Discrepancies Between Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem: Measurement Issues and Relations to Health and Defensiveness

Content Provider	Semantic Scholar
Author	Schröder-Abé, Michela
Copyright Year	2007
Abstract	Self-esteem has been traditionally measured by self -report (explicit self-esteem: ESE). However, the limitations of self-report have prompt ed efforts to index self-esteem using more indirect measures (implicit self-esteem: ISE). In addition, it has been theorized that ISE and ESE reflect the operation of largely distin ct mental systems. Indeed, low correlations between indices of ISE and ESE support their divergent validity; however, similar correlations between indices of ISE fail to support their convergent validity. We explored whether such patterns would re-emerge if n wer, more specific, and more reliable measures of ISE were used. In general, they did, al though convergent validity among measures of ISE emerged once confounds due to conce ptual mismatch, individual differences, and random variability were minimized. Our findings suggest low correlations among measures of ISE are not due to the usual psyc hometric suspects, but to other factors that may include subtle aspects of their underlying structure. Indirect measures of self-esteem 38 To investigate people’s attitude towards themselves —their self-esteem—psychologists have traditionally relied on self-report (Blascovic h & Tomaka, 1991; Rosenberg, 1965). Fortunately, when reporting their self-esteem, peop le are reasonably knowledgeable about themselves, honest with themselves, and honest with others. Nonetheless, people sometimes lack self-insight ( “How do I feel about myself really?”; Wilson, 2002), deceive others ( “I really think I’m useless, but I better pretend to be great!”; Schlenker & Leary, 1982), or deceive themselves (“I’m great—even if ev eryone hates me!”; Paulhus, Fridhandler, & Hayes, 1997). Hence, self-reports of sel -esteem, though tolerably valid, still contain some systematic error. One way to curtail such error is to employ indirect measures of self-esteem (Greenwald & Farnham, 2000) that specifically seek to infer people’s attitude towards themselves from their reactions to stimuli represen ting the self (e.g., first and last names, first-personal pronouns), typically under condition s where people are either unaware of, or lack control over, the measurement process (e.g., R udolph, Schröder, & Schütz, 2006). Consider unawareness: the initials preference task (IPT; Koole & Pelham, 2003; Nuttin, 1985), for example, requires respondents to rate al l letters of the alphabet for likeability, whereupon people typically exhibit an unknowing pre fe nce for their initials. 1 Or consider uncontrollability: the Implicit Association Test (IAT ; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) requires respondents to co-classify self-rela ted nd self-unrelated stimuli alongside positive and negative stimuli, whereupon people typ ically find the task more difficult with categories configured one way (e.g., Self with Bad, Non-Self with Good) rather than another (e.g., Self with Good, Non-Self with Bad). What indirect measures assess is often termed implicit self-esteem (ISE), in contrast to what self-report measures assess, namely explicit self-esteem (ESE). The properties of ISE have been presumed to refl ect properties of the indirect measures used to assess it (e.g., I SE is unconscious and automatic; Greenwald & Farnham, 2000). Nonetheless, it remains controversial whether indirect measures operate via wholly implicit process (for a discussion, see De Houwer & Moors, 2007). Recent empirical research has addressed basic psyc hometric issues, such as whether different measures of ESE and ISE correlate , and whether different measures of ISE intercorrelate (Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 20 00). Here, two consistent patterns have emerged, one reassuring, the other more troubl ing. The first pattern suggests divergent validity: ISE and ESE typically show low positive correlations. Although Indirect measures of self-esteem 39 moderators of correlation magnitude have been ident ifi d (e.g., Pelham, Koole, Hardin, Hetts, Seah, & De Hart, 2005; Riketta, 2005), the g eneral pattern is consistent with the existence of two distinct underlying constructs. Th e second pattern, however, suggests a lack of convergent validity : different measures of ISE typically fail to intercorrelate highly. If valid, this pattern implies one of two things: e ith r (a) ISE exists and is heterogeneous; or (b) ISE does not even exist. The matter remains unresolved. However, most measures of ISE do converge insofar as they register a pronounced ave rage self-positivity bias (e.g., Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; Gregg & Sedikides, 2007; Nosek, 2007). In addition, such measures exhibit meaningful antecedents and consequ ences (for an overview see Koole & DeHart, 2007; for self-esteem discrepancies see Sch röder-Abé, Rudolph, & Schütz, 2007). Hence, there are some reasons to believe (a) over ( b). However, an even gloomier possibility exists: both patterns could be artifacts of measurement error. Measures of ISE have a reputatio n for unreliability (Bosson et al., 2000). Such unreliability could obscure latent corr elations, and falsely suggest that ESE and ISE diverge when they do not, or that different indices of ISE do not converge when they do. In this paper, we reconsider the issue of the conv ergent and divergent validity of ISE. In particular, we investigate whether and to w hat extent (a) the reliability and sensitivity of different measures of ISE, and (b) t he conceptual correspondence between what different measures of ISE assess, moderate the relationship between measures of ISE and ESE, and between measures of ISE. We then attem pt to formulate concrete and constructive recommendations for future research, a nd make some empirically informed theoretical interpretations. Some years ago, one study concluded that the IAT an d the IPT were the most reliable and valid measures of ISE available (Bosso n et al., 2000). Since then, however, indirect measures have proliferated. In particular, th ee new measures have emerged which—unlike the IAT—permit associations toward an object to be assessed in isolation: the Single-Category (Target) IAT 2 (SC-IAT; Karpinski & Steinman, 2006; ST-IAT; Wigboldus, Holland, & van Knippenberg, 2005), the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST; De Houwer, 2003), and the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001). These new measures are of interest because t hey enable self-related evaluations independently of other-related evaluations (see Pin ter & Greenwald, 2005), with potentially positive implications for their constru ct validity and potential to intercorrelate. Indirect measures of self-esteem 40 In addition, due to acknowledged problems concernin g the effect size and reliability of the EAST, an improved variant of the EAST, namely the Id ntification EAST (ID-EAST), has been devised (De Houwer & De Bruycker, 2007). Furth ermore, the present authors have devised a potentially more reliable version of the IPT, namely the Duplicate IPT (D-IPT). To update the literature, we conducted three studie s to compare and contrast the older IAT and IPT with the newer SC-IAT, EAST, ID-EAST, GNAT, and D-IPT as putative indices of ISE. In addition to using new measures of ISE, w e also applied more recently developed algorithms (e.g., D-index; Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003) to maximi ze validity, and employed standardized indices of internal consisten cy (based on equivalent split-halves, and incorporating Spearman-Brown adjustments). STUDY 1 In our first study, we evaluated three different me asures of ISE: an IPT, an EAST, and an IAT. We quantified their internal consistenc y, their test-retest stability one-week apart, their intercorrelations, and their correlati ons with ESE. Method Participants and Procedure A total of 102 students (80 female; MAGE = 22.7) participated. 3 They began by providing basic demographic data and by generating an ID code that contained their first and last initials. Next, they completed three measu res of ISE in a fixed order: an IPT, an IAT, and an EAST. Finally, participants completed a measure of ESE. They were then dismissed, but returned exactly one week later to r ed the three measures of ISE. Measures of ISE and ESE IPT. As described by Bosson et al. (2000), participant s ra ed each letter of the alphabet on a scale ranging from 1 ( I dislike this letter very much ) to 7 (I like this letter very much). To derive an initials preference index that cont r lled for general letter popularity and personal rating tendencies, we follo wed the guidelines described by Koole, Dijksterhuis, and van Knippenberg (2001). Split-hal f estimates of internal consistency were derived from correlating ratings for first and last initials. IAT. The IAT conformed to the canonical five-block str ucture and procedure (see Appendix; Greenwald & Farnham, 2000). Critical bloc k order was kept constant to reduce method variance. The IAT index was computed using t he scoring algorithm (the D-index) recommended by Greenwald et al. (2003). Higher scor es reflect an automatic preference for Self over NonSelf . The IAT’s internal consistency was based on a spl it-ha f correlation, Indirect measures of self-esteem 41 the split-halves being derived from alternating pai rs of trials in the compatible and incompatible blocks. This served to ensure (a) that bo h halves were maximally comparable and (b) that attribute and target trials were equivalently represented in each half. EAST. The EAST featured the same general structure and response options as described by De Houwer (2003). Analogous to the IAT , the EAST index was computed using the D-index. Higher scores reflect an automatic preferen ce for Self specifically. Internal consistency was derived on the basis of a split-half estimation like the above. ESE. The total score from the 32-item Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale ( MSES; Schütz & Sellin, 2006) served as our index of ESE. Each item featured a seven-point scale with one of two types of endpoints (1 = Not at All to 7 = Very Much; 1 = N
File Format	PDF HTM / HTML
Alternate Webpage(s)	http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/5531/data/Dissertation_Schroeder-Abe.pdf
Language	English
Access Restriction	Open
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article