- Email: [email protected]
Implicit self-esteem and social anxiety: differential self-favouring effects in high and low anxious individuals
Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508 www.elsevier.com/locate/brat
Implicit self-esteem and social anxiety: differential selffavouring effects in high and low anxious individuals Peter J. de Jong Department of Medical, Clinical, & Experimental Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Accepted 2 March 2001
Abstract This study was designed to investigate the role of negative self-image in social phobia. Participants were 19 high and 19 low socially anxious women. Because self-report measures of self-esteem are sensitive to self-presentation and impression management strategies, an implicit association test (IAT) was used to assess participants’ self-esteem as well as their general evaluation of others (‘other-esteem’). Socially anxious women displayed relatively low levels of self-esteem on self-report measures. However, at the implicit level, low and high anxious women were characterised by a similar, highly positive self-image. Both groups displayed a relatively low ‘other-esteem’. Yet, this self-favouring effect was considerably weaker in high than in low anxious participants. The results provide no unequivocal support for the idea that low selfesteem plays an important role in social anxiety. Yet, rather than by low self-esteem per se, socially anxious people are characterised by a small discrepancy between esteem of self and others, and it may be this reduced tendency to self-favouring that is pivotal to social anxiety. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Social anxiety; Social phoba; Self-esteem; Self-evaluation; Implicit cognition; Self-favouring
Dysfunctional cognitive processes related to negative self-evaluations are assumed to play an important role in social phobia (Wells & Clark, 1997). In support of this, socially anxious individuals more frequently report negative self-statements and negative self-evaluative beliefs than nonfearful controls. Relatedly, social phobic individuals suffer from cognitive distortions indicating that a critical evaluation is a catastrophe in terms of total failure and loss of self-esteem processes (e.g., Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1996). Accordingly, the frightening convictions of social phobic patients can be condensed into conditional assumptions of the type: “if my performance is not E-mail address: [email protected] (P.J. de Jong).
0005-7967/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 0 5 - 7 9 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - 5
502
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
perfect, then I am an inferior person” and core assumptions concerning the self such as “I am incompetent”. To the extent that cognitions focused on negative self-evaluations play an important role in the generation and maintenance of social anxiety, one would expect relatively low levels of (trait) self-esteem in socially anxious individuals. That is, low levels of self-esteem are likely to be a diathesis for the emergence of negative self-evaluative cognitions, and with that, for the generation of social anxious concerns. Meanwhile, the repeated activation of negative self-evaluative cognitive processes will eventually result in a relatively negative self-image (e.g., Pelham & Swann, 1989). The fact that socially anxious adults (e.g., Bouvard et al., 1999), as well as children (e.g., Ginsburg, La-Greca, & Silverman, 1998), are systematically found to report relatively low levels of self-esteem can thus be considered as further support for the importance of negative selfevaluative cognitions in the context of social phobic concerns. Thus far the evidence for the relationship between social anxiety and low self-esteem is based on self-report instruments. Yet, completing questionnaires measuring self-esteem may be greatly influenced by self-presentation concerns and impression management strategies (cf. Farnham, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1999). Accordingly, Joinson (1999) demonstrated that people reported significantly higher self-esteem scores when they were assigned to an anonymous condition than to a nonanonymous condition. Being freed from presentation concerns apparently released participants from the need for false modesty. Individuals who are characterised by a fearful preoccupation with their public image, such as socially anxious people (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997), are likely to be even more affected by these types of concerns. Following this, one might even speculate that the repeatedly reported low self-esteem scores in socially anxious individuals more accurately reflect the strength of social phobics’ self-presentation concerns than their self-esteem per se. Thus for a proper evaluation of the relationship between self-esteem and social anxiety, it would be important to supplement the traditionally used self-report measures with more indirect measures that are less vulnerable to these types of demand effects. Therefore, the major aim of the present study was to test whether the relationship between social anxiety and low self-esteem would still be evident when using an implicit measure of selfesteem. To assess individuals’ implicit self-esteem we adapted the so-called implicit association test (IAT; de Jong, Pasman, Kindt, & van den Hout, 2001), that was originally designed by Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz (1998). As one might argue that it is the difference between the self-evaluation and the evaluation of other people rather than the absolute level of self-evaluation per se that is crucial in the generation of social anxious concerns (cf. Taylor & Brown, 1988), we measured both self-esteem and “other-esteem”. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (1979) and the Miskimins Self-Goal-Other Discrepancy Scale (MSGO) (Miskimins, 1968) served as explicit indices of self-esteem. The latter questionnaire was included because it provides the opportunity to compare the difference between participants’ self-evaluation and the perceived evaluations of others. Germane to this, there is some tentative evidence indicating that socially anxious individuals tend to take an “observer perspective” in social situations (Wells, Clark, & Ahmad, 1998). Therefore, it might be that social phobic individuals are typically characterised by a relatively low perceived evaluation of others rather than by low self-evaluations per se. Finally, to explore the stability of the IAT as an index of implicit self-esteem, and with that its use at the individual level (e.g., in the context of treatment induced attitude change), the present participants were tested on two occasions approximately three months apart.
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
503
1. Method 1.1. Participants Participants were 38 female undergraduate students of Maastricht University. They were selected from a larger sample (N=259) on the basis of their scores on the social phobia subscale of the FQ (Marks & Mathews, 1979). Only those who scored in the highest 10% of the distribution and those who scored in the lowest 10% of the distribution were invited for participation in return for a small financial compensation (see Table 1). 1.2. Apparatus and stimulus material 1.2.1. Implicit association task (IAT) We used two sets of two word categories. One set consisted of the category self-referent words (I, self, my, own, myself, personally) and the category other-referent words (they, their, you, other, themselves, others). The other set consisted of the category low esteem (bad, stupid, unstable, failure, passive, worthless) and the category high esteem adjectives (good, smart, stable, beloved, active, valuable). Apart from the stimulus lists, we used the same experimental set up and apparatus as were used by de Jong et al. (2001). During the IAT, participants were required to respond as fast as possible by pressing one of two keys when a word appeared on a fixed position of the computer screen. The IAT version used here consisted of four stages: (1) practice of single categorisation task for the attribute (low esteem vs. high esteem attributes); (2) practice of single categorisation task for the target concepts (self-referent words vs. other-referent); (3) critical combined categorisation task (e.g., self+low esteem; other+high esteem); (4) critical combined categorisation task with the response keys of the attributes reversed from block 1’s assignment (e.g., self+high esteem; other+low esteem). For all participants the correct key for self-referent words was always ‘1’ and for other referent words always ‘3’. Yet, for half of the participants, high esteem attributes were initially mapped on the same key as self-referent words (and low esteem attributes thus initially shared the response key with other-referent words), whereas the opposite was true for the other half of the participants. A laboratory computer controlled experimental instructions, stimulus presentation, and the recording of subjects’ responses (key and RT). In addition, participants completed the RSES and the MSGO (Miskimins, 1968). The latter self assessment questionnaire consists of three scales referring to self-concept (Self), goal self-concept (Goal), and perceptions of how others evaluate the individual (Other). Finally, as an explicit equivalent of the IAT, participants were asked to rate for each of the high and low esteem attributes that were used in the present experiment, to what extent these characteristics were applicable to themselves (on a Likert type of scale ranging from 1, not at all, to 5, very much). On a separate sheet they were asked to do the same with respect to “other people”. 1.3. Procedure Participants started with the IAT. They were informed that each word would be preceded (1 s) by 5 stars on the position where words would appear (i.e., a warning signal to focus attention).
504
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
They were instructed that it was a learning experiment and that it was their task to find out which key should be pressed (‘1’ or ‘3’) after the presentation of a certain word. Each response was immediately followed by feedback on the screen (i.e., Good Response! or Wrong Response!). In case of a wrong response there was also a warning sound generated by the computer. Inter stimulus interval was always 2 s. Participants responded by pressing ‘1’ (index finger left hand) or ‘3’ (index finger right hand) on a computer keyboard. During all stages of each task, the required response key for self-referent words and the otherreferent words (i.e., the target concepts) remained the same. In contrast, the required key for the high esteem relevant and the key for low esteem relevant adjectives (i.e., the attributes) switched during stage 4. During stages 1 and 2, each word was presented four times in a (fixed) random order. During stages 3 and 4, all words were presented two times (i.e., 12 for each category) in a fixed random order. The entire task took about 15 minutes. After they finished the IAT, they were asked to complete the MOGS, RSES, and the self-report equivalent of the implicit tests. Approximately three months later, they passed through the same procedure again. On that occasion they also completed another FQ. 2. Results 2.1. Self report 2.1.1. FQ Mean FQ scores are shown in Table 1. A 2 Group (high vs low)×2 Test (test vs retest) ANOVA revealed a main effect of Test [F(1, 36)=8.2, p⬍0.05], indicating that participants displayed sigTable 1 Descriptive variables as a function of group and test occasion Variables
Test
Re-Test
Controls Age 18.8 FQsoc 5.2 RSES 19.0 MSGO (0–100) Self view 76.6 Other’s view 75.4 Goal 88.8 Self-reported association (0–35) Self High esteem 26.7 Low esteem 10.4 Others High esteem 27.2 Low esteem 12.1
Anxious
Controls
Anxious
(1.3) (2.7) (10.6)
19.0 (1.4) 16.7 (5.4) 31.3 (10.7)
19.0 (1.4) 7.7 (4.0) 17.7 (10.7)
19.1 (1.3) 18.3 (6.8) 29.0 (11.9)
(9.9) (11.1) (5.4)
63.2 (11.9) 71.4 (8.3) 84.1 (8.9)
77.3 (11.3) 77.9 (10.5) 89.1 (4.5)
63.5 (14.2) 71.2 (11.2) 87.6 (5.2)
(4.0) (3.3)
23.2 (4.4) 12.6 (4.3)
26.5 (4.2) 9.9 (3.2)
23.3 (3.9) 12.5 (4.7)
(3.6) (3.5)
25.8 (3.4) 13.5 (4.4)
26.4 (2.9) 11.9 (3.5)
24.2 (2.8) 12.6 (3.4)
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
505
nificantly higher fear scores during the second than during the first assessment (see Table 1). This increase in fear was similar for both groups [F(1, 36)⬍1]. 2.1.2. RSES High anxious individuals reported considerably higher RSES scores (i.e. lower self-esteem) than low anxious individuals [F(1, 36)=11.8, p⬍0.01]. Overall, the RSES scores tended to be smaller during the second assessment [F(1, 36)=3.3, p=0.08]. Again, this pattern was similar for both groups [F(1, 36)⬍1]. 2.1.3. MSGO A 2 Group×2 Test×3 Scale ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group [F(1, 36)=9.97, p⬍0.01], indicating that overall the high anxious group reported somewhat lower scores (see Table 1). Most important for the current context there was a Group by Scale interaction [F(2, 35)= 4.7, p⬍0.01]. This effect was similar for both test occasions [F(2, 35)=2.0, p⬎0.15]. Subsequent ANOVAs indicated that only for the Self subscale was the difference between both groups significant [F(1, 36)=13.7, p⬍0.001]. Neither the between group difference pertaining to the Goal scale [F(1, 36)=3.1, p=0.09] nor the difference pertaining to the Other scale [F(1, 36)= 2.8, p=0.10] reached the conventional level of significance. 2.2. Explicit target–attribute associations 2.2.1. Self A 2 Group (high vs low anxious)×2 Esteem (high vs low)×2 Test (test vs re-test) ANOVA revealed a main effect of Esteem [F(1, 36)=127.95, p⬍0.05], indicating that, in general, participants considered the self-referent words more closely associated with high esteem than with low esteem related attributes (see Table 1). This positive self-view was less pronounced in the high anxious group, as was evidenced by a significant Esteem by Group interaction [F(1, 36)=5.80, p⬍0.05]. Both the main effect of Esteem and the Esteem by Group interaction were similar on both test occasions (i.e. no interaction with Test, Fs⬍1). 2.2.2. Others A 2 Group (high vs low anxious)×2 Esteem (high vs low)×2 Test (test vs. retest) ANOVA also revealed a main effect of Esteem [F(1, 36)=231.05, p⬍0.05], indicating that, in general, participants considered the other-referent words more closely associated with high esteem than with low esteem related attributes. This positive ‘other-view’ was similar for both groups [F(1, 36)=2.6, p⬎0.10], and similar for both test occasions [F(1,36)⬍1]. 2.3. Implicit association test In line with previous research (e.g., Swanson, Rudman, & Greenwald, 2001), for both target categories (i.e., ‘self’ and ‘other’) IAT indices were computed by subtracting the mean RTs on trials during which the target words shared the response button with the high esteem words, from the mean RTs on trials during which the response button of the target words shared the button with the low esteem words (thus a large IAT-index indicates that the target is relatively strongly
506
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
associated with high esteem relevant attributes). Mean IAT-indices were subjected to a 2 Reference (self vs others)×2 Group (high vs low anxious)×2 Test (test vs retest) ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Reference [F(1, 36)=29.3, p⬍0.001], indicating that participants’ self-image is generally more positive than their image of others (see Fig. 1). This ‘self-favouring’ effect was particularly pronounced for the low anxious individuals, as was evidenced by a significant Reference by Group interaction [F(1, 36)=4.45, p⬍0.05]. There was no Reference by Group by Test interaction [F(1, 36)=0.8], indicating that the relatively strong ‘selffavouring’ effect in low anxious individuals was a stable characteristic. Subsequent tests indicated that high anxious individuals displayed a significantly higher ‘other-esteem’ than low anxious individuals [F(1, 36)=9.15, p⬍0.005], whereas no differences were evident between high and low social anxious individuals with respect to their implicit self-esteem [F(1, 36)=0.5] (see also Fig. 1). Although the ANOVAs indicated that the pattern of IAT performance was quite stable, the absolute IAT indices appeared highly variable across both assessments: The Pearson p⫺m correlation for both measurements of the IAT-self was r=0.10 (p⬎0.1) and of the IAT-other r=0.19 (p⬎0.1).
3. Discussion In line with previous studies, socially anxious participants reported lower levels of self-esteem than non-anxious participants. However, although high anxious individuals reported having a low self-esteem, the self-reported other’s view of themselves (i.e., MSGO-other) was very similar for high and low socially anxious individuals. Thus the present results provided no evidence to indicate that socially anxious individuals are typically characterised by a relatively negative perceived
Fig. 1. Mean indices of implicit self-esteem and ‘other-esteem’ for high and low socially anxious participants averaged over both test occasions.
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
507
evaluation of others. In addition, no evidence emerged to suggest that social anxiety is related to relatively high self-standards. Although the self-report data support the idea that negative self-evaluation per se is a major feature of social anxiety, the IAT-data clearly revealed that high and low socially anxious individuals are characterised by a very similar, positive self-esteem. That is, irrespective of their level of social anxiety, participants were systematically faster in responding on target trials when selfreferent target words shared the response key with high esteem related attributes, than when selfreferent target words shared the key with low esteem related attributes. Thus the present findings provide no unequivocal support for the idea that a negative self-evaluation plays an important role in social anxiety, and add to the suggestion that the low self-reported self-esteem in high anxious individuals more accurately reflects the strength of their self-presentation concerns than their self-esteem per se (cf. Joinson, 1999). More generally, the present discordance between explicit and implicit self-esteem underlines the importance of supplementing the traditionally used self-report measures with indirect measures of self-evaluation that are more robust to impression management strategies. The present study not only showed that participants responded relatively fast when self-referent target words shared the response key with positive attributes, it also indicated that the reverse was true with respect to other-referent target trials. In other words, participants were characterised by a relatively high (implicit) self-esteem in combination with a low (implicit) ‘other-esteem’. Thus, the present participants displayed a rather unbalanced pattern of implicit self versus implicit other appreciations, strongly in favour of themselves. Similar ‘self-positivity’ and ‘optimistic’ biases have been documented in other domains as well (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Most important for the current context, the absence of optimistic/positive biases, as well as the presence of pessimistic/negative biases have been shown to be associated with psychological complaints such as depressive symptoms (e.g., Vazquez, 1987). The present finding that the self-favouring effect was significantly weaker in the high anxious group, fits into the view that the presence of positive illusions are essential for mental health (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Accordingly one may speculate that the relatively strong self-favouring effect in non-anxious individuals acts in a way to protect them from the generation of concerns related to rejection and social exclusion, whereas the absence of such a self-favouring effect may facilitate the emergence of fear of negative evaluation. Finally, some remarks are in order with respect to the methodological merits of the IAT as an index of (implicit) self-esteem. First, replicating previous research (Farnham, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1999), the present pattern of results convincingly showed that the present paradigm can differentiate between positive and negative self-evaluations. In addition, the results indicate that the present paradigm also allows differentiation between self- and other-related attitudes, and is sensitive to between-group differences. The fact that, by and large, similar results emerged during both test occasions, further added to the evidence that the IAT-performance is a useful index of (implicit) self-esteem (Farnham et al., 1999). Recent data indicating that implicit and explicit indices of self-esteem have differential predictive power concerning respectively automatic and strategic social behaviours (Spalding & Hardin, 1999), underlines the importance of distinguishing between implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem. Finally, although the overall pattern of IAT-performance was quite stable, the low test–retest correlations of both IAT indices, cast doubt on their use for individual assessment in clinical practice. In sum, the present results clearly showed that low, as well as high socially anxious individuals
508
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
have a high (implicit) self-esteem. This result casts doubt on the idea that negative self-evaluations per se are an important feature of social anxiety. Yet, as the present study showed that socially anxious individuals are characterised by a relatively positive image of others, it might well be that it is the reduced tendency to self-favouring that is pivotal to social anxiety. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Bert Hoekzema for his useful suggestions and his technical assistance during the preparation of the present experiment, Nathalie Bougie and Annie Raven for their assistance during data acquisition and Hermien Elgersma, Marcel van den Hout, and Peter Muris for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. References Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. L. (1996). Cognitive therapy for the evaluation anxieties. In C. G. Lindemann, Handbook of the treatment of the anxiety disorders (pp. 235–260). Northvale: Aronson. Bouvard, M., Guerin, J., Rion, A. C., Bouchard, C., Ducottet, E., Sechaud, M., Mollard, E., Grillet, P., & Cottraux, J. (1999). Psychometric study of the social self-esteem inventory of Lawson et al. (1979). European Review of Applied Psychology, 49, 165–172. De Jong, P. J., Pasman, W., Kindt, M., & van den Hout, M. A. (2001). A reaction time paradigm to assess complaintspecific (implicit) dysfunctional beliefs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 101–113. Farnham, S. D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1999). Implicit self-esteem. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg, Social identity and social cognition (pp. 230–248). Bodmin: M.P.G. Books Ltd. Ginsburg, G. S., La-Greca, A. M., & Silverman, W. K. (1998). Social anxiety in children with anxiety disorders: relation with social and emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 175–185. Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 439–445. Marks, I., & Mathews, A. M. (1979). Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 263–267. Miskimins, R. W. (1968). Manual: MSGO discrepancy scale. Fort Collins, CO: RMBSI, Inc. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: on the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672–680. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive–behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741–756. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Spalding, L. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1999). Unconscious unease and self-handicapping: Behavioral consequences of individual differences in implicit and explicit self-esteem. Psychological Science, 10, 535–539. Swanson, J. E., Rudman, L. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). Using the implicit association test to investigate attitude– behaviour consistency for stigmatized behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 207–230. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Vazquez, C. (1987). Judgment of contingency: cognitive biases in depressed and nondepressed subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 419–431. Wells, A., & Clark, D. M. (1997). Social phobia: a cognitive approach. In G. C. L. Davey, Phobias — a handbook of theory, research and treatment (pp. 3–26). Chichester: John Wiley. Wells, A., Clark, D. M., & Ahmad, S. (1998). How do I look with my mind’s eye: perspective taking in social phobic imagery. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 631–634.
Implicit self-esteem and social anxiety: differential selffavouring effects in high and low anxious individuals Peter J. de Jong Department of Medical, Clinical, & Experimental Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Accepted 2 March 2001
Abstract This study was designed to investigate the role of negative self-image in social phobia. Participants were 19 high and 19 low socially anxious women. Because self-report measures of self-esteem are sensitive to self-presentation and impression management strategies, an implicit association test (IAT) was used to assess participants’ self-esteem as well as their general evaluation of others (‘other-esteem’). Socially anxious women displayed relatively low levels of self-esteem on self-report measures. However, at the implicit level, low and high anxious women were characterised by a similar, highly positive self-image. Both groups displayed a relatively low ‘other-esteem’. Yet, this self-favouring effect was considerably weaker in high than in low anxious participants. The results provide no unequivocal support for the idea that low selfesteem plays an important role in social anxiety. Yet, rather than by low self-esteem per se, socially anxious people are characterised by a small discrepancy between esteem of self and others, and it may be this reduced tendency to self-favouring that is pivotal to social anxiety. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Social anxiety; Social phoba; Self-esteem; Self-evaluation; Implicit cognition; Self-favouring
Dysfunctional cognitive processes related to negative self-evaluations are assumed to play an important role in social phobia (Wells & Clark, 1997). In support of this, socially anxious individuals more frequently report negative self-statements and negative self-evaluative beliefs than nonfearful controls. Relatedly, social phobic individuals suffer from cognitive distortions indicating that a critical evaluation is a catastrophe in terms of total failure and loss of self-esteem processes (e.g., Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1996). Accordingly, the frightening convictions of social phobic patients can be condensed into conditional assumptions of the type: “if my performance is not E-mail address: [email protected] (P.J. de Jong).
0005-7967/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 0 5 - 7 9 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - 5
502
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
perfect, then I am an inferior person” and core assumptions concerning the self such as “I am incompetent”. To the extent that cognitions focused on negative self-evaluations play an important role in the generation and maintenance of social anxiety, one would expect relatively low levels of (trait) self-esteem in socially anxious individuals. That is, low levels of self-esteem are likely to be a diathesis for the emergence of negative self-evaluative cognitions, and with that, for the generation of social anxious concerns. Meanwhile, the repeated activation of negative self-evaluative cognitive processes will eventually result in a relatively negative self-image (e.g., Pelham & Swann, 1989). The fact that socially anxious adults (e.g., Bouvard et al., 1999), as well as children (e.g., Ginsburg, La-Greca, & Silverman, 1998), are systematically found to report relatively low levels of self-esteem can thus be considered as further support for the importance of negative selfevaluative cognitions in the context of social phobic concerns. Thus far the evidence for the relationship between social anxiety and low self-esteem is based on self-report instruments. Yet, completing questionnaires measuring self-esteem may be greatly influenced by self-presentation concerns and impression management strategies (cf. Farnham, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1999). Accordingly, Joinson (1999) demonstrated that people reported significantly higher self-esteem scores when they were assigned to an anonymous condition than to a nonanonymous condition. Being freed from presentation concerns apparently released participants from the need for false modesty. Individuals who are characterised by a fearful preoccupation with their public image, such as socially anxious people (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997), are likely to be even more affected by these types of concerns. Following this, one might even speculate that the repeatedly reported low self-esteem scores in socially anxious individuals more accurately reflect the strength of social phobics’ self-presentation concerns than their self-esteem per se. Thus for a proper evaluation of the relationship between self-esteem and social anxiety, it would be important to supplement the traditionally used self-report measures with more indirect measures that are less vulnerable to these types of demand effects. Therefore, the major aim of the present study was to test whether the relationship between social anxiety and low self-esteem would still be evident when using an implicit measure of selfesteem. To assess individuals’ implicit self-esteem we adapted the so-called implicit association test (IAT; de Jong, Pasman, Kindt, & van den Hout, 2001), that was originally designed by Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz (1998). As one might argue that it is the difference between the self-evaluation and the evaluation of other people rather than the absolute level of self-evaluation per se that is crucial in the generation of social anxious concerns (cf. Taylor & Brown, 1988), we measured both self-esteem and “other-esteem”. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (1979) and the Miskimins Self-Goal-Other Discrepancy Scale (MSGO) (Miskimins, 1968) served as explicit indices of self-esteem. The latter questionnaire was included because it provides the opportunity to compare the difference between participants’ self-evaluation and the perceived evaluations of others. Germane to this, there is some tentative evidence indicating that socially anxious individuals tend to take an “observer perspective” in social situations (Wells, Clark, & Ahmad, 1998). Therefore, it might be that social phobic individuals are typically characterised by a relatively low perceived evaluation of others rather than by low self-evaluations per se. Finally, to explore the stability of the IAT as an index of implicit self-esteem, and with that its use at the individual level (e.g., in the context of treatment induced attitude change), the present participants were tested on two occasions approximately three months apart.
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
503
1. Method 1.1. Participants Participants were 38 female undergraduate students of Maastricht University. They were selected from a larger sample (N=259) on the basis of their scores on the social phobia subscale of the FQ (Marks & Mathews, 1979). Only those who scored in the highest 10% of the distribution and those who scored in the lowest 10% of the distribution were invited for participation in return for a small financial compensation (see Table 1). 1.2. Apparatus and stimulus material 1.2.1. Implicit association task (IAT) We used two sets of two word categories. One set consisted of the category self-referent words (I, self, my, own, myself, personally) and the category other-referent words (they, their, you, other, themselves, others). The other set consisted of the category low esteem (bad, stupid, unstable, failure, passive, worthless) and the category high esteem adjectives (good, smart, stable, beloved, active, valuable). Apart from the stimulus lists, we used the same experimental set up and apparatus as were used by de Jong et al. (2001). During the IAT, participants were required to respond as fast as possible by pressing one of two keys when a word appeared on a fixed position of the computer screen. The IAT version used here consisted of four stages: (1) practice of single categorisation task for the attribute (low esteem vs. high esteem attributes); (2) practice of single categorisation task for the target concepts (self-referent words vs. other-referent); (3) critical combined categorisation task (e.g., self+low esteem; other+high esteem); (4) critical combined categorisation task with the response keys of the attributes reversed from block 1’s assignment (e.g., self+high esteem; other+low esteem). For all participants the correct key for self-referent words was always ‘1’ and for other referent words always ‘3’. Yet, for half of the participants, high esteem attributes were initially mapped on the same key as self-referent words (and low esteem attributes thus initially shared the response key with other-referent words), whereas the opposite was true for the other half of the participants. A laboratory computer controlled experimental instructions, stimulus presentation, and the recording of subjects’ responses (key and RT). In addition, participants completed the RSES and the MSGO (Miskimins, 1968). The latter self assessment questionnaire consists of three scales referring to self-concept (Self), goal self-concept (Goal), and perceptions of how others evaluate the individual (Other). Finally, as an explicit equivalent of the IAT, participants were asked to rate for each of the high and low esteem attributes that were used in the present experiment, to what extent these characteristics were applicable to themselves (on a Likert type of scale ranging from 1, not at all, to 5, very much). On a separate sheet they were asked to do the same with respect to “other people”. 1.3. Procedure Participants started with the IAT. They were informed that each word would be preceded (1 s) by 5 stars on the position where words would appear (i.e., a warning signal to focus attention).
504
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
They were instructed that it was a learning experiment and that it was their task to find out which key should be pressed (‘1’ or ‘3’) after the presentation of a certain word. Each response was immediately followed by feedback on the screen (i.e., Good Response! or Wrong Response!). In case of a wrong response there was also a warning sound generated by the computer. Inter stimulus interval was always 2 s. Participants responded by pressing ‘1’ (index finger left hand) or ‘3’ (index finger right hand) on a computer keyboard. During all stages of each task, the required response key for self-referent words and the otherreferent words (i.e., the target concepts) remained the same. In contrast, the required key for the high esteem relevant and the key for low esteem relevant adjectives (i.e., the attributes) switched during stage 4. During stages 1 and 2, each word was presented four times in a (fixed) random order. During stages 3 and 4, all words were presented two times (i.e., 12 for each category) in a fixed random order. The entire task took about 15 minutes. After they finished the IAT, they were asked to complete the MOGS, RSES, and the self-report equivalent of the implicit tests. Approximately three months later, they passed through the same procedure again. On that occasion they also completed another FQ. 2. Results 2.1. Self report 2.1.1. FQ Mean FQ scores are shown in Table 1. A 2 Group (high vs low)×2 Test (test vs retest) ANOVA revealed a main effect of Test [F(1, 36)=8.2, p⬍0.05], indicating that participants displayed sigTable 1 Descriptive variables as a function of group and test occasion Variables
Test
Re-Test
Controls Age 18.8 FQsoc 5.2 RSES 19.0 MSGO (0–100) Self view 76.6 Other’s view 75.4 Goal 88.8 Self-reported association (0–35) Self High esteem 26.7 Low esteem 10.4 Others High esteem 27.2 Low esteem 12.1
Anxious
Controls
Anxious
(1.3) (2.7) (10.6)
19.0 (1.4) 16.7 (5.4) 31.3 (10.7)
19.0 (1.4) 7.7 (4.0) 17.7 (10.7)
19.1 (1.3) 18.3 (6.8) 29.0 (11.9)
(9.9) (11.1) (5.4)
63.2 (11.9) 71.4 (8.3) 84.1 (8.9)
77.3 (11.3) 77.9 (10.5) 89.1 (4.5)
63.5 (14.2) 71.2 (11.2) 87.6 (5.2)
(4.0) (3.3)
23.2 (4.4) 12.6 (4.3)
26.5 (4.2) 9.9 (3.2)
23.3 (3.9) 12.5 (4.7)
(3.6) (3.5)
25.8 (3.4) 13.5 (4.4)
26.4 (2.9) 11.9 (3.5)
24.2 (2.8) 12.6 (3.4)
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
505
nificantly higher fear scores during the second than during the first assessment (see Table 1). This increase in fear was similar for both groups [F(1, 36)⬍1]. 2.1.2. RSES High anxious individuals reported considerably higher RSES scores (i.e. lower self-esteem) than low anxious individuals [F(1, 36)=11.8, p⬍0.01]. Overall, the RSES scores tended to be smaller during the second assessment [F(1, 36)=3.3, p=0.08]. Again, this pattern was similar for both groups [F(1, 36)⬍1]. 2.1.3. MSGO A 2 Group×2 Test×3 Scale ANOVA revealed a main effect of Group [F(1, 36)=9.97, p⬍0.01], indicating that overall the high anxious group reported somewhat lower scores (see Table 1). Most important for the current context there was a Group by Scale interaction [F(2, 35)= 4.7, p⬍0.01]. This effect was similar for both test occasions [F(2, 35)=2.0, p⬎0.15]. Subsequent ANOVAs indicated that only for the Self subscale was the difference between both groups significant [F(1, 36)=13.7, p⬍0.001]. Neither the between group difference pertaining to the Goal scale [F(1, 36)=3.1, p=0.09] nor the difference pertaining to the Other scale [F(1, 36)= 2.8, p=0.10] reached the conventional level of significance. 2.2. Explicit target–attribute associations 2.2.1. Self A 2 Group (high vs low anxious)×2 Esteem (high vs low)×2 Test (test vs re-test) ANOVA revealed a main effect of Esteem [F(1, 36)=127.95, p⬍0.05], indicating that, in general, participants considered the self-referent words more closely associated with high esteem than with low esteem related attributes (see Table 1). This positive self-view was less pronounced in the high anxious group, as was evidenced by a significant Esteem by Group interaction [F(1, 36)=5.80, p⬍0.05]. Both the main effect of Esteem and the Esteem by Group interaction were similar on both test occasions (i.e. no interaction with Test, Fs⬍1). 2.2.2. Others A 2 Group (high vs low anxious)×2 Esteem (high vs low)×2 Test (test vs. retest) ANOVA also revealed a main effect of Esteem [F(1, 36)=231.05, p⬍0.05], indicating that, in general, participants considered the other-referent words more closely associated with high esteem than with low esteem related attributes. This positive ‘other-view’ was similar for both groups [F(1, 36)=2.6, p⬎0.10], and similar for both test occasions [F(1,36)⬍1]. 2.3. Implicit association test In line with previous research (e.g., Swanson, Rudman, & Greenwald, 2001), for both target categories (i.e., ‘self’ and ‘other’) IAT indices were computed by subtracting the mean RTs on trials during which the target words shared the response button with the high esteem words, from the mean RTs on trials during which the response button of the target words shared the button with the low esteem words (thus a large IAT-index indicates that the target is relatively strongly
506
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
associated with high esteem relevant attributes). Mean IAT-indices were subjected to a 2 Reference (self vs others)×2 Group (high vs low anxious)×2 Test (test vs retest) ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Reference [F(1, 36)=29.3, p⬍0.001], indicating that participants’ self-image is generally more positive than their image of others (see Fig. 1). This ‘self-favouring’ effect was particularly pronounced for the low anxious individuals, as was evidenced by a significant Reference by Group interaction [F(1, 36)=4.45, p⬍0.05]. There was no Reference by Group by Test interaction [F(1, 36)=0.8], indicating that the relatively strong ‘selffavouring’ effect in low anxious individuals was a stable characteristic. Subsequent tests indicated that high anxious individuals displayed a significantly higher ‘other-esteem’ than low anxious individuals [F(1, 36)=9.15, p⬍0.005], whereas no differences were evident between high and low social anxious individuals with respect to their implicit self-esteem [F(1, 36)=0.5] (see also Fig. 1). Although the ANOVAs indicated that the pattern of IAT performance was quite stable, the absolute IAT indices appeared highly variable across both assessments: The Pearson p⫺m correlation for both measurements of the IAT-self was r=0.10 (p⬎0.1) and of the IAT-other r=0.19 (p⬎0.1).
3. Discussion In line with previous studies, socially anxious participants reported lower levels of self-esteem than non-anxious participants. However, although high anxious individuals reported having a low self-esteem, the self-reported other’s view of themselves (i.e., MSGO-other) was very similar for high and low socially anxious individuals. Thus the present results provided no evidence to indicate that socially anxious individuals are typically characterised by a relatively negative perceived
Fig. 1. Mean indices of implicit self-esteem and ‘other-esteem’ for high and low socially anxious participants averaged over both test occasions.
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
507
evaluation of others. In addition, no evidence emerged to suggest that social anxiety is related to relatively high self-standards. Although the self-report data support the idea that negative self-evaluation per se is a major feature of social anxiety, the IAT-data clearly revealed that high and low socially anxious individuals are characterised by a very similar, positive self-esteem. That is, irrespective of their level of social anxiety, participants were systematically faster in responding on target trials when selfreferent target words shared the response key with high esteem related attributes, than when selfreferent target words shared the key with low esteem related attributes. Thus the present findings provide no unequivocal support for the idea that a negative self-evaluation plays an important role in social anxiety, and add to the suggestion that the low self-reported self-esteem in high anxious individuals more accurately reflects the strength of their self-presentation concerns than their self-esteem per se (cf. Joinson, 1999). More generally, the present discordance between explicit and implicit self-esteem underlines the importance of supplementing the traditionally used self-report measures with indirect measures of self-evaluation that are more robust to impression management strategies. The present study not only showed that participants responded relatively fast when self-referent target words shared the response key with positive attributes, it also indicated that the reverse was true with respect to other-referent target trials. In other words, participants were characterised by a relatively high (implicit) self-esteem in combination with a low (implicit) ‘other-esteem’. Thus, the present participants displayed a rather unbalanced pattern of implicit self versus implicit other appreciations, strongly in favour of themselves. Similar ‘self-positivity’ and ‘optimistic’ biases have been documented in other domains as well (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Most important for the current context, the absence of optimistic/positive biases, as well as the presence of pessimistic/negative biases have been shown to be associated with psychological complaints such as depressive symptoms (e.g., Vazquez, 1987). The present finding that the self-favouring effect was significantly weaker in the high anxious group, fits into the view that the presence of positive illusions are essential for mental health (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Accordingly one may speculate that the relatively strong self-favouring effect in non-anxious individuals acts in a way to protect them from the generation of concerns related to rejection and social exclusion, whereas the absence of such a self-favouring effect may facilitate the emergence of fear of negative evaluation. Finally, some remarks are in order with respect to the methodological merits of the IAT as an index of (implicit) self-esteem. First, replicating previous research (Farnham, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1999), the present pattern of results convincingly showed that the present paradigm can differentiate between positive and negative self-evaluations. In addition, the results indicate that the present paradigm also allows differentiation between self- and other-related attitudes, and is sensitive to between-group differences. The fact that, by and large, similar results emerged during both test occasions, further added to the evidence that the IAT-performance is a useful index of (implicit) self-esteem (Farnham et al., 1999). Recent data indicating that implicit and explicit indices of self-esteem have differential predictive power concerning respectively automatic and strategic social behaviours (Spalding & Hardin, 1999), underlines the importance of distinguishing between implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem. Finally, although the overall pattern of IAT-performance was quite stable, the low test–retest correlations of both IAT indices, cast doubt on their use for individual assessment in clinical practice. In sum, the present results clearly showed that low, as well as high socially anxious individuals
508
P.J. de Jong / Behaviour Research and Therapy 40 (2002) 501–508
have a high (implicit) self-esteem. This result casts doubt on the idea that negative self-evaluations per se are an important feature of social anxiety. Yet, as the present study showed that socially anxious individuals are characterised by a relatively positive image of others, it might well be that it is the reduced tendency to self-favouring that is pivotal to social anxiety. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Bert Hoekzema for his useful suggestions and his technical assistance during the preparation of the present experiment, Nathalie Bougie and Annie Raven for their assistance during data acquisition and Hermien Elgersma, Marcel van den Hout, and Peter Muris for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. References Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. L. (1996). Cognitive therapy for the evaluation anxieties. In C. G. Lindemann, Handbook of the treatment of the anxiety disorders (pp. 235–260). Northvale: Aronson. Bouvard, M., Guerin, J., Rion, A. C., Bouchard, C., Ducottet, E., Sechaud, M., Mollard, E., Grillet, P., & Cottraux, J. (1999). Psychometric study of the social self-esteem inventory of Lawson et al. (1979). European Review of Applied Psychology, 49, 165–172. De Jong, P. J., Pasman, W., Kindt, M., & van den Hout, M. A. (2001). A reaction time paradigm to assess complaintspecific (implicit) dysfunctional beliefs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 101–113. Farnham, S. D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1999). Implicit self-esteem. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg, Social identity and social cognition (pp. 230–248). Bodmin: M.P.G. Books Ltd. Ginsburg, G. S., La-Greca, A. M., & Silverman, W. K. (1998). Social anxiety in children with anxiety disorders: relation with social and emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 175–185. Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 439–445. Marks, I., & Mathews, A. M. (1979). Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 263–267. Miskimins, R. W. (1968). Manual: MSGO discrepancy scale. Fort Collins, CO: RMBSI, Inc. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: on the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672–680. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive–behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741–756. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Spalding, L. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1999). Unconscious unease and self-handicapping: Behavioral consequences of individual differences in implicit and explicit self-esteem. Psychological Science, 10, 535–539. Swanson, J. E., Rudman, L. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). Using the implicit association test to investigate attitude– behaviour consistency for stigmatized behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 207–230. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Vazquez, C. (1987). Judgment of contingency: cognitive biases in depressed and nondepressed subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 419–431. Wells, A., & Clark, D. M. (1997). Social phobia: a cognitive approach. In G. C. L. Davey, Phobias — a handbook of theory, research and treatment (pp. 3–26). Chichester: John Wiley. Wells, A., Clark, D. M., & Ahmad, S. (1998). How do I look with my mind’s eye: perspective taking in social phobic imagery. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 631–634.