The Self as a Source of Relational Difficulties

Optimal Self–esteem is Contingent: Intrinsic versus Extrinsic and Upward versus Downward Contingencies

We argue that noncontingent, unconditional self–esteem is not optimal but defensive. We introduce the concept of intrinsic contingency, where self–esteem is affected by whether one's actions are self–congruent and conducive to personal growth. Whereas external contingencies, especially social and appearance, were negatively correlated with authenticity, self–compassion, and personal well–being, intrinsic contingencies were positively correlated with these measures, and uncorrelated with aggression and self–esteem instability. Participants with high intrinsic contingency rated higher on measures of psychological adaptiveness than noncontingent participants. In addition, we distinguish upward from downward contingencies, the latter being more harmful in case of external contingencies but not for intrinsic contingencies. We conclude that intrinsic contingency, rather than noncontingency, may reflect true self–esteem as implied in self–determination theory. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Causal Ordering of Prominence and Salience in Identity Theory: An Empirical Examination

Identity theory invokes two distinct but related concepts, identity salience and prominence, to explain how the organization of identities that make up the self impacts the probability that a given identity is situationally enacted. However, much extant research has failed to clearly distinguish between salience and prominence, and their empirical relationship has not been adequately investigated, impeding a solid understanding of the significance and role of each in a general theory of the self. This study examines their causal ordering using three waves of panel data from 48 universities focusing on respondents' identities as science students. Analyses strongly support a causal ordering from prominence to salience. We provide theoretical and empirical grounds to justify this ordering while acknowledging potential variation in its strength across identities. Finally, we offer recommendations about the use of prominence and salience when measures of one or both are available or when analyses use cross-sectional data.