Inflating and deflating the self: Sustaining motivational concerns through self-evaluation

Highlights

• Self-evaluations may shift dynamically to serve motivational concerns.

• Self-evaluation inflation is associated with promotion focus concerns.

• Self-evaluation deflation is associated with prevention focus concerns.

• Results support the idea of strategic shifts in self-evaluation positivity.

Abstract

The ways in which individuals think and feel about themselves play a significant role in guiding behavior across many domains in life. The current studies investigate how individuals may shift the positivity of self-evaluations in order to sustain their chronic or momentary motivational concerns. Specifically, we propose that more positive self-evaluations support eagerness that sustains promotion-focused concerns with advancement, whereas less positive self-evaluations support vigilance that sustains prevention-focused concerns with safety. The current studies provide evidence that self-evaluation inflation is associated with promotion concerns whereas self-evaluation deflation is associated with prevention concerns, whether regulatory focus is situationally manipulated (Studies 1, 2b, and 3) or measured as a chronic individual difference (Study 2a). Following regulatory focus primes, individuals in a promotion focus showed relatively greater accessibility of positive versus negative self-knowledge compared to individuals in a prevention focus (Study 1). In an ongoing performance situation, participants in a promotion focus reported higher self-esteem than participants in a prevention focus (Studies 2a and 2b). Finally, individuals in a promotion focus persisted longer on an anagram task when given an opportunity to focus on their strengths versus weaknesses, which was not the case for individuals in a prevention focus (Study 3). Across studies, the predicted interactions were consistently obtained, although sometimes the effects were stronger for promotion or prevention motivation. We discuss implications for existing models of the motives underlying self-evaluation.

Introduction

Life provides ample opportunities for boosts and blows to our sense of self, occasions that often prompt self-reflection and assessment. These self-musings cut across domains, influencing behavior in almost every life arena, and can be guided by a number of underlying motivational concerns. Often we just want to feel good about ourselves; we find ways to protect and even enhance our self-views (e.g., Hepper, Gramzow, & Sedikides, 2010). Sometimes we want confirmation that others see us the way we see ourselves, whether that view is positive or negative (e.g., Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2003). Sometimes we seek accuracy and certainty, even if it does not enhance or verify (e.g., Trope, 1986, Trope and Brickman, 1975). Sometimes we want to know how we can do better in the future (e.g., Taylor et al., 1995, Wood, 1989). In general, research in self-evaluation has focused on these four motives underlying self-evaluation—self-enhancement, self-verification, self-assessment, and self-improvement (Gregg et al., 2011, Sedikides and Strube, 1995, Sedikides and Strube, 1997). In this paper, we explore an additional motive underlying self-evaluation—to sustain underlying motivational concerns. Specifically, we propose that individuals' self-evaluations can sustain or disrupt their underlying motivational concerns and that, depending on these concerns, individuals may be differentially motivated to enhance or deflate the positivity of self-views.

There are multiple motives for self-evaluation. Understanding the relation among these motives and the circumstances under which particular motives will dominate has been an aim of self-evaluation research (Chang-Schneider and Swann, 2010, Hepper et al., 2010, Sedikides and Strube, 1995, Stinson et al., 2010, Swann, 1984, Swann and Schroeder, 1995, Taylor et al., 1995, Trope, 1986). In general, motives regarding self-protection (e.g., avoiding negative self-views) and self-enhancement (e.g., promoting more positive self-views) have been seen as fundamental (Alicke and Sedikides, 2009, Brown, 2010, Hepper et al., 2010, Leary and Baumeister, 2000, Sedikides and Strube, 1995, Steele, 1988, Tesser, 2001, Yamaguchi et al., 2007). There is considerable support for the notion that the motive to protect and enhance a positive self-view is primary, though cultures may differ in the ways in which this motive is expressed (e.g., Chiu, Wan, Cheng, Kim, & Yang, 2011). In general, however, people see more good than bad when they look in the mirror (Alicke, 1985), see their own traits as particularly desirable (Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995), and believe that their future is blessed relative to others (Weinstein, 1980). When cognitive resources are constrained, the self-enhancement motive appears to be the default (Hixon and Swann, 1993, Swann et al., 1990, Swann and Schroeder, 1995).

When, then, are individuals motivated to see the darker or weaker sides of themselves? Research suggests that people will evaluate themselves less positively or seek potentially negative self-information primarily in circumstances when motives for self-verification, accurate self-assessment, or self-improvement are activated. For pragmatic reasons, individuals may prefer a relationship partner who contributes to their self-verification, facilitating smooth interpersonal interaction. For instance, although people prefer their dating partners to see them positively (regardless of how they see themselves), people prefer their married partners to see them as they see themselves (self-verification) (Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon, 1994). Epistemic concerns may also support negative self-evaluation; confirming one's views of self, even if negative, can provide a sense of coherence and stability (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). When traits are seen as important and modifiable, individuals may be willing to see weakness if it corresponds to accurate self-assessment or facilitates self-improvement (Dunning, 1995, Trope, 1986). This type of research suggests that negative self-views are functional to the extent that they support objective or subjective truths about the self.

However, some evidence suggests that negative self-evaluations might have an additional self-regulatory function beyond their conveyance of some (oft painful) truth. For example, Baumeister, Tice, and Hutton (1989) proposed that expressed self-evaluations might be strategically employed to deflect or create expectations in others; self-evaluation may be self-presentational. Indicating low self-esteem or low confidence in oneself can be one way to manage the expectations of others in the face of possible failure (e.g., “I'm not so hot. Don't count on me to save the day.”). Dampened self-evaluations may be embraced not only in an attempt to have a balanced or accurate view of oneself, but also because they can be strategically useful in interpersonal interactions. Embracing a dampened view of the self is a cautious tactic that can minimize regret if things go awry (cf. Josephs, Larrick, Steele, & Nisbett, 1992).

Research on defensive pessimism further suggests that negative self-views can be helpful not only to manage the expectations of others, but also to increase one's own motivation and engagement in goal pursuit (Norem, 2008, Norem and Cantor, 1986a, Norem and Cantor, 1986b, Showers, 1992). Defensive pessimists “expect the worst” when entering a new situation, despite the fact that they generally do not perform differently than those with a more optimistic outlook (Cantor and Norem, 1989, Cantor et al., 1987). In contrast to “true” pessimism, defensive pessimism serves two goals—a self-protective goal of preparation for possible failure in the future and a motivational goal of increasing vigilance in the present to prevent potential negative outcomes in the future (Seery, West, Weisbuch, & Blascovich, 2008). In support of this idea, it has been shown that when the strategic coping mechanisms of defensive pessimists were disrupted, they performed more poorly (Norem and Cantor, 1986b, Showers, 1992). Simply pointing out the inconsistency between their current expectations and past performance disrupted their ability to harness vigilance in their preferred way (Norem & Cantor, 1986b). Furthermore, defensive pessimists who focused on negative rather than positive outcome possibilities for an upcoming social interaction talked more, exerted more effort, and had their conversations rated more positively by the confederates with whom they were interacting (Showers, 1992). This research suggests that for some individuals, focusing on negativity may be used to manage the self more effectively.

We propose that the dynamics observed in defensive pessimism (focusing on and harnessing negativity as a way to self-regulate) may be one example of a broader motivation underlying self-evaluation. Specifically, individuals may strategically shift their self-views not only downwards, but also upwards, as a way to sustain and maintain preferred motivational orientations. Our perspective suggests a dynamic, pro-active view of self-evaluation; self-evaluations are not always retrospective reflections on the past, but may be strategically shifted to serve future self-regulation and goal pursuit. Furthermore, because individuals may differ in the extent to which inflated versus deflated self-evaluation sustains or disrupts their chronic or momentary motivational concerns, individuals may be differentially motivated to inflate or deflate the self. Individuals may therefore shift the positivity of self-evaluations to support the strategic orientation that best sustains or “fits” their motivational concerns (e.g., Higgins, 2000).

For example, for individuals who need to be eager to sustain their motivational concerns, more positive self-evaluations should support the eagerness they need. In contrast, for individuals who need to be vigilant to sustain their motivational concerns, relatively less positive self-evaluations should support the vigilance they need. Because individuals differ in whether they have motivational concerns that are sustained by either eagerness or vigilance, self-evaluations could be enhanced or dampened tactically in the service of supporting what people need motivationally. This should be true based on an individual's current motivational state, both when that state arises from chronic individual differences and when it arises temporarily from situational induction. We examined these ideas by taking advantage of past research on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997). In the next section, we outline the connections between regulatory focus theory and the current predictions.

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) identifies two underlying self-regulatory systems (promotion, prevention) that have been differentially associated with the use of eager versus vigilant strategies (Crowe and Higgins, 1997, Grant and Higgins, 2003, Higgins and Molden, 2003, Liberman et al., 2001, Molden and Higgins, 2005, Scholer and Higgins, 2008). Individuals can differ both chronically and temporarily in their sensitivity to promotion versus prevention concerns (e.g., Higgins et al., 2001, Higgins et al., 1994, Higgins et al., 1997), which in turn influence strategic preferences.

The promotion system is concerned with hopes and aspirations (ideals) and accomplishments. Individuals in a promotion focus are sensitive to gains versus nongains (i.e., the difference between “0” and “+1”) and they regulate more effectively using eager approach strategies (Higgins, 2000, Higgins, 2005, Higgins, 2009). Eager strategies serve promotion concerns because they are about enthusiastically pursuing potential gain in the pursuit of advancement and growth. Indeed, individuals in a promotion focus are more motivated by positive role models (Lockwood et al., 2002, Schokker et al., 2010) and perform better after receiving success feedback that increases eagerness (Idson & Higgins, 2000; see also Idson et al., 2004, Van-Dijk and Kluger, 2004).

In contrast, the prevention system is concerned with duties and responsibilities (oughts) and security. Individuals in a prevention focus are sensitive to losses versus nonlosses (i.e., the difference between “0” and “− 1”) and they regulate more effectively using vigilant avoidance strategies (Higgins, 2000, Higgins, 2005, Higgins, 2009). Vigilant strategies serve prevention concerns because they are about carefully avoiding potential loss and guarding against mistakes in order to ensure safety and maintain a satisfactory state (see also Brodscholl, Kober, & Higgins, 2007). Indeed, individuals in a prevention focus are more motivated by negative role models (Lockwood et al., 2002, Schokker et al., 2010) and perform better after receiving failure feedback that increases vigilance (Idson and Higgins, 2000, Idson et al., 2004, Van-Dijk and Kluger, 2004).

Given that individuals in a promotion versus prevention focus regulate more effectively using eager versus vigilant strategies, respectively, individuals may differ in their need for positive self-evaluation depending on the motivational concern that is most salient in a given situation. Positive or enhanced self-evaluations highlight strengths and anticipated successes, which support the eagerness that sustains promotion concerns. Less positive or dampened self-evaluations highlight weaknesses and potential failures, which support the vigilance that sustains prevention concerns.

If one of the functions of self-evaluation is to help regulate strategic orientations that fit motivational concerns (e.g., eagerness for promotion concerns; vigilance for prevention concerns), then individuals may be motivated to increase or decrease self-evaluations in ways that support the strategic orientation that fits their concerns (cf. Förster, Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001). In particular, in order to support the strategic eagerness that sustains or fits promotion concerns, individuals with a promotion focus (whether from chronic predisposition or situationally induced) should be more likely to inflate positive self-evaluations, such as strongly endorsing positive items on a self-esteem questionnaire or emphasizing strengths instead of weaknesses. In contrast, in order to support the strategic vigilance that sustains or fits prevention concerns, individuals with a prevention focus (again whether from chronic predisposition or situationally induced) should be more likely to deflate or rein in the positivity of their self-evaluations, such as endorsing less positive or negative items on a self-esteem questionnaire or emphasizing weaknesses instead of strengths.

In addition to suggesting a new motivation underlying the self-evaluation process (i.e., self-evaluation as a tactic to sustain individuals' motivational concerns), these predictions also expand existing research relating regulatory focus and self-evaluation. Prior research has investigated the relation between regulatory focus and self-evaluation in terms of preferences for self-protection strategies versus self-enhancement strategies (Hepper et al., 2010) and goals for self-enhancement versus self-certainty (Leonardelli and Lakin, 2010, Leonardelli et al., 2007). Hepper et al. (2010) found that promotion-focused individuals, who are more sensitive to gains and nongains, are more likely to report using self-enhancement strategies (e.g., “when you do poorly at something, reminding yourself of your strengths and abilities”), whereas prevention-focused individuals, who are more sensitive to losses and nonlosses, are more likely to report using self-protection strategies (e.g., “associating yourself with people who are successful, but not more successful than you”). Other research (Leonardelli et al., 2007) has shown that individuals in a promotion focus have more highly accessible self-enhancement goals, whereas individuals in a prevention focus have more highly accessible self-certainty goals. Achieving clarity and certainty about one's self-views may be important to individuals in a prevention focus as a way to achieve a sense of security.

The findings of these research programs are generally consistent with our proposal, to the extent that promotion motivation is associated more with eager-related self-evaluation processes and prevention motivation is associated more with vigilant-related self-evaluation processes. However, although previous research has linked the promotion system to preferences for inflated self-evaluation, this research has not investigated links between the prevention system and deflated self-evaluations. In addition, previous research has not examined how inflated versus deflated self-evaluations relate to sustaining promotion versus prevention motivations, respectively. Prior research has not investigated the idea that self-evaluation may be motivated by the desire to sustain a preferred motivational orientation—both when that motivational orientation is chronic and when it is situationally induced. These questions are addressed in the present research.

We present four studies that explore the possibility that individuals may be motivated to enhance or deflate positive views of the self in the service of sustaining their chronic or situationally induced motivational concerns. In Study 1, we first tested the idea that individuals in a promotion versus prevention focus should differentially activate positive versus negative aspects of self-knowledge. Activation of positive self-knowledge indicates potential success, supporting eagerness, whereas activation of negative self-knowledge indicates potential failure, supporting vigilance. In Studies 2 and 3, we directly tested the prediction that individuals in a promotion versus prevention focus should be differentially motivated to protect and enhance the self in ongoing, but not completed, performance situations. Study 4 investigated how engaging in self-inflating or self-deflating activities directly affects the motivational persistence of individuals in a promotion versus prevention focus, respectively.