Article 29

Making Sense of Self-EsteemMark R. Leary1

Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Self-esteem has been regarded as animportant construct since the earliestdays of psychology. In the first psychol-ogy textbook, William James (1890) sug-gested that the tendency to strive to feelgood about oneself is a fundamental as-pect of human nature, thereby fueling afascination—some observers would sayobsession—with self-esteem that hasspanned more than a century. Duringthat time, developmental psychologistshave studied the antecedents of self-esteem and its role in human develop-ment, social psychologists have devotedattention to behaviors that appear in-tended to maintain self-esteem, person-ality psychologists have examinedindividual differences in the trait of self-esteem, and theorists of a variety of ori-entations have discussed the importanceof self-regard to psychological adjust-

ment. In the past couple of decades,practicing psychologists and social engi-neers have suggested that high self-es-teem is a remedy for many psychologicaland social problems.

Yet, despite more than 100 years ofattention and thousands of publishedstudies, fundamental issues regardingself-esteem remain poorly understood.Why is self-esteem important? Do peo-ple really have a need for self-esteem?Why is self-esteem so strongly deter-mined by how people believe they areevaluated by others? Is low self-esteemassociated with psychological difficultiesand, if so, why? Do efforts to enhanceself-esteem reduce personal and socialproblems as proponents of the self-esteemmovement claim?

PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUNCTION OF SELF-ESTEEM

Many writers have assumed that peo-ple seek to maintain their self-esteem be-cause they possess an inherent “need” tofeel good about themselves. However,given the apparent importance of self-esteem to psychological functioning, wemust ask why self-esteem is so importantand what function it might serve. Human-istic psychologists have traced high self-esteem to a congruency between a per-son’s real and ideal selves and sug-gested that self-esteem signals peopleas to when they are behaving in self-determined, autonomous ways. Otherwriters have proposed that people seekhigh self-esteem because it facilitatesgoal achievement. For example, Bednar,Wells, and Peterson (1989) proposedthat self-esteem is subjective feedbackabout the adequacy of the self. This feed-back—self-esteem—is positive when theindividual copes well with circumstances

but negative when he or she avoidsthreats. In turn, self-esteem affects sub-sequent goal achievement; high self-es-teem increases coping, and low self-esteem leads to further avoidance.

The ethological perspective (Barkow,1980) suggests that self-esteem is an ad-aptation that evolved in the service ofmaintaining dominance in social relation-ships. According to this theory, humanbeings evolved mechanisms for monitor-ing dominance because dominance facil-itated the acquisition of mates and otherreproduction-enhancing resources. Be-cause attention and favorable reactionsfrom others were associated with beingdominant, feelings of self-esteem be-came tied to social approval and defer-ence. From this perspective, the motiveto evaluate oneself positively reduces, inevolutionary terms, to the motive to en-hance one’s relative dominance.

One of the more controversial expla-nations of self-esteem is provided by ter-ror management theory, which suggeststhat the function of self-esteem is tobuffer people against the existential ter-ror they experience at the prospect oftheir own death and annihilation (So-lomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski,1991). Several experiments have sup-ported aspects of the theory, but not thestrong argument that the function of theself-esteem system is to provide an emo-tional buffer specifically against death-related anxiety.

All of these perspectives offer insightsinto the nature of self-esteem, but eachhas conceptual and empirical difficulties(for critiques, see Leary, 1999; Leary &Baumeister, in press). In the past fewyears, a novel perspective—sociometertheory—has cast self-esteem in a some-what different light as it attempts to ad-dress lingering questions about thenature of self-esteem.

Abstract Sociometer theory proposes thatthe self-esteem system evolvedas a monitor of social acceptance,and that the so-called self-esteemmotive functions not to maintainself-esteem per se but rather toavoid social devaluation and re-jection. Cues indicating that theindividual is not adequately val-ued and accepted by other peoplelower self-esteem and motivatebehaviors that enhance relationalevaluation. Empirical evidence re-garding the self-esteem motive,the antecedents of self-esteem,the relation between low self-es-teem and psychological prob-lems, and the consequences ofenhancing self-esteem is consis-tent with the theory.Keywords self-esteem; self; self-regard; rejection

1

ANNUAL EDITIONS

SOCIOMETER THEORY

According to sociometer theory, self-esteem is essentially a psychologicalmeter, or gauge, that monitors the qualityof people’s relationships with others(Leary, 1999; Leary & Baumeister, inpress; Leary & Downs, 1995). The theoryis based on the assumption that humanbeings possess a pervasive drive tomaintain significant interpersonal rela-tionships, a drive that evolved becauseearly human beings who belonged to so-cial groups were more likely to surviveand reproduce than those who did not(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Given thedisastrous implications of being ostra-cized in the ancestral environment inwhich human evolution occurred, earlyhuman beings may have developed amechanism for monitoring the degree towhich other people valued and acceptedthem. This psychological mechanism—the sociometer—continuously monitorsthe social environment for cues regard-ing the degree to which the individual isbeing accepted versus rejected by otherpeople.

The sociometer appears to be partic-ularly sensitive to changes in relationalevaluation—the degree to which othersregard their relationship with the individ-ual as valuable, important, or close.When evidence of low relational evalua-tion (particularly, a decrement in rela-tional evaluation) is detected, thesociometer attracts the person’s con-scious attention to the potential threat tosocial acceptance and motivates him orher to deal with it. The affectively ladenself-appraisals that constitute the “out-put” of the sociometer are what we typi-cally call self-esteem.

Self-esteem researchers distinguishbetween state self-esteem—momentaryfluctuations in a person’s feelings abouthim- or herself—and trait self-esteem—the person’s general appraisal of his orher value; both are aspects of the soci-ometer. Feelings of state self-esteemfluctuate as a function of the degree towhich the person perceives others cur-rently value their relationships with him orher. Cues that connote high relationalevaluation raise state self-esteem,whereas cues that connote low relationalevaluation lower state self-esteem. Traitself-esteem, in contrast, reflects the per-son’s general sense that he or she is thesort of person who is valued and ac-cepted by other people. Trait self-esteemmay be regarded as the resting state of

the sociometer in the absence of incom-ing information relevant to relationalevaluation.

SELF-ESTEEM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO

BEHAVIOR

Sociometer theory provides a parsi-monious explanation for much of whatwe know about self-esteem. Here I ex-amine how sociometer theory answersfour fundamental questions about self-esteem raised earlier.

The Self-Esteem Motive

As noted, many psychologists haveassumed that people possess a motiveor need to maintain self-esteem. Accord-ing to sociometer theory, the so-calledself-esteem motive does not function tomaintain self-esteem but rather to mini-mize the likelihood of rejection (or, moreprecisely, relational devaluation). Whenpeople behave in ways that protect or en-hance their self-esteem, they are typi-cally acting in ways that they believe willincrease their relational value in others’eyes and, thus, improve their chances ofsocial acceptance.

The sociometer perspective explainswhy events that are known (or potentiallyknown) by other people have muchgreater effects on self-esteem thanevents that are known only by the individ-ual him- or herself. If self-esteem in-volved only private self-judgments, asmany psychologists have assumed, pub-lic events should have no greater impacton self-esteem than private ones.

Antecedents of Self-Esteem

Previous writers have puzzled overthe fact that self-esteem is so stronglytied to people’s beliefs about how theyare evaluated by others. If self-esteem isa self-evaluation, why do people judgethemselves by other people’s standards?Sociometer theory easily explains whythe primary determinants of self-esteeminvolve the perceived reactions of otherpeople, as well as self-judgments on di-mensions that the person thinks are im-portant to significant others. As a monitorof relational evaluation, the self-esteemsystem is inherently sensitive to real andpotential reactions of other people.

Evidence shows that state self-esteem is strongly affected by events

that have implications for the degree towhich one is valued and accepted byother people (Leary, Haupt, Strausser, &Chokel, 1998; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, &Downs, 1995). The events that affectself-esteem are precisely the kinds ofthings that, if known by other people,would affect their evaluation and accep-tance of the person (Leary, Tambor, etal., 1995). Most often, self-esteem is low-ered by failure, criticism, rejection, andother events that have negative implica-tions for relational evaluation; self-es-teem rises when a person succeeds, ispraised, or experiences another’s love—events that are associated with relationalappreciation. Even the mere possibility ofrejection can lower self-esteem, a findingthat makes sense if the function of theself-esteem system is to warn the personof possible relational devaluation in timeto take corrective action.

The attributes on which people’s self-esteem is based are precisely the char-acteristics that determine the degree towhich people are valued and acceptedby others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).Specifically, high trait self-esteem is as-sociated with believing that one pos-sesses socially desirable attributes suchas competence, personal likability, andphysical attractiveness. Furthermore,self-esteem is related most strongly toone’s standing on attributes that one be-lieves are valued by significant others, afinding that is also consistent with soci-ometer theory.

In linking self-esteem to social accep-tance, sociometer theory runs counter tothe humanistic assumption that self-esteem based on approval from others isfalse or unhealthy. On the contrary, if thefunction of self-esteem is to avoid socialdevaluation and rejection, then the sys-tem must be responsive to others’ reac-tions. This system may lead people to dothings that are not always beneficial, but itdoes so to protect their interpersonal rela-tionships rather than their inner integrity.

Low Self-Esteem and Psychological Problems

Research has shown that low self-esteem is related to a variety of psycho-logical difficulties and personal prob-lems, including depression, loneliness,substance abuse, teenage pregnancy,academic failure, and criminal behavior.The evidence in support of the link be-tween low self-esteem and psychologicalproblems has often been overstated; the

2

Article 29. Making Sense of Self-Esteem

relationships are weaker and more scat-tered than typically assumed (Mecca,Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989). More-over, high self-esteem also has notabledrawbacks. Even so, low self-esteemtends to be more strongly associatedwith psychological difficulties than highself-esteem.

From the standpoint of sociometertheory, these problems are caused notby low self-esteem but rather by a historyof low relational evaluation, if not outrightrejection. As a subjective gauge of rela-tional evaluation, self-esteem may paral-lel these problems, but it is a coeffectrather than a cause. (In fact, contrary tothe popular view that low self-esteemcauses these problems, no direct evidenceexists to document that self-esteem hasany causal role in thought, emotion, orbehavior.) Much research shows that in-terpersonal rejection results in emotionalproblems, difficulties relating with others,and maladaptive efforts to be accepted(e.g., excessive dependency, member-ship in deviant groups), precisely theconcomitants of low self-esteem (Leary,Schreindorfer, & Haupt, 1995). In addi-tion, many personal problems lower self-esteem because they lead other peopleto devalue or reject the individual.

Consequences of Enhancing Self-Esteem

The claim that self-esteem does notcause psychological outcomes may ap-pear to fly in the face of evidence show-ing that interventions that enhance self-esteem do, in fact, lead to positive psy-chological changes. The explanation forthe beneficial effects of programs thatenhance self-esteem is that these inter-ventions change people’s perceptions ofthe degree to which they are socially val-ued individuals. Self-esteem programsalways include features that would be ex-pected to increase real or perceived so-cial acceptance; for example, theseprograms include components aimed atenhancing social skills and interpersonalproblem solving, improving physical ap-

pearance, and increasing self-control(Leary, 1999).

CONCLUSIONS

Sociometer theory suggests that theemphasis psychologists and the lay pub-lic have placed on self-esteem has beensomewhat misplaced. Self-esteem iscertainly involved in many psychologicalphenomena, but its role is different thanhas been supposed. Subjective feelingsof self-esteem provide ongoing feedbackregarding one’s relational value vis-à-visother people. By focusing on the monitorrather than on what the monitor mea-sures, we have been distracted from theunderlying interpersonal processes andthe importance of social acceptance tohuman well-being.

Recommended Reading

Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.). (1993). Self-esteem:The puzzle of low self-regard. New York:Plenum Press.

Colvin, C. R., & Block, J. (1994). Do positive il-lusions foster mental health? An examina-tion of the Taylor and Brown formulation.Psychological Bulletin, 116, 3–20.

Leary, M. R. (1999). (See References)Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). (See Ref-

erences)Mecca, A. M., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos,

J. (Eds.). (1989). (See References)

Note

1. Address correspondence to MarkLeary, Department of Psychology,Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109; e-mail: leary@wfu.edu.

References

Barkow, J. (1980). Prestige and self-esteem:A biosocial interpretation. In D. R. Omark,F. F. Strayer, & D. G. Freedman (Eds.),Dominance relations: An ethological viewof human conflict and social interaction(pp. 319–332). New York: Garland STPMPress.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). Theneed to belong: Desire for interpersonal at-tachments as a fundamental human moti-vation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bednar, R. L., Wells, M. G., & Peterson, S. R.(1989). Self-esteem: Paradoxes and inno-vations in clinical theory and practice.Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychol-ogy (Vol. 1). New York: Henry Holt.

Leary, M. R. (1999). The social and psycho-logical importance of self-esteem. In R. M.Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The socialpsychology of emotional and behavioralproblems: Interfaces of social and clinicalpsychology (pp. 197–221). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (in press).The nature and function of self-esteem:Sociometer theory. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology.

Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interper-sonal functions of the self-esteem motive:The self-esteem system as a sociometer.In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, andself-esteem (pp. 123–144). New York: Ple-num Press.

Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., &Chokel, J. L. (1998). Calibrating the soci-ometer: The relationship between interper-sonal appraisals and state self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 74, 1290–1299.

Leary, M. R., Schreindorfer, L. S., & Haupt, A.L. (1995). The role of self-esteem in emo-tional and behavioral problems: Why is lowself-esteem dysfunctional? Journal of So-cial and Clinical Psychology, 14, 297–314.

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. J., &Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an in-terpersonal monitor. The sociometer hy-pothesis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 68, 518–530.

Mecca, A. M., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos,J. (Eds.). (1989). The social importance ofself-esteem. Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T.(1991). A terror management theory of so-cial behavior: The psychological functionsof self-esteem and cultural worldviews. Ad-vances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 24, 93–159.

From Current Directions in Psychological Science, February 1999, pp. 32-35. © 1999 by the American Psychological Society. Reprinted by permissionof Blackwell Publishers.

3