46
Self-Esteem and Close Relationship Dynamics
It can be easy to lose sight of the relevance of close relationships to self-esteem. After all, thinking about oneself seems one of the most private, self-contained things one can do. The key to appreciating the influence of close relationships on self-esteem, and vice versa, is to recognize that self-esteem dynamics are virtually always, at some deep level, tied in with relationship dynamics—even when the connection may not be conscious or apparent. I will start with a brief overview of some of the ways in which relationships influence self-esteem, both developmentally and in the here-and-now, and then examine the reverse influence, of self-esteem on relationships. I will conclude by noting that because interpersonal dynamics may become “internalized,” they may no longer be immediately apparent to casual inspection or theorizing. Fortunately, social cognitive methods can be applied to reveal the ongoing links between self-esteem and significant relationships.
The Influence of Relationships on Self-Esteem
Let us begin by considering a broad definition of close relationships, as “ongoing patterns of interactions that involve affectively strong bonds between individuals and considerable interdependence, such as romantic and marital relationships, friendships, and parent-child relationships” (Aron, 2003, p. 442). In short, these are the important relationships in our lives in which we typically have abundant exposure to the other person, often involving the expression of many of our most personal characteristics, thoughts, emotions, and so on. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that our confident sense of who we are is predicated on the “shared reality” (Hardin & Higgins, 1996; Mead, 1934) that emerges from interactions with others, particularly with these people who know us the most deeply, and with whom we negotiate our sense of identity in the give and take of day-to-day interaction. As a result, most of the factors that can be identified as playing a role in self-esteem are at their most intense in the context of close relationships, whether one speaks of assessments of one’s social acceptability, comparison to others, or satisfaction of basic social needs. Research supports this observation, generally finding a significant moderate correlation between people’s self-esteem and the quality, nature, and stability of their relationships, whether with family and friends (e.g., Voss, Markiewicz, & Doyle, 1999), with parents (e.g., Harter, 1999) or with romantic partners (e.g., Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988).
Self-esteem feelings arise from a host of evaluative procedures and expectations, and these are for the most part learned and then maintained in the context of close relationships. This principle is perhaps easiest to see in the parent-child context, where the initial outline of the self-attitude is etched by the dynamics of the primary relationship (see, e.g., Moretti & Higgins, 1999, for a detailed discussion). If the child learns that when seeking support and warmth from the parent, he or she tends to find a valuable self reflected in the parent’s eyes, the result is likely to be genuine high self-esteem and self-acceptance rooted in a secure sense of attachment (e.g., Brown, 1993; Mikulincer, 1995). Parental affection is seldom 100% unconditional, of course, and children are well-attuned to the dynamics of social feedback. Children learn to evaluate themselves by internalizing evaluative communications from parents and, to a lesser extent, siblings. Young children can often be heard talking to themselves, for example, imitating the kinds of things their parents might say, such as, “Bad girl!” or “You can do it!” They mimic the attributional patterns, standard-setting, and evaluative tone to which they are exposed. Gradually this self-referential speech becomes internalized, as these patterns of interaction become habits of thought (Baldwin, 1997). In ideal circumstances, the internalized voices are relatively benign and encouraging, but if the parent sets extremely high and demanding standards for performance, the child may become self-critical and perfectionistic (Koestner, Zuroff, & Powers, 1991; Moretti & Higgins, 1999). To the extent that the parent rewards positive behavior or successes with affection but uses withdrawal of love to try to discourage misbehavior, the child may develop highly contingent or conditional self-esteem, in which positive feelings of self-worth are only accessible in the context of certain kinds of successes or positive behaviors (Rogers, 1959).
Although the relationship between child and parent is in some ways the easiest to analyze, in terms of the link between self-esteem and the interpersonal dynamics of social evaluation and acceptance, the same factors continue to apply as the social world extends beyond the family and home context. Throughout life, whether with peers, authority figures, or intimate relationship partners, people continue to experience new forms of relatedness and can internalize these as frames for self-experience. We know, for example, that people often experience significantly different levels of self-esteem depending on whom they are with: They might feel very confident and generally good about themselves with a supportive friend, but anxious and insecure with a judgmental religious leader or pathetically unacceptable with a rejecting ex-spouse (e.g., Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1998). Similarly, they might feel a secure sense of self in the context of relationships where they feel that their basic needs of relatedness, competency, and autonomy are being met, but feel worse about themselves if these needs are blocked in some way (LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). The general rule seems to be that positive self-esteem arises from the sense that one is loved and valued by one’s significant others, and that one can anticipate positive regard from others (e.g., Baldwin & Baccus, 2003; Baldwin & Keelan, 1999). People who are securely attached to a loved one, who believe that their partner cares about them, values them, and will support them in times of need, tend to report high self-esteem (Mikulincer, 1995). The benefit of a supportive relationship goes beyond just good feelings: Over time, people with a romantic partner who views them very positively gradually start to act in a manner that approaches their own self-ideal (e.g., Drigotis, Rusbult, Wieslquist, & Whitton, 1999). Conversely, the costs of a relationship suffused with criticism can be significant, as demonstrated by a study in which the strongest predictor of relapse after treatment for depression was found to be the perceived criticalness of the subjects spouse (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989).
The Influence of Self-Esteem on Relationships
I would not wish to imply that everyone’s self-esteem is forever at the mercy of whatever kind of image is reflected back by the people around them. For one thing, once people have formed an idea of how they are perceived, this preconception tends to shape the way they think others view them (see Tice and Wallace (2003) for a review). Beyond that, people’s self-esteem level, dynamics, and needs also play a role in the kinds of relationship dynamics they attempt to create—and ultimately end up creating (which may not be the same!). Indeed, the link between self-esteem and conduct in close relationships works both ways.
One obvious mechanism whereby self-esteem influences relationships is through partner choice. Not all relationships are open to this source of influence— it is notoriously difficult to choose one’s biological parents, for example—but often there is enough flexibility in the selection of friends or romantic partners that self-esteem can play a significant role. For example, people often seek to associate with others who will help satisfy their specific needs relating to self-esteem. Several studies have shown that whereas individuals with low self-esteem tend to seek others who accept them for being “nice,” individuals with high self-esteem often seek those who will respect them and reinforce their positive self-views (e.g., Rudich & Vallacher, 1999). Narcissists, in particular, have been found to pursue social admiration even to the point of choosing a partner who worships them unreservedly or brings to the table socially desirable characteristics such as good looks (thereby bringing admiration from others), rather than choosing a partner who might be a source of secure attachment and true intimacy (Campbell, 1999). Sometimes sub-optimal partner choices may appear baffling to observers, who wonder why (other) people seem compelled to make the same mistakes over and over. There are several possible explanations for this (e.g., Freud’s analysis of the repetition compulsion), but one leading candidate is that people have a powerful need for a sense of coherence and regularity in their interpersonal life. Therefore, once they become accustomed to being seen and treated in a particular way, they may seek relationships that re-establish this familiar pattern. In Swann and colleagues’ research, for example, individuals with low self-esteem surprisingly chose to interact with others who saw them negatively, even if more positive evaluators were available. In one study of married couples, people who did not feel accurately perceived by their partner (even on dimensions where their own self-view was negative) tended to react negatively to the partner and withdraw from intimacy (see Swann, Rentfrow, and Guinn (2003) for a review).
Once in a relationship, partners become interdependent in their pursuit of their self-esteem related motives, and their efforts to coordinate self-views can resemble a complex dance. People love to bask in the reflected glory of their partners success and talents, for example, and often seem to consider their partner’s personal assets and resources their own (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). As Self-Evaluation Maintenance theory (Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988) points out, though, all is not so sweet if the two partners’ strengths are in the same general domain of activity. Then comparison and competition rear their ugly heads, often causing discomfort until a delicate balance or compartmentalization can be worked out (e.g., “I tend to cook meat dishes, which I am better at, whereas she tends to cook vegetarian dishes”). People who feel their self-esteem threatened by a friend’s successes may even act to undermine those successes (Tesser & Smith, 1980). As these examples demonstrate, when people are able to satisfy their self-esteem needs together, relationship dynamics can be harmonious and fulfilling, but if the partners’ esteem-regulation tendencies do not mesh well, this can be a source of conflict (e.g., MacDonald, Zanna, & Holmes, 2000).
A final dynamic whereby self-esteem shapes relationship quality is through behavioral confirmation. In this form of self-fulfilling prophecy an individual with low self-esteem, who anticipates that others will be critical and rejecting, somehow manages to produce exactly this kind of response from interaction partners. There is ample evidence for this pattern (e.g., Curtis & Miller, 1986; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Riggs & Cantor, 1984), although there is still more work to be done on illuminating the exact mechanism. Presumably, insecure individuals act in an uncertain, pessimistic, socially dependent manner and may either defensively withdraw or else give off impressions of dissatisfaction, anxiety and hostility that interaction partners find objectionable (see, e.g., Schütz, 1998). In any case, low self-esteem individuals often end up re-creating the kinds of unsatisfying relationships that produced their insecurity in the first place.
Internalization May Obscure the Links between Self-Esteem and Relationship Dynamics
Given all of the evidence demonstrating that self-esteem is intertwined with relationship dynamics it is, perhaps, difficult to understand why this connection is often under-appreciated. It seems that laypersons and researchers alike, particularly in the context of Western individualism, often do not perceive or acknowledge the ongoing influence of social factors in self-esteem. When social psychologists write about self-esteem, for example, we usually acknowledge the social roots of self-experience by mentioning James’s social self or Cooley’s looking-glass self. Often overlooked, though, is the degree to which adult self-esteem remains connected to social existence. We need to keep in mind that self-esteem dynamics, and related affects such as pride, self-admiration, shame, and self-loathing, are firmly based in our nature as social animals (Baldwin & Baccus, 2004).
I believe the reason relational factors tend to be overlooked is that, as I have indicated, they are often “internalized.” It seems obvious that people can and do think about significant others who are not in the room—even those who are long deceased, like a critical parent or a supportive grandparent—and this can profoundly influence their self-evaluations. Making matters a bit more complex, however, is that these influences can occur implicitly, outside of conscious awareness. To fully understand the reciprocal influence of self-esteem and relationship dynamics, then, researchers are increasingly using modern social cognitive approaches to look “inside the head” of the self-evaluator. From a social cognitive point of view, interpersonal knowledge is represented in what are often called working models (Bowlby, 1973) or relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992). These structures represent an interpersonal configuration consisting of an image of self (e.g., a self-schema as “worthy”) along with an associated image of other (e.g., an other-schema as “responsive and caring”). These representations of self and other are embedded in an interpersonal script, characterizing typical if-then patterns of relatedness in that relationship (e.g., “if I need something, then she will take care of me”). Troublesome self-esteem dynamics, then, can arise from relational configurations such as those where a “loser self” and “critical other” are associated with a script such as “If I fail, then he will reject me” (cf. Rogers, 1959). Conversely, specific thoughts about and evaluations of the self can activate relevant interpersonal structures and influence the perception of ongoing interactions.
From this point of view, the experience of self-evaluation—even when a person is alone looking in a mirror—is shaped by accessible relational schemas that define evaluative dynamics and serve as a kind of “private audience” for self-reflection. Research has shown, for example, that just thinking about a significant other for a few minutes can activate the relational schema associated with that relationship, which can then shape self-evaluations. In some studies, research participants who visualized someone they knew who was very critical or judgmental were later highly critical of themselves after a failure (Baldwin, 1994; Baldwin & Holmes, 1987). In another study of the cognitive mechanisms involved, participants primed this way showed an information-processing pattern typically exhibited by chronically low self-esteem individuals: Being shown words related to “failure” made them significantly faster, a second later, to recognize words related to “rejection” (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996). Thus, as several self-theorists have argued, self-criticalness and low self-esteem typically involve the cognitive activation of a relationship dynamic in which failures or personal shortcomings are associated with rejection or contempt from significant others (cf. Rogers, 1959).
An important aspect of the phenomenon of internalization is that often— perhaps usually—the underlying relational cognition takes place implicitly, outside of awareness. When a person with a failure-rejection relational schema fails in some important domain, activation can spread automatically (within 250 ms; Baldwin, Baccus, & Fitzsimons, 2004) to the representation of being rejected. An image of people frowning or jeering may never enter awareness, therefore: The feeling of being a contemptible, rejected loser simply arises in consciousness as if from nowhere. Additional evidence that much of this can take place outside of awareness comes from subliminal priming studies in which, for example, graduate students who were subliminally exposed to the scowling face of their judgmental department chair evaluated their own work more harshly than normal (giving it a C+ as opposed to A— in control conditions; Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez, 1990). These students, and other participants in similar social cognitive studies, were seated alone while they engaged in self-evaluation, and were not aware of any influence the primes might have had on their personal self-esteem reactions. Nonetheless, the results demonstrate the powerful impact of implicit relational factors in shaping self-evaluation.
Although much of the research on relational factors in self-esteem tends to focus on the causes and consequences of self-critical reactions, it is important to note that implicit relational cognition can produce positive, as well as negative, self-esteem responses. Several studies have now demonstrated that when people are primed with relational schemas representing secure, noncontingent acceptance, they tend to exhibit self-accepting, nondefensive high self-esteem, and they do not show the if–then, failure–rejection contingency pattern associated with low self-esteem dynamics (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996; Baldwin & Holmes, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Moreover, research participants who play a computer game that repeatedly pairs their own name with images of warm acceptance from others later show increases on measures of implicit self-esteem (Baccus, Baldwin, & Packer, 2004). These social cognitive findings are very consistent with research showing that people in healthy close relationships often become more secure over time.
Self-esteem is inextricably enmeshed with close relationship dynamics, then, whether these dynamics are being played out with a relationship partner “in the real world” or even just entirely “inside the head.” This principle is supported in research using correlational techniques, longitudinal designs, diary methods, experimental manipulations, and social cognitive approaches. My hope is that as implicit cognitive processes become better understood, and methods for assessing internalized interpersonal dynamics become better developed, the links between self-esteem and close relationship factors will become even better recognized than they are now.
References
Aron, A. (2003). Self and close relationships. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 442–461). New York: Guilford.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.
Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. (2004). Increasing implicit self-esteem through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15, 498–502.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Baldwin, M. W. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of self-evaluative reactions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 380–403.
Baldwin, M. W. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if-then self-inference procedures. Review of General Psychology, 1, 326–335.
Baldwin, M. W., & Baccus, J. R. (2003). Relational knowledge and an expectancy-value approach to self-esteem. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 9, pp. 171–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baldwin, M. W., & Baccus, J. R. (2004). Maintaining a focus on the social goals underlying self-conscious emotions. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 139–144.
Baldwin, M. W., Baccus, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2004). Self-esteem and the dual processing of interpersonal contingencies. Self and Identity, 3, 81–93.
Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., & Lopez, D. F. (1990). Priming relationship schemas: My advisor and the Pope are watching me from the back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 435–454.
Baldwin, M. W., & Holmes, J. G. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1087–1098.
Baldwin M. W., & Keelan, J. P. R. (1999). Interpersonal expectations as a function of self-esteem and sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 822–833.
Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and “if…then” contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1130–1141.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 27–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1254–1270.
Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 284–290.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by close partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560.
Drigotis, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323.
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 28–84). New York: Guilford Press.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self worth: Differences in perceived worth as a person across interpersonal contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69, 756–766.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980–988.
Hooley, J. M., & Teasdale, J. D. (1989). Predictors of relapse in unipolar depressives: Expressed emotion, marital distress, and perceived criticism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 229–235.
Koestner, R., Zuroff, D. C., & Powers, T. A. (1991). Family origins of adolescent selfcriticism and its continuity into adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 191–197.
LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.
MacDonald, G., Zanna, M. P., & Holmes, J. G. (2000). An experimental test of the role of alcohol in relationship conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 182–193.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1203–1215.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Mental representations of attachment security: Theoretical foundations for a positive psychology. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 233–266). New York: Guilford.
Moretti, M. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Own versus other standpoints in self-regulation: Developmental antecedents and functional consequences. Review of General Psychology, 3, 188–223.
Riggs, J. M., & Cantor, N. (1984). Getting acquainted: The role of the self-concept and preconceptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 432–445.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). Therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3). Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
Rudich, E. A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1999). To belong or to self-enhance? Motivational bases for choosing interaction partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1387–1404.
Schütz, A. (1998). Coping with threats to self-esteem: The differing patterns of subjects with high versus low self-esteem in first-person accounts. European Journal of Personality, 12, 169–186.
Swann, W. B. Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367–383). New York: Guilford.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49–61.
Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of friendship and task relevance on helping: You don’t always help the one you like. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 582–590.
Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others see you. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91–105). New York: Guilford.
Voss, K., Markiewicz, D., & Doyle, A. B. (1999). Friendship, marriage and self-esteem. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 103–122.