attractive, oF ticularly goo z : despicable person ributes. In pat demonstration ofthe direction of this Moreland and Zajone (1982) Participants to photograph ) frst exposed Hct predict aphs they saw fewer times. Bu antly for our . likely to infer tha dhe people in th photographs they saw more times (and, thus, eed kinds of atrburive projection effets sid when people have recently received uni able information about themselves (Lewiki, 198 ding additonal evidence that ad x A thin avery anata ncratcallycbmarulig socal pat reflect postive if, wh 003) calle self , ni influenced by th cana i For examples ps saa aH peonles eantaas ol important Hlecenet tx “ wed 2 herman Emphasis Effects A. secot maj secgory = self-evaluations and self-evaluative concer hee EARY, TERRY | 548he ~ who think that they are snciable rate “people as more sociable than ‘observers who do not see thems sociable and hey a0 4. ee able people a less sociable than observers W190 ‘not see themselves as sociable (Lambert 8. ‘Wedell, 1991). Simla, cooperative people evaluate others ‘more strongly depending on whether they coop ate or defect in a prisoners dilemma game (Beet Messick, & Allison, 1988). In essence, people's own selviews push their judgments of other people toward the extremes on sttributes that are person ally relevane (sce Markus 8 Smith, {& Skowzonski, 1993). ‘Along the same lines, people also place inordi: teristics, abilities, 1981; Sedikides nate weight on their own chara and attitudes when evalucting other people (Alicke 1993; Lewicki, 1983; Markus, Smith, 8 Moreland, 1985). For example, people’ sclf-views influence their judgments of how supportive other people arc Tikely to be (Lutz & Lake, 2001) and which person ality traits are related to g-eater behavioral effective ness and success (Morowidlo, Hooper, 8 Jackson, 2006). In addition, Evans and Stukas (2007) found ded ro be mest critical of their partners shat men t oon characteristics on which the men we ated themselves negatively. One explanation of emphasis effecs, including, polarized judgments, is thar people who possess @ particular characteristic are more expert in judging, that characteristic and, tous, make more nuancec or finer-grained distinctions regarding the degree t0 which other people have that attribute (Markus et al, 198: tics are more cognitively accessible and, thus, more ). Furthermore, one’s own characteris likely to be used to eval & Hayes, 1996) rc other people (Dunning Comparative Effects Barly research on attitudes showed that people’ judgments of attitude statements depended on their ‘own attitudinal position. People who are against a particular posision see moderately supportive ati tude statements as pro-attitudinal, whereas people who support a particular position sec those same ‘moderare statements as against it (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957; Hovland & Sherif, 1952). Similar 544 SBLE-EVALUATION AND SELF-ESTEEM cow ing other peo ple. In facts rinowledged that they part, by comparing the targer Meee als Beatepard & Dunnigg thermore, acdies show that people Face Kinds of slf-other comparing gl) rm mae pone self-evaluation (Daggal tha Pie t992) and clo 80 TOE SOY Wg Cfesteem has been threatened (Beaty Dunning, 1998)- . Conclusion ’ People’s sell-raag and self-esteem are intimately entangled iq ‘about other people. Selec self-perceptions, they think selrevaluations are strongly affected by how pe think others reg sell-evaluations subsequently influence peoples ceptions and judgments of others. Although ea ard them, and those self beliefsan symbolic interacionists| claims chat the sl isl bridge becween the person and. society may hie been overstated, no one could doube that a fill understanding of socially relevant thought, em tion, and behavior requires attention to how peng think about and evaluate th Author Note Cortesponde y, Department and Neuroscience, Duke Uni ham, NC 27708; to Mark Le Psychology P.O. Box 90085, D leary@duke.edu. Notes 1. Some theorists explain excessively positive self lite evince that people “acc” selE sii, ‘ ambers A Jo & Wedel D. H. (1991) The sf and vc Jee ef aie on ad own ost Tr adements of uanbiguoes and ambiguous information poset fume of Teva end Sei ah 6 884-897. Len M.R. (2004). Th coe ose lf Self res em sd the quay of aman ife-New York: Oxford University Tres Teay M.R. (2006) Socom shor anche psi ofl onal value: Geng tothe soo of selFestem. Farpee Rew of Soci Phology 16.75-11 Ten M. Ry Barnes B. Da Grice, Cy Mason E & MMeCormack,D. Je. (1987), The iypace of conoin thes: tose apd sel-escem on valuation aprchension. Social Pcl Quarry, 50,304 311 Tey M.R, & Baumeister, RF (200) The nrure an func Mon of seem, Soiometer theory: Iv MP Zanna (El) (Adnecesin experimental cil porbology (0. 32, pp. 1-62) Son Dicgo: Academic Pres aay, M, Re, & Bartermore, N. R. (2003). "The evolution of Pein aE Tracing the atl htory of ele awarenese. Foard for te Thay of Soil Beau, 3, 365.404, Teas. ecDowns, 1 (199). Inerpeoal fonction of Sek ee tcrive The lance syters ax a vociom exe In M, Kerns (Ea), Efe agen and lee yp, 123-144), New Yorke Plenum Pes. Tair M, R, Gallagher, for, F. H1., Bunermore, N. Baldwin, Lane, KK, Mile A. (2003) The invalid fperional aims bow sexs, Pesonality end Social Prolog Ballin, 29, 623-636. Tear, MR, Haupe, A. L., SnauserK.S, & Choke, J (1998). Calibrating he rociemete he redationshipbeencen Interpersonal appraisals an ste sclesiecm. Journal Paranal end Socal Pycoingy, 74. 290-1299, Testy, M.R, Tambor, Ea Te, Su & Downs, D. 1, (1995, Gelfercem a an interperonal onion ‘The scion Inyporhesis. Journal af Prronatity and Social a 518-530. sf Prychology, 68 “Leary, M, He, Terry, M1 All, Ay 8 Tae, The concep of ego three in socal and pr seg threat viable cent cons [Pyeholigy Review, 13 151-164, #8. ano) nly pyc 12 emia _ SBLE-EVALUATION AND Sup. ESTEEM, aoe! in ce selene tin are rit, 1070-1079 ; Oem Je Tey Ley. Me ind teait self-esteem. Journal aa p37 ag) Tay ect Maks Be MINE ie sili. Peroaiy an 1 ology Bulletins & 728-735. i oe ate ae 98) Te 7 ad Nat, Go MM, ils eal ag ‘al alin 102 7-90 cae | 0981) The nance ar percepn oF oer 10 N: Cantor 8). sn gn end el in (elle Eom en Mot, Rt. C989, Ral Et perception of oer rae eee Pell 19, 494-1512, Pry ween th cheery of ing New Yor Na Ha 0S YN. Bevan, Del Sr eooaprone cea Me of say ad Sec sates Rows M0979) on Mats B27) Holler chan Sal Spal osc Sula Conparion, 2053568 issn thea cal Bali nnd, RL, 8 Zane, R. 1 (1982). A tong test exam milo, S. Ju Hooper, A. C., 8 Jackson, HL Implicic polices about rlaions berween personaly i and behavioral ffctivencs i. situational jg Journal of Applied Pyehology, 918), 749-76 Mallen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (1990), Social projection 29, 279-282. Nolet, A.J. (1985). Methods of coping with soil deel 263-280, Pauls, D. 1, (1991), Measurement and con of 5 bias In}. P- Robinson, PR. Shaver LS, Weighs Oh Measures of peronality and social prycholegical xd 17-59), San Diego, CA: Academic Pres j Paulus, D-L., Harms, PD, Bruce, M,N. & 1D. The over-laiming technique: Measuring sll =n independent of ability. Journal of Penomaiy Pyshology, 84, 890-904, ‘ Raleigh, M. J. & McGuire, M, T; (1986). Animal ana Ehology and Sociobiology, 73-8), 201-214 Regan EG, Snyden Moke Kein 6 1995), Unral mis: SelFenhancement or person pst? adn, tle Ruletn, 21, 1073-1082. ll Glimpses & Leary. M. R. (2009). Resi al ition, stigmatization, ostracism, and of a fo B sedi? Sore management: fc av » & Brown, J. D., (1988), Mhusion and well-be- De Wetetiad vabnon. Mosncr Ce ing: A social psychological perspective on mental health. erey, CA: Prychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. sedi, Este Maa A$ 0985) Inpesion mae inns of he vlan jvc, Jara of Sane coe ee ee “eset, A. (2003), Seevaluation In M.R Leary JP Tangney Batt Shea impesin (Eas), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 275-290). New I ay ac el prcepion.oonaley Yok Gallo Pra Social Psychology, 29, 347-3 Tyler, J. M. (2008). In the cyes of others: Monitoring for relational IE, B Skowrorski, JJ, (2003). Evolution and the alu cas. amen Communion ova 34, 521-589 Hpmbolic sl. Issues and prospects, In M. R. Leary & J.P. Weary Bradley, G. (1978), Selfserving biases inthe attbu TRangocy (Eds), Handbook of elfand iden (gp. 594-609) vion proces: a reexamination ofthe facto Btion question. ‘New York: Guilford Pubiatons Joa of Peony nd act Pcaly, 36, 56-7 dikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). False consensus on sexual behavior Stra sochinc ovr sl be bet, Advances in tebe Scie Pyceloy, 2, 209-269 BC. 1990). A mec analyic vw of socal sil fice psn. Conmanicaton Monoriph, 57, 292-308 Mb ge gee Beis $f, Pron, C.C, &¢Chasn.1- (1984. wllnes KD. Shore, WJ 8 Gabe} Being te fle consensus effec: Th Debave and esocted Ral Ghee the wll, Prana and Sail Poo Balle Nts 1127-138 Sige, S.J. Schoeneman, TJ. (1979). Symbolic inven hroagh the looking las dat explanations Journal af Sex Research, 35, 206-214. ‘Whitton, S. W, Larson, J.J 8¢ Hauser, ST (2008). Depresive symptoms and bias in pereived social competence among "91-80. Mechanisms 1998). The silent pecial role of treatment: Perceptions of ings. Group Proves Intergroup Relation Williams, KD. & Zadeo, L, (2001). Ostracism: On bein ignored, excluded and rejected. In M. R. Leary (Ed pp. 21-53). New ¥ tins vew of self-concept: Th Parboloial Bulletin, 86, 949-573 Gorimer, KL, Willams, K D., Giarocco, N. J, & Baumeister Re E (2001). Explorations inte the intrapsychic and intr enonal consequences of social ostracism. Baie and Applied Socal Poycology, 23, 227-245, Sil, J, Wan, C. K., & Sanders, G. S. ( Bens and false uniqueness i estimat I health-prorective behaviow. Journal of Applic Sec Parole, 18, 6-79. id JV social «9 Handbook demtty (po: ALE. (2003). How important es & Wikon parison? In M. R. Leary 8 ngney (Eds Guilford Prosad ‘adro, 1, Williams, K. D., 8 Richardson IR (2005). Riding 1988). False con: am and verbal the prevalence dispute Relations 8, 125-143.