According to DoSomething.org, 7 in 10 girls believe that they are not good enough or don’t measure up in some way, whether that be with regards to their looks, performance in school, relationships with friends and family members, or something else. Additionally, 75% of girls with low self-esteem reported engaging in negative activities like cutting, bullying, smoking, drinking, or disordered eating. This compares to 25% of girls with high self-esteem. It’s clear that we are in an epidemic of sorts, caused perhaps by our culture, perhaps by social media, perhaps by society’s increasing standards for appearances, academic achievement, and even sports performance.
But I’m not here to condemn the woes of society and the negative impacts of technology. There are occasional chances for us to escape from these influences, but the reality is that the world around us is always there and is always going to affect us, for better or for worse. Rather, I’m here to present quantitatively tested findings from the field of social psychology that may help us learn how to improve our self-esteem and overall well-being in the face of these constant outside influences.
The first concept I will discuss is Jennifer Crocker’s Theory of the Contingencies of Self-Worth. This theory states that self-esteem is contingent on successes and failures in domains on which a person has based their self-worth. These “domains” can vary across people or even within one person at different periods of their life. For example, many people have domains such as academic performance, social status, attractiveness, or income level. However, every individual tends to have more specific domains as well. For example, a musician may base much of their self-worth on how well they have mastered a piece of music, or a soccer player may base much of their self-worth on how well they played in a game. Furthermore, some of us may place more value on one domain than others. For example, while some people may have academic achievement as one of their central domains, they may place more emphasis on the domain of social status.
So, what can we do with this information?
I won’t sit here and tell you to completely stop caring about how you look or how well you do in school or anything else. The truth is, it’s inevitable that we are going to care about certain things, and sometimes that’s a good thing (it usually serves you well to care about things like school). One thing you can do is expand the domains upon which you base your self-worth. People who place too much emphasis on just one or two domains tend to feel crushed when they fail, because so much of their self-esteem is contingent upon performing well in that particular domain. Meanwhile, people who spread their self-worth across many domains tend to recover from failure better because they have other domains in which they are succeeding. If you’re someone who bases most of your self-worth on your grades, a B may seem devastating, but if you had mastered a difficult piece on the guitar that same day, the B might not seem as bad. It doesn’t define you or make you a failure; there are other things you’re good at. So, how do we increase our number of domains? One way is to get involved with something new: a hobby or activity that you enjoy, and that can give you a sense of worth outside of your normal domains. However, if you already feel like you have a number of such activities, it may be enough to just list anything you would consider a “domain.” Doing so may help you realize that you do in fact have a lot of self-esteem domains already, and perhaps have been spending too much time focusing on one while neglecting others.
The next idea I will explore is attribution theory. This is the study of how people explain the causes of events. Each person has an explanatory style, or a habitual way of explaining events, that takes into account three factors: internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific. An optimistic explanatory style is one that uses external, unstable, and specific explanations for failure, while a pessimistic explanatory style is one that explains negative events in terms of internal, stable, and global causes. What does this mean exactly? Let’s say you get a bad grade on a test. Someone with an optimistic explanatory style might explain this failure by saying that the material was difficult (external), they didn’t study effectively (specific), but they can do better next time, perhaps by working harder or changing their study techniques (unstable). Meanwhile, someone with a pessimistic explanatory style might explain this failure by saying that they are not smart (internal), they are incapable of learning not just this material but all similar subjects (global), and that this isn’t going to change (stable).
So, what can we do with this information?
Take a moment to think of which explanatory style you tend to employ when something doesn’t go your way. If you often use a pessimistic explanatory style, what can you do to change it? It’s also important to note that these styles can be used when explaining positive events as well, but the pessimistic style can still be detrimental to your self-esteem even when explaining successes. If you get a good grade on your test and decide it’s because you’re really smart (internal), able to master any material (global), and that this is something that won’t change (stable), then you’re likely to not study as hard for your next exam, and perhaps subsequently not do as well. This would result in a blow to your self-esteem too since this would imply that you are not actually as smart as you thought you were. So, the next time you don’t do well at something, rather than jumping to conclusions about your own inadequacy, think about if there could be another explanation. Most likely, there is something external, specific, and unstable that could explain why you didn’t succeed. Identifying this alternative explanation can not only help protect your self-esteem, but it can also help you figure out what you may need to work on.
A final theory I will examine is self-fulfilling prophecies. This is a concept you’ve probably heard of before: it’s the idea that our expectations lead us to behave in ways that elicit the very thing we expected. If you believe you’re bad at math and will fail the upcoming math test, there’s a good chance you will. If you believe you’re socially awkward and will have trouble making friends, it probably will, in fact, be harder for you to make new friends. Why is this? It’s most likely not because you’re inherently bad at math or just don’t have the natural ability to make friends. Rather, someone who already believes they are bad at math may think they have no chance at doing well, so they study less hard or give up sooner since there is just “no point.” Similarly, someone who believes they are socially awkward will most likely become nervous in social situations because they expect that other people will not want to be friends with them. The people they interact with see their nervousness and then themselves become uncomfortable, making it less likely for them to pursue a friendship.
So what can we do with this information?
It’s definitely easier said than done to rid ourselves of these insecurities and little voices inside of our heads telling us that we’re not good enough. However, by synthesizing the various concepts discussed earlier in this article, we can learn how to view our failures and shortcomings from a different perspective, all while appreciating those areas we have succeeded in. In turn, by believing we have the capacity to succeed, we are more likely to actually do so. If you are able to integrate these techniques into your life, you can improve your self-esteem and overall well-being, subsequently accomplishing more than you ever thought you could.
Images Obtained From:
https://www.psychologies.co.uk/5-ways-embrace-happiness
http://www.jennaponamancoaching.com/is-love-the-key-to-happiness/