The article 'Contingencies of self-worth' differs from the section within the self-esteem article in that it provides a more balanced overview of the subject, discussing the negative side to contingent self-worth and evidence against the theory as well as outlining it.

Jan 5th: Posted first basic outline of article.

Jan 6th: Updated problems relating to contingencies.

Jan 12th: Additional information added to all sections. More than 7 contingencies and relevance of contingencies sections created. Significant edits to problems with contingencies.

Jan 15th: Minor edit to problems section. Formatted references.

Contingencies of self-worth are attributes a person believes they must possess in order to be a person of worth of value. People place differing levels of importance upon each category, which affects the extent to which their self-esteem can be affected by success or failure in each area. Crocker and Wolfe (2001) ^[1] argue that these are the basis for both general level of self-esteem and day-to-day fluctuations around this level.

What are contingencies of self-worth?

The importance of self-esteem may lie not in whether an individual has a generally high or low level but in what that person feels they need to be or do in order to be a person of value ^[1]. According to the theory, self-esteem is contingent only on these domains – a person’s view of their own value depends on perceived successes or failures in relevant areas, called contingencies of self-worth. Failure at a task in a domain unimportant to the self-concept is less likely to affect self-esteem - fluctuations in self-esteem when receiving grades are greater in college students who value the academic domain highly. They are more likely to experience low self-esteem, negative affect and a lack of identification with their chosen subject following a poor grade than students whose self-worth is not highly contingent on this area ^[2]. As self-esteem is threatened by failure in domains of contingency, if someone is unsure of success in a task relevant to a domain they may disengage from it to avoid a possible loss ^[3].

If failure does occur they may attempt to deflect the threat through defensive responses, such as students responsind to bad grades by disidentifying with their chosen subject in order to distance themselves from the failure ^[2]. An individual may hold multiple contingencies of self-worth, each to a varying level of importance. Seven domains of contingency have been identified ^[1]:

• God’s love
• Physical appearance
• Family support
• Academic competency
• Virtue
• Competition
• Others’ approval

Contingencies develop over the lifespan from social sources such as parent-child interactions ^[4]and are relatively stable. They are hierarchically organised, with a superordinate contingency such as outdoing others in competition encompassing several subordinate categories such as outdoing others through sport, academic achievement, knowledge of a subject, or raising money for charity. Contingent self-worth can explain both trait and state self-esteem – trait self-esteem is a reflection of general ability to satisfy contingencies and state self-esteem fluctuates around this level in response to individual successes or failures in these domains ^[1] . The contingencies can be measured using the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale, ^[5] a test with statements corresponding to each of the 7 domains which are responded to on a continuum of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Contingencies of self-worth as predictors of actions

There is evidence for contingencies of self-worth as predictors of actions – for example, the importance placed upon personal appearance is a predictor of grooming, shopping and socialising. Students scoring highly for virtue spend more time spent volunteering, high scores for academic achievement predict more time spent studying, high family support scores are associated with more time spent with family and those who score highly for God’s love are more likely to join spiritual organisations ^[5].

Gender and ethnic differences

Men have been found to derive more self-esteem from superiority i.e. competition, ^[6] whereas women place more importance on family support ^[6]and reflected appraisals i.e. approval from others ^[7]. This is in keeping with the view that men place greater value on success, independence, autonomy, and being better than others, whereas women are more concerned with harmony, connection with and being attuned to others and interdependence ^[6]). African-Americans have been found to be significantly less likely than European- or Asian-Americans to base their self-esteem upon the approval of others, possibly as a defence against racial prejudice ^[8]; they were also found to value God's love more than other ethnic groups ^[5].

More than seven contingencies?

In a recent study, body weight was found to be a predictor of self-esteem, stability of self-esteem, body shape anxiety and measures of psychological dysfunction such as bulimia and depression separate to the appearance contingency. This indicates that, at least for some people, body weight is a contingency of self-worth ^[9]. Further domains such as social identity, environmentalism, and power have been identified as areas from which self-esteem can be derived ^[5].Others such as parenting skill and physical health have been suggested but are yet to be tested.

Problems resulting from contingent self-worth

When self-esteem is contingent, it is strongly affected by success or failure. Success results in a pleasurable boost to self-esteem and failure in a painful drop. This can lead to maintenance or enhancement of self-esteem, as opposed to success in a particular domain, becoming the overall goal. Though contingent self-esteem can increase persistence on challenging tasks, the motivation to complete them is associated with decreased autonomy, increased stress and low [[Motivation#Intrinsic_motivation] | [intrinsic motivation] ^[10]. Therefore, contingent self-esteem may negatively affect self-regulation (the ability to regulate and control behaviour). Contingent self-worth stimulates effort in domains where success is likely but this may be at the expense of achieving goals in new areas – successful self-regulation often involves learning new skills, as well as improving on weaknesses. In addition, ^[11] people with contingent self-esteem have been shown react with more anger and hostility to an ego threat.

Physical appearance in particular has been noted as a domain which may lead to problems. Crocker and Luhtanen (2003) ^[12]suggest that it is the least healthy of the 7 domains, being highly correlated with public self-awareness, indicating that in social interaction people who place high importance on physical appearance may be overly concerned with how they appear to others. In addition, importance of physical appearance is significantly correlated with narcissism and neuroticism. In a study investigating attachment styles, an association was found between basing self-worth on physical attractiveness and ambivalent and disorganised attachments ^[13]. High academic contingency may also be problematic ^[5] – students displaying this had lower overall self-esteem and greater negative affect; additionally, the drop in self-esteem following a poor grade was greater than for those who rated academic achievement of lesser importance but the boost derived from receiving a high grade was no greater. This indicates greater vulnerability to failure and it was concluded that high academic contingency has more costs than benefits for students. Finally, greater need for others’ approval is associated with lower overall self-esteem, poorer interpersonal relationships and insecure attachment styles. ^[14]

The continued pursuit of positive self-regard seen in those with contingent self-esteem has been linked with narcissism ^[11], as there are many trait overlaps between the two. One of these is a discrepancy between explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) self-esteem - by raising their explicit self-esteem through success in a contingent domain, implicit self-esteem is not necessarily increasing.

Optimal self-esteem

Kernis (2003) makes a distinction between contingent high self-esteem and true, optimal self-esteem ^[15]. He argues that individuals possessing many of the negative characteristics often associated with high self-esteem such as self-aggrandisement and self-promotion (Baumeister, 1989, as cited in Kernis, 2003) result from the fragility of high contingent self-esteem. In contrast, those with optimal self-esteem accept themselves as imperfect, are content to be on an equal plane with others and do not need to boost their self-worth through any of the 7 domains. There is argument that stable high self-esteem is required for psychological well-being ^[16].

The relevance of contingencies

Logically, and in keeping with studies such as Crocker et al. (2003) ^[5], the effect of a domain should vary with its importance to the person; however, Marsh (1986) ^[17] found this not to be the case. Though it was found that high self-concepts were more likely in domains considered central to the individual, such as Catholics rating spirituality as more important, when weighting the domains by importance this was no better a predictor of self-esteem than when they were not weighted, indicating that areas of more importance do not contribute more to the self-concept. Though it must be noted that the domains tested were not the precise 7 contingencies proposed by the model, the idea is the same, and therefore contingencies of self-worth may not be as useful as thought in predicting self-esteem.

It is important to note that there are other theories regarding self-esteem quality such as self-compassion, stability of self-esteem and implicit and explicit self-esteem.

References