ArticlePDF Available

Self-verification 360°: Illuminating the Light and Dark Sides



Self-verification theory assumes that people actively work to preserve their self-views, even if these self-views are negative. This article considers the benefits and drawbacks of receiving self-verification. Direct benefits of self-verification include psychological coherence, reduced anxiety, and improved health. Indirect benefits include greater intimacy and trust in relationships and more harmonious social interactions. Drawbacks of self-verification strivings are limited to people with negative self-views, who may find that self-verifying evaluations help perpetuate low self-esteem and depression and stabilize unhealthy relationships. Elucidating the processes underlying self-verification may bring more light to its dark side; specifically, it may reveal insights about raising self-esteem and building happiness.
Self-verification 3608888888888888888888: Illuminating the Light
and Dark Sides
University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA
Self-verification theory assumes that people actively work to preserve their self-
views, even if these self-views are negative. This article considers the benefits and
drawbacks of receiving self-verification. Direct benefits of self-verification include
psychological coherence, reduced anxiety, and improved health. Indirect benefits
include greater intimacy and trust in relationships and more harmonious social
interactions. Drawbacks of self-verification strivings are limited to people with
negative self-views, who may find that self-verifying evaluations help perpetuate low
self-esteem and depression and stabilize unhealthy relationships. Elucidating the
processes underlying self-verification may bring more light to its dark side;
specifically, i t may reveal insights about raising self-esteem and building happiness.
Keywords: Self-verification; Self-views; Self-esteem; Self-acceptance; Happiness.
Self-verification theory asserts that people are motivated to seek confirmation of
their negative as well as positive self-views (Swann, 1983). The light side of self-
verification is represented by various benefits, including both direct (affecting the
individual, him- or herself) and indirect benefits (affecting the individual by
influencing his or her relationships or environment). Self-verification, however, also
has a dark side for people whose self-views are negative. In this article, we will
discuss the light and dark sides of self-verification. Ultimately, we suggest that a
thorough understanding of the self-verification process can provide a basis
for knowing how to ben efit from its positive consequences and avert its negative
What is Self-verification?
Self-verification theory starts with the assumption that once formed, self-views give
people a powerful sense of coherence and a related ability to predict and control their
worlds (e.g., Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934). Because self-views serve these vitally
important functions, people become invested in maintaining them. They may,
for example, choose to interact with others who see them as they see themselves
Correspondence should be addressed to: William B. Swann, Jr., Department of Psychology,
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail:
Self and Identity, 8: 131–146, 2009
ISSN: 1529-8868 print/1529-8876 online
DOI: 10.1080/15298860802501516
Ó 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
(Swann, 1983). People presumably enact such self-verification strivings regardless of
how negative the self-views may be. Specifically, just as individuals with positive self-
views prefer to interact with people who see them positively, individuals with
negative self-views prefer to interact with people who appraise them negatively (e.g.,
Hixon & Swann, 1993; Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 1992; Swann, Hixon,
Stein-Seroussi, & Gilbert, 1990; Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989).
There is more to self-verification strivings, however, than a tendency to choose
self-verifying interaction partners. In fact, past research suggests that people use a
host of strategies to verify their self-views (see Swann, 1990, for a review). Not only
do people gravitate toward interaction partners who are apt to confirm their self-
views, they elicit self-confirmatory feedback (e.g., Coyne, 1976; Coyne, Kahn, &
Gotlib, 1987; Curtis & Miller, 1986; Pelham, 1991; Swann et al., 1989; Swann &
Read, 1981a, 1981b); they pay more attention to self-confirmatory feedback
(Swann & Read, 1981a), and they recall it better (e.g., Crary, 1966; Silverman,
1964; Suinn, Osborne, & Page, 1962; Swann & Read, 1981a).
Self-verification theory’s prediction that people who have positive self-views
prefer to be around others who see them in a positive light is not surprising, as it
squares well with self-enhancement theory’s assumption that people want positive,
self-enhancing evaluations (Jones, 1973). The symm etric proposition—that people
with negative self-views prefer partners who view them negatively—clashes sharply
with most psychological theorizing (e.g., Jones, 1973). Neverthele ss, as we shall
show, the notion that people with negative self-views prefer and seek negative
evaluations is easier to understand when one recognizes how such individuals
perceive the evaluations that they receive. Specifically, whereas negative evaluations
seem highly reassuring and credible, positive evaluations can be profoundly
disquieting and can provoke anxiety. Receiving self-verification thus provides
psychological coherence, a feeling that one’s self and the world are as expected.
In addition to psychological coherence, receiving confirmation of one’s self-view,
is associated with a host of direct and ind irect benefits. For people with negative self-
views, however, self-verification also carries with it painful consequences, including
the perpetuation of low self-esteem and depression. We will first discuss the benefits,
or light side, of self-verification and then turn to its negative consequences, or
dark side.
The Light Side: Direct and Indirect Benefits of Self-verification
Self-verification can benefit people directly, by affecting individuals themselves.
It can also benefit people indirectly, by influencing people’s relationships. In
principle, all people should enjoy these benefits, regardless of the positivity of their
Direct Benefits of Self-verification
Psychological coherence. Psychological coherence grows out of the perception
that things are as they are expected to be. Self-verification strivings foster
psychological coherence because they facilitate the validation of self-views.
Comments of self-verifiers from a study by Swann, Stein-Seroussi, and Giesler
(1992a) provided evidence that psychological coherence is linked to the self-
verification process and is desirable to people. When self-verifiers with negative self-
views were asked to discuss why they decided to inter act with a confederate who
132 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
evaluated them negatively, one participant said, ‘‘Yeah, I think that’s pretty close to
the way I am. [The negative evaluator] better reflects my own view of myself, from
experience.’’ The desire for psychological coherence is so strong that it can actually
trump people’s desire for positive appraisals from others. Witness one participant
with a negative self-view: ‘‘I like the [favorable] evaluation but I am not sure that it
is, ah, correct maybe. It sounds good, but [the negative evaluator] . . . seems to know
more about me. So, I’ll choose [the negative evaluator].’’ From this vantage point,
psychological coherence is appealing because it is an important source of emotional
comfort (Swann, Chang-Schneider, & Angulo, 2007a).
Reduced anxiety. Self-verification not only provides feel ings of psychological
coherence, it also lowers anxiety. Support for this proposition comes from several
studies (see Swann et al., 2007a, for a review). Wood, Heimpel, Newby-Clark, and
Ross (2005) analyzed the reactions to success experiences of high vs. low self-esteem
participants. High self-esteem participants reacted favorably to success, but low self-
esteem participants became anxious, apparently because the feedback was not
consistent with their self-views (cf. Lundgren, & Schwab, 1977). Similarly, Ralph and
Mineka (1998) observed students’ reactions to receiving grades on a mid-term
examination. These investigators found that students with low self-esteem
experienced the greatest increa se in ove rall distress, including anxious and depressive
symptoms, after they received grades that were considered successful to them. At the
same time, low self-esteem participants displayed relatively little anxiety and
depression in response to grades that they considered failures.
The link between self-verification and lower anxiety has also emerged when non-
conscious measures of anxiety have been used. Ayduk, Mendes, Akinola, and
Gyurak (2008) provided participants with self-verifying or non-verifying evaluations
and then observed their cardiovascular responses. When individuals with negative
self-views received positive feedback, they were physiologically ‘‘threatened’’
(avoidant and distressed). In contrast, when they received negative feedback, they
were physiologically ‘‘galvanized’’ or ‘‘challenged’’ (i.e., cardiovascularly aroused in
a manner associated with approach motivation). Individuals with positive self-views
displayed precisely the opposite pattern.
Related research suggests that self-verifying feedback will reduce anxiety only
when recipients have had an opportunity to think about it and compare it with
their self-views. Contrary to the findings reviewed above, Swann, Griffin,
Predmore, and Gaines (1987) found that when people with negative self-views
received negative feedback and then immediately completed a measure of anxiety,
they were more anxious than those who received positive feedback. Nevertheless,
the affective benefits of non-verifying (positive) feedback were significantly weaker
if parti cipants were first asked to indicate how accurate the feedback was.
Similarly, other research that has focused on choice of interaction partner has
shown that self-verification strivings will manifest themselves only insofar as
recipients of evaluations have the time and mental resources to compare an
evaluation to a relevant self-view (e.g., Hixon & Swann, 1993; Swann et al., 1990).
Apparently, when people contemplate a negative evaluation, even people with
negative self-views display a ‘‘positive tropism’’ wherein they embrace and favor
positive evaluations over negative ones. Only after people with negative self-views
have had time to recognize the disjunction between positive evaluations and their
self-views do they eschew such evaluations (see Chang-Schneider & Swann, in
press, for a discussion).
Self-verification 3608 133
Improved health. Insofar as positive but non-verifying events trigger anxiety and
stress for people with negative self-views, repeated exposure to such events should
eventually impair physical health. Initial support for this self-verification hypothesis
came from a pair of prospective studies by Brown and McGill (1989). They assessed
the impact of positive life events on health outcomes for high and low self-esteem
people. For participants with high self-esteem, positive life events (e.g., getting very
good grades, improvement in living conditions) predicted increases in self-reported
health. For participants with low self-esteem, positive life events predicted decreases
in health.
Shimizu and Pelham (2004) replicated and extended these results by controlling
for the possibility that self-reported health might reflect negative affectivity. They
found that positive life events predicted increased self-reported illness for low self-
esteem individuals even when controlling for negative affectivity. This, together with
the fact that low-esteem participants only reported diminished health insofar as they
experienced positive life events, undermines the notion that negative affect may have
influenced both self-reported self-esteem and reports of physical symptoms. Instead,
for individuals with negative self-views, the disjunction between their negative self-
views and positive life events appears to be so disquieting that it undercuts physical
health (cf. Iyer, Jetten, & Tsivrikos, 2008).
Indirect Benefits
Harmony of social interactions. Through self-verification, the behaviors of both
self-verifiers and their interaction partners become more predictable, thereby
allowing social interactions to flow more smoothly. That is, self-verifiers act in
predictable, consistent ways to communicate a stable self-view to others, causing
their partners to consistently confirm the self-views under question. The result is
mutual predictability which simplifies and facilitates social relations.
The benefits of mutual predictability can be understood from several perspectives.
From an evolutionary perspective, mutual predictability among small hunter-
gatherer groups would have facilitated a more effective division of labor and
promoted survival (Goffman, 1959; Swann et al., 2007a). In close relationships, a
lack of predictability from a significant other could have thwarted coordination of
meeting goals connected to survival and reproduction. For example, if a mate
ventured out to hunt for meat and decided instead to take a nap, disappointment,
disharmony or worse could result. If repeated, such unpredictable beh avior could
undermine sustenance and survival (Buss, 2003). Additionally, in hunt er-gatherer
societies, people presumably formed cooperative coalitions, which were alliances of
two or more individuals formed for the purpose of achieving a specific goal, such as
large game hunting, building shelters, and defending against attacks. One of the two
biggest threats to the success of these c oalitions was defection (the other was free
riding), an extreme example of unpredictability (Buss, 2004). In short, in our
evolutionary past, predictability was presumably at a premium and contributed
enormously to successful group dynamics, whereas unpredictability wreaked havoc
on group dynamics and inhibited progress toward meeting crucial goals.
Predictability in a person’s behavior continues to be a highly-valued characteristic
in relationship partners even today (Athay & Darley, 1981; Rempel, Holmes, &
Zanna, 1985). Indeed, in an international study of mate selection criteria, ‘‘emotional
stability’’ and ‘‘dependable character’’ were the second and third most valued
qualities (love was the first; Buss, 2003).
134 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
Relationship quality. Perhaps due to its tendency to foster predictability, self-
verification may improve the quality of people’s relationships. Swann and Pelham
(2002), for example, found that college students with negative self-views who had
roommates who appraised them positively made plans to find a new roommate. In a
similar way, married people with negative self-views became less intimate with
partners who saw them in a more positive way than they saw themselves (e.g.,
Burke & Stets, 1999; De La Ronde & Swann, 1998; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
2000; Ritts & Stein, 1995; Schafer, Wickrama, & Keith, 1996; Swann, De La
Ronde, & Hixon, 1994). In fact, in one study people sought divorce or separation
when their spouse perceived them in an overly positive, non-verifying manner (e.g.,
Cast & Burke, 2002).
In a related argument, Cassidy (2001) posited that intimacy: ‘‘ making one’s
innermost known, sharing one ’s core, one’s truth, one’s heart, with another ...’
(p. 122); this is central to self-verification—seeking out relationship partners who see
you as you believe you truly are. Cassidy explains further that the ability to
experience intimacy is related to secure attachment in childhood, and secure
attachment: ‘‘ thought to be associated with validating the truth of the child’s
experiences’’ (p. 143). This connection between intimacy and the validation of inner
experience is representative of the link between intimacy and the self-verification
process, as the validation of inner experience is an integral part of the self-
verification process.
Feeling understood, a key part of intimacy (Cassidy, 2001; Reiss & Shaver, 1988)
may be responsible for the link between self -verification and intimacy. Comments
from self-verifiers offer evidence that feeling understood drives self-verification.
In a study by Swann et al. (1992a), self-verifiers with negative self-views
explained why they chose to interact with a confederate who evaluated them
negatively. One participant stated, ‘‘Well, I mean, after examining all of this I think
[the negative evaluator] prett y much has me pegged.’’ Another participant said,
‘‘Since [the negative evaluator] seems to know my position and how I feel sometimes,
maybe I’ll be able to get along with him.’’ Swann et al. (1994) found that married
people were more intimate with spouses insofar as their spouses’ appraisals ‘‘made
them feel that they really knew themselves.’’ The satisfaction of feeling understood, a
vital aspect of intimacy, attracts people to relationship partners who confirm their
Relationship partners who offer self-verification may also be valued because they
are perceived as honest and honesty in relationships fosters intimacy (Lerner, 1993).
Lerner argued that ‘‘closeness requires honesty’’ and that ‘‘truth-telling’’ is
‘‘the foundation of ...intimacy ...’’ (p. 15). Choosing to be around others who see
us as we feel we actually are can create deep intimacy and be rewarding and
validating at the deepest level.
Trust. The elevated level of predictability promoted by the self -verification
process not only fosters harmonious social interactions and may en hance intimacy in
relationships but may also enhance trust. Rempel et al. (1985) included predictability
of a relationship partner’s behavior as one of the three components of their model of
trust, along with dependability and faith. Others have also noted that predictability
is a key component of trust (Tyler, 2001). The necessity of predictability in
establishing trust is especially apparent in the context of romantic relationships.
Imagine a husband who routinely asked his wife how her day was when she came
home from work. If on some days she responded by scolding him for being nosy and
Self-verification 3608 135
on other days by heaping praise on him for being thoughtful, this unpredictability
would erode trust. The self-verification process leads to greater predictability in
people’s behavior, decreasing the chances for this type of scenario, and, thereby ,
enhancing trust.
In sum, self-verification is beneficial to people in that it provides psychological
coherence, reduces anxiety, and is associated with better physical health. In addition,
it benefits people’s relationships because it facilitates predictability and smooth
interactions, encourages individuals to prefer and seek relationship partners who
seem honest, and bolsters relationship quality. Nevertheless, although the self-
verification process is adaptive for most people most of the time, like any process, it
may have a dark side.
The Dark Side: Direct and Indirect Drawbacks of Self-verification
The tendency for self-verification processes to stabilize self-views can be problematic
for people whose self-views are inappropriately negative. Such inappropriately
negative self-views are common among people who suffer from low self-esteem
(comprising approximately one third of the population; Diener & Diener, 1995) and
depression; for who ‘‘deserves’’ to believe that they are worthless? When people seek
verification for such self-views, the negative consequences can be both direct and
Direct Drawbacks
Lower self-esteem. Through the self-verification process, people with negative
self-views surround themselves with others who see them in a negative light; this
cycle perpetuates their negative self-views. Although some have challenged the
notion that higher self-es teem is better (Kernis, 2003) and asserted that higher self-
esteem is not always related to greater well-being (Ryan & Brown, 2003), there is
considerable evidence linking low self-esteem to depression (Murrell, Meeks, &
Walker, 1991; Orth, Robins, & Roberts, 2008; Reinherz, Giaconia, Pakiz, &
Silverman, 1993; Roberts, Gotlib, & Kassel, 1996; Robinson, Garber, & Hilsman,
1995; Swann, Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelham, 1992b; Trzesniewski et al., 2006) and high
self-esteem to happiness (Di ener & Diener, 1995; Furnham & Cheng, 2000;
Shackelford, 20 01). On the balance, it appears that there is good reason to see the
perpetuation of low self-esteem via self-verification as potentially maladaptive (see
also Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarty, 2007b).
Depression. Just as the self-verification process perpetuates low self-esteem, it
also perpetuates depression. One reason for this is that low self-esteem is a
common feature of depression, so the perpetuation of either low self-esteem or
depression may imply the perpetuation of the other. Past research shows that
depression and self-esteem are highly correlated, with the correlation between
measures of the two constructs sometimes approaching .80 in some samples
(Swann et al., 1992b). More broadly, depression can be maintained via the self-
verification pr ocess because receiving unfavorable feedback makes people feel
badly. For example, Swann and his colleagues (Swann et al., 1987, 1992b) showed
that people with negative self-views who received unfavorable feedback reported
more negative affect than those with negative self-views who received favorable
136 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
In addition to its tendency to stabilize low self-esteem, the self-verification process
may also perpetuate depression in ways that are unrelated to self-esteem. Joiner
(1995) found that participants who were high in negative-feedback-seeking behavior
and had roommates who evaluated them negatively ex perienced significant increases
in depressed symptoms over time; this relationship, however, was not accounted for
by the level of self-esteem of the participant. Interestingly, neither high negative
feedback seeking nor roommate rejection alone predicted increases in depressed
symptoms. Only in combination did these factors lead to future symptoms of
depression. In a similar way, Joiner and Metalsky (1995) found that greater negative-
feedback-seeking behavior was significantly correlated (r ¼ .15) to depressed
symptoms (on the Beck Depression Inventory). Specifically, participants with
depressed symptoms reported greater negative-feedback-seeking behavior than non-
depressed participants. The unfavorable feedback that depressed people seek out
confirms their negative self-views, thereby perpetuating current depressed symptoms.
Additionally, surrounding themselves with people who supply them with unfavor-
able feedback may ensu re that people’s negative self-views remain negative (e.g.,
Swann & Predmore, 1985).
If self-verification strivings contribute to the maintenance of depression, a natural
question to ask is: why do depressed people seek out negative feedback and surround
themselves with people who see them in a negative light? One answer is that
depressed people are caught in a ‘‘cognitive-affective crossfire’’ (Swann et al., 1987),
in which there exists a tension between what people want at a cognitive level (i.e.,
psychological coherence) versus an affective level (i.e., the feelings of elation that
accompany positive feedback). For people with negative self-views, negative
feedback offers feelings of psychological coherence, a feeling that things are the
way one thinks they are, even though it does not feel good in the short run. Swann
et al. (1987) found that when participants with negative self-views received negative
feedback from an evaluator, they viewed it as particular ly accurate and viewed the
evaluator as relatively competent, even though they felt badly immediately after
receiving it. Thus, negative feedback provided coherence and comfort on a cognitive
level, even though it caused pain on an affective level. Ultimately, the desire for
psychological coherence is so powerful that it often trumps the desire for self-
enhancing feedback, such that people with negative self-views seek negative feedback
and surround themselves with people who view them negatively. As a result, their
depression endures. People with pos itive views are not caught in this crossfire.
Swann et al. (1987), for example, found that such individuals not only felt better
when they received positive feedback, but they also regarded positive feedback as
more accurate and rated the evaluator as more competent when he or she gave
positive feedback.
We should emphasize here that in decrying the tendency for people with negative
self-views to seek verification of their negative self-views, we are referring only to
inappropriately negative self-views. Clearly, all people possess flaws and limitations
that are difficult, if not impossible, to change. For example, some people are less
artistic, physically strong, or musical than others. Overly positive, inaccurate
assessments of their capacities would be a liability for such individuals, as they might
inhibit personal growth and flourishing. Nevertheless, possessing shortcomings does
not justify the feelings of worthlessness that are the hallmark of low self-esteem and
depression. Furthermore, low self-esteem and depressed persons typically exaggerate
their negative qualities or the negative implication of those qualities. Coupled with
self-verification striving s, such individuals may surround themselves with partners
Self-verification 3608 137
who have similar, inappropriately negative assessments of them. In this way, people
with negative self-views may perpetuate their negative, false self-views of themselves
and this may, in turn, prevent them from realizing their true capabilities and
attaining happiness. Such activities go far beyond having a healthy understanding of
one’s limitations.
Indirect Effects
Self-verification strivings not only have direct repercussions for individuals with
negative self-views, but they may also have indirect consequences. In particular, self-
verification strivings may affect people’s relationships and the environments they
choose for themselves.
Relationships. Self-verification strivings may lead to painful relationships for
people with negative self-vi ews. That is, such individuals may choose to be around
others who see them in a negative light and seek out negative feedback, even though
receiving unfavorable feedback from others is painful (Swann et al., 1992b).
Specifically, Swann et al. (1992b) found that depressives were more inclined to show
a preference for friends and dating partners who reported negative appraisals of
them than their non-depressed counterparts. In additio n, depressed persons
preferentially solicited unfavorable feedback, even though receiving unfavorable
feedback made them unhappy immediately after receiving the feedback. In a similar
way, Swann et al. found that participants with symptoms of depression wanted a
good friend to see them less positively in a global way than did non-depressed
The more people seek negative feedback, the more likely they are to suffer
rejection in their relationships. In a study of undergraduate roommates, Swann et al.
(1992b) found that the more a participant sought unfavorable feedback during the
middle of the semester, the more likely his or her roommate was to desire to
terminate the relationship, r(21) ¼ .38, p ¼ .030, and to plan to get a new roommate,
r(21) ¼ .39, p ¼ .032. Furthermore, Joiner and Metalsky (1995) found that males high
in negative feedback seeking, reassurance seeking, and depression at one time point
were more likely to experience greater rejection (defined by dislike and intent to
avoid) from roommates subsequently. Furthermore, as mentioned above, people
tend to withdraw from relationships in which the relationship partner fails to provide
self-verification. For example, Swann and Pelham (2002) found that college students
with firmly held negative self-views who had roommates who appraised them
positively made plans to find a new roommate. Therefore, self-verification strivings
may not only lead people with negative self-views to provoke rejection, it may also
cause them to flee from people who fail to reject them. As a result, people with
negative self-views may find that their relationship partners frequent ly make them
feel badly or rejec t them outright.
These results are particularly significant because they suggest self-verification
strivings are expressed outside the confines of laboratory settings. That is, people
with negative self-views not only choose interaction partners who view them
negatively in a laboratory, but they also choose others who view them negatively as
the central figures in their lives—their dating partners, their good friends, and their
roommates. Corroborating this point, research has shown that self-verification
strivings are even more pron ounced in relatively enduring relationships as compared
to fleeting ones (Campbell, Lackenbauer, & Muise, 2006; Swann et al., 1994).
138 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
Work environment. The tendency for people with negative self-views to seek self-
verification is not lim ited to personal relationships but extends even to their
relationships in the workplace. In a series of studies of the reactions of employ ees in
various working environments in the USA and elsewhere, Wiesenfeld, Swann,
Brockner, and Bartel (2007) discovered that self-esteem moderates pe ople’s reactions
to ‘‘procedural justice’ (whether the organizations’ procedures for dealing with
employees are fair). For people with high self-esteem, being treated fairly by their
work organization increased commitment to the organization, but people with low
self-esteem failed to display this preference for fair treatment. Furthermore, in one
study Wiesenfeld et al. (2007) reported that low-esteem persons were particularly
oblivious to maltreatment when the work relationship was thought to be enduring as
compared to fleeting. That is, people with low self-esteem felt more commitment to
organizations that treated them fairly when they had been at an organization for a
short time but displayed no such preference toward organizations they had been
associated with for a long while. This finding reinforces the notion that self-
verification strivings are more salient in relatively enduring relationships. This
phenomenon could be pernicious in that it appears that people with low self-esteem
are most willing to tolerate unfair treatment when they are choosing situations that
matter the most—long-term work environments and people who are likely to be
central figures in their lives.
The relative insensitivity of people with low self-esteem to unfair treatment is
potentially deleterious because it suggests that such persons may be unaware of
injustice and remain in jobs in which they are being exploited. Indeed, in the final
study in the Wiesenfeld et al. (2007) paper, students with low self-esteem indicated
that they felt most self-verified (i.e., known and understood) when their university
treated them unfair ly, and perceptions of self-verification mediated the relationship
between self-esteem and commitment to the university.
From this vantage point, the self-verification strivings of people with low self-
esteem may create an insidious cycle in which they remain in settings that may place
them at risk for psychological harm. This state of affairs also creates a challenging
predicament for employers interested in trying to foster employee commitment to
their organization. That is, if treating employees with low self-esteem more fairly will
not enhance their commi tment (as it does for high self-esteem employees), employers
must identify another way of en hancing commitment. They may, for instance, verify
specific attributes that are independent of their global perceptions of self-worth.
It appears, then, that self-verification can be maladaptive for people with negative
self-views because it facilitates the perpetuation of low self-esteem and depression,
and this may, in turn, contribute to emotionally painful relationships and work
environments. If so, it is important to develop ways of improving such negative self-
views. We address this and related issues in the next section.
Using Self-verification to Illuminate the Dark Side
Because self-verification processes tend to stabilize self-esteem, any effort to raise
self-esteem must be informed by a thorough understanding of these processes. We
propose here that, paradoxically, providing people with self-verificat ion may actually
facilitate the process of raising self-esteem by reassuring the pe rson, thereby reducing
anxiety and emboldening the person to contemplate change. From this vantage
point, the process of self-verification can be seen as a necessary (but not sufficient)
step for raising self-esteem. Furthermo re, because feelings of self-verification are
Self-verification 3608 139
associated with acceptance of oneself, self-verification processes may also be essential
to happiness. We explore both of these possibilities in what follows.
Self-verification and Raising Self-esteem
Attempting to raise others’ self-esteem by simply telling individuals with negative
self-views that they are wrong about themselves is unlikely to bear fruit. That is,
when people encounter challenges to their self-views, research on self-verification
processes indicates that they actively resist such challenges both behaviorally (e.g.,
by attempting to correct the ‘‘mistake’’ or withdrawing from the relationship) and
cognitively (e.g., by ‘‘seeing’’ the feedback as more consistent with their self-views
than it actual ly is). Presumably, such resistance reflects the fact that people’s self-
views are a deeply-rooted source of psychological coherence. For this reason, people
need to feel verified be fore they are able to change. This validation of the person’s
self-view fosters coherence and a sense of feeling accepted and understood, thereby
providing fertile soil for change.
We are not the first to suggest that feelings associated with self-verification can
foster receptiveness to change. Deci and Ryan (1995), for example, have argued that
fostering self-esteem in another e ntails ‘‘ . . . valuing the other for who he or she is and
taking that other’s frame of reference means beginning by accepting and
relating to the self of the other. It is precisely the acceptance of self—first by others
and then by oneself—that supports the development and maintenance of true self-
esteem’’ (p. 46). This type of acceptance is similar to Carl Rogers’ (1961) notion of
‘‘unconditional positive regard,’’ the concept that therapists could facilitate growth
and successful change in clients by providing an atmosphere of unconditional
acceptance. Rogers elaborated on this concept in his book, On Becoming a Person;he
wrote: ‘‘So I find that when I can accept another person, which means specifically
accepting the feeling and attitudes and beliefs that he has as a real and vital part of
him, then I am assisting him to become a person ...’ (p. 21). He underscored the
importance of the somewhat counter-intuitive relationship between acceptance and
change when he wrote, ‘‘ . . . the curious paradox is that when I accept myself as I am,
then I change’’ (Rogers, 1961). Accepting what another person is actually feeling, as
opposed to what one thinks the individual should feel or could feel, is a necessary
first step to change. This is even more important for family members, friends, and co-
workers closest to an individual with low self-esteem since past research has shown
that self-verification strivings are particularly salient when a relationship is relatively
enduring (Campbell et al., 2006; Swann et al., 1994). Acceptance from such persons
will go further to pave the way to change, and non-verifying feedback from this
group will create larger obstacles on the road to change. The self-verification process
constitutes a necessary first step in the process of raising self-esteem by fostering
acceptance in one’s social support network, but it is not sufficient.
Positive feedback, challenging negative self-views, must follow verification but
must be given in manageable doses. A study by Finn and Tonsager (1992)
demonstrated that integrating verification and positivity does, in fact, raise self-
esteem. College students who received subjectively accurate feedback about a
problem-focused personality test in a supportive environment enjoyed higher self-
esteem, even though the accurate feedback was often negative. Finn and Tonsager
posited that the results were due to the combination of ‘‘creating a positive
emotional tone, while verbally offering self-confirmatory (and often negative)
feedback’’ (p. 285). In essence, they found that accepting another’s shortcomings and
140 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
encouraging them to do the same makes such individuals more open to positive
evaluations that will raise self-esteem.
In a similar way, combining self-acceptance with positive c hange is evident in
various types of therapies. In Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, clients are
taught not to try to control thoughts or feelings but rather to observe them non-
judgmentally and to accept them, while changing behaviors in pos itive ways to better
their lives (Hayes, 1994). In Dialectical Behavior Therapy, the dialectic between
acceptance and change is also central (Baer, 2003). Clients are taught to accept
themselves completely, while working to change their behaviors and environments to
improve their lives (Baer, 2003). In the area of couples therapy, Jacobson,
Christensen, Prince, Cordova, and Eldridge (2000) found that Integrative Behavioral
Couple Therapy (IBCT), which focuses on accepting challenging aspects of one’s
partner with some emphasis on change, showed better results for distressed couples
than Traditional Behavioral Couple Therapy (TBCT), which focuses solely on
change. Specifically, both the husbands and wives participating in IBCT showed
greater increases in marital satisfaction than couples participating in TBCT, and in
IBCT, a larger percentage of couples either improved or recovered than in TBCT.
Jacobson et al. underscored the importance of this dialectic between acc eptance and
change in discussing their study: ‘‘Paradoxically, acceptance interventions are also
predicted to produce change in addition to acceptance, often more efficiently than
the direct change inducing strategies that constitute TBCT, because at times the
pressure to change may be the very factor that prevents it from occurring.’’ The
theme running throughout these therapies is that the provision of verifying
evaluations fosters self-acceptance, and self-acceptance lays the psychological
groundwork for receptiveness to positive change.
Self-verification and Happiness?
Just as understanding the self-verification process may offer insight into how to raise
self-esteem, it may also provide hints about how to increase happiness, a correlate of
self-esteem. We contend that encouraging people to accept themselves, in effect
offering themselves self-verification, is a key component of happiness.
Our argument is based on the assumption that accepting oneself, including
vulnerabilities, imperfections, and the full range of one’s emotions, is empowering
and is essential to happiness. This viewpoint differs from most contemporary
conceptualizations of happiness, which define happiness as the frequency of positive
emotions and infrequency of negative emotions (see Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener,
2005, for a review). In contrast, we suggest that happiness is better described as a
compassionate embracing or acceptance of a fuller range of emotions, rather than
one’s overall amount of positive emotions or net value of positive minus negative
Our contention that a wider range of feelings and emotions should be included in
conceptualizations of happiness has been presaged by Matthieu Ricard (2003) in his
Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill. He writes that
although ‘‘ ...we so often confuse genuine happiness with merely seeking enjoyable
emotions,’’ happiness is about learning how to ‘‘ . . . reduce the gap between
appearances and reality’’ (pp. 26 and 23). That is to say, it is about acceptance. He
added: ‘‘There exists a way of being that underlies and suffuses all emotional states,
that embraces all joys and sorrows that come to us .... The Sanskrit word for this
state of being is sukha’’ (p. 25). Here again, he underscores the significance of
Self-verification 3608 141
acceptance, specifically accepting all emotions—in essence, accepting ourselves. He
elaborates on this concept of sukha when he writes: ‘‘Sukha is the state of lasting
well-being that manifests itself when we have freed ourselves of mental blindness and
afflictive emotions. It is also the wisdom that allows us to see the world as it is,
without veils or distortions. It is, finally, the joy of moving toward inner freedom and
the loving-kindness that radiates toward others’’ (p. 25). Again, Ricard echoes the
notion that happiness is associated with the warm welcoming of ‘‘the world as it is,’’
rather than ‘‘merely seeking enjoyable emotions’’ or attempting to re-frame all
emotions as positive.
No less important than self-acceptance is acceptance by others. For example,
research on the effects of social support in the face of traumatic events has shown that
significant others often respond to a loved one who is a victim of trauma by forcing
cheerfulness and displaying an optimistic facade (Wortman & Dunkel-Schetter, 1979,
1987). Forced cheerfulness actually minimizes the victim’s situation, which may make
the victim feel abandoned or rejected (Dakof & Taylor, 1990). Similarly, Dakof and
Taylor (1990) found that mini mization of trauma by social support providers (i.e.,
family, physicians, and nurses) was one of the most frequent complaints of cancer
victims. Furthermore, Ingram, Betz, Mindes, Schmitt, and Smith (2001) found that
forcing optimism or downplaying the individual’s concerns (e.g., saying the victim
‘‘should look on the bright side’’), is such a prevalent and unsupportive response that
it was one of the four main factors upon which these authors loaded all negative,
unsupportive responses to difficult life events. This type of response was not only
characterized by victims as being unsupportive, it was also related to depressive
symptoms and predicted incremental variance in depression, overall psychological
distress, and physical symptoms of depression.
Ironically, the implicit belief that happiness can be achieved by shoehorning all
experiences into positive ones may lead to behaviors that have precisely the opposite
of the effect intended. To the contrary, when a person does not feel that their
negative feelings are validated or accepted by others in the social support network,
their physical and mental health suffers. In short, acceptance at both an intrapsychic
and interpersonal level is integral to enduring happiness, but it is often overlooked in
both the definition and measurement of happiness. Our theoretical perspective
suggests that a more expansive definition of happiness, as well as appropriate
measures, is needed to achieve a richer understanding of the nature and origins of
this construct.
Self-verification theory assumes that people work to preserve their ne gative as well as
positive self-views by seeking confirmation for these self-views. This process has a
light side in that it is a fundamentally adaptive process. Some direct positive
consequences of self-verification are feelings of psychological coherence, reduced
anxiety, and improved physical health. Some indirect positive consequences grow
out of the impact of these processes on people’s relationships, including the role self-
verification plays in detecting relationship partners perceived to be honest, fostering
intimacy and trust in relationships, and ensuring predictability in one’s behavior,
which enables harmonious social interactions and further promotes trust.
Although fundamentally adaptive, self-verification strivings also have a dark
side. Some direct negative consequences are a tendency to perpetuate inaccurate
self-views, low self-esteem, and depression. Indirectly, self-verification processes can
142 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
degrade the quality of people’s relationships and environments. These consequences
are significant and can cause tremendous anguish in people’s lives. Nevertheless, in
such instances, it is the overly negative self-view, rather than the process of self-
verification, that is the root of the problem.
Understanding the critical importance of self-verification processes offers insight
into how to bring more light to the dark side of self-verification. Specifically, it
teaches us about how to raise self-esteem. We suggest that to help raise the self-
esteem of another individual with a negative self-view, one should first convey
acceptance of what the other individual is actually feeling and only then provide
positive feedback that challenges the negative self-views. This ordered combination
of acceptance plus positivity will theoretically foster positive self-views. Once such
positive self-views are established, the process of self-verification can resume anew,
but this time it will be in the service of promoting personal and social realities that
are both truthful and relatively adaptive. As a result, people will think about
themselves in a new, more meaningful, more complete, and more sustaining way.
Not only does understanding self-verification offer insight into how to minimiz e
negative phenomena, such as the perpetuation of low self-esteem, but it also provides
guidance about enhancing positive phenomena, such as building happiness. Self-
verification highlights the importance of acceptance, both intrapsychic and
interpersonal, to happiness. It calls us to acknowledge and to incorporate in a
personal way the powerful, life-giving force of acceptance.
Athay, M., & Darley, J. M. (1981). Towards an interpersonal action-centered theory of
personality. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition and social
interactions (pp. 281–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ayduk, O., Mendes, W. B., Akinola, M., & Gyurak, A. (2008). Self-esteem and blood pressure
reactivity to social acceptance and rejection: Self-verification processes revealed in
physiological responses. Manuscript in preparation, UC Berkeley.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical
review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125–143.
Brown, J. D., & McGill, K. J. (1989). The cost of good fortune: When positive life events
produce negative health consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (1999). Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 62, 347–360.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (rev. ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education.
Campbell, L., Lackenbauer, S. D., & Muise, A. (2006). When is being known or adored by
romantic partners most beneficial? Self-perceptions, relationship length, and responses to
partner’s verifying and enhancing appraisals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32, 1283–1294.
Cassidy, J. (2001). Truth, lies, and intimacy: An attachment perspective. Attachment & Human
Development, 3, 121–155.
Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80, 1041–1068.
Chang-Schneider, C., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (in press). The role of uncertainty in self-evaluative
processes: Another look at the cognitive–affective crossfire. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson,
& P. J. Carroll (Eds.), The uncertain self: A handbook of perspectives from social and
personality psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Self-verification 3608 143
Cooley, C. S. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.
Coyne, J. C. (1976). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39,
Coyne, J. C., Kahn, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (1987). Depression. In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family
interaction and psychopathology (pp. 509–533). New York: Plenum Press.
Crary, W. G. (1966). Reactions to incongruent self-experiences. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 30, 246–252.
Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behavior making the
beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 284–290.
Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims’ perceptions of social support: What is helpful
from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80–89.
De La Ronde, C., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1998). Partner verification: Restoring shattered images
of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 374–382.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem.
In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–46). New York:
Plenum Press.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68, 653–663.
Finn, S. E., & Tonsager, M. E. (1992). Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback
to college students awaiting therapy. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 4, 278–287.
Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Lay theories of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1,
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Hayes, S. C. (1994). Content, context, and the types of psychological acceptance.
In S. C. Hayes, N. S. Jacobson, V. M. Follette, & M. J. Dougher (Eds.),
Acceptance and change: Content and context in psychotherapy (pp. 13–32). Reno, NV:
Context Press.
Hixon, J. G., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1993). When does introspection bear fruit? Self-reflection,
self-insight, and interpersonal choices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
Ingram, K. M., Betz, N. E., Mindes, E. J., Schmitt, M. M., & Smith, N. G. (2001).
Unsupportive responses from others concerning a stressful life event: Development of the
unsupportive interactions inventory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20,
Iyer, A., Jetten, J., & Tsivrikos, D. (2008). Torn between identities: Predictors of adjustment to
identity change. In F. Sani (Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives
(pp. 187–200). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jacobson, N. S., Christensen, A., Prince, S. E., Cordova, J., & Eldridge, K. (2000). Integrative
Behavioral Couple Therapy: An acceptance-based, promising new treatment for couple
discord. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 351–355.
Joiner, T. E., Jr. (1995). The price of soliciting and receiving negative feedback:
Self-verification theory as a vulnerability to depression theory. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 104, 364–372.
Joiner, T. E., Jr. & Metalsky, G. I. (1995). A prospective test of an integrative interpersonal
theory of depression: A naturalistic study of college roommates.
Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 778–788.
Jones, S. C. (1973). Self and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency
theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 185–199.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 1–26.
Lerner, H. G. (1993). The dance of deception. New York: HarperCollins.
Lundgren, D. C., & Schwab, M. R. (1977). Perceived appraisals by others, self-esteem, and
anxiety. The Journal of Psychology, 97, 205–213.
144 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt
security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 478–498.
Murrell, S. A., Meeks, S., & Walker, J. (1991). Protective functions of health and self-esteem
against depression in older adults facing illness or bereavement. Psychology and Aging, 6,
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2008). Low self-esteem prospectively predicts
depression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 695–708.
Pelham, B. W. (1991). On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance of
self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 518–530.
Ralph, J. A., & Mineka, S. (1998). Attributional style and self-esteem: The prediction of
emotional distress following a midterm exam. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107,
Reinherz, H. Z., Giaconia, R. M., Pakiz, B., & Silverman, A. B. (1993). Psychosocial
risks for major depression in late adolescence: A longitudinal community
study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32,
Reiss, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.
Ricard, M. (2003). Happiness: A guide to developing life’s most important skill (J. Browner
transl.). New York: Little, Brown.
Ritts, V., & Stein, J. R. (1995). Verification and commitment in marital relationships: An
exploration of self-verification theory in community college students. Psychological
Reports, 76, 383–386.
Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D. (1996). Adult attachment security and symptoms
of depression: The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 310–320.
Robinson, D. T., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1992). Selective interaction as a strategy for identity
maintenance: An affect control model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 12–28.
Robinson, N. S., Garber, J., & Hilsman, R. (1995). Cognitions and stress: Direct and
moderating effects on depressive versus externalizing symptoms during the junior high
school transition. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 453–463.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2003). Why we don’t need self-esteem: On fundamental needs,
contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 71–76.
Schafer, R. B., Wickrama, K. A. S., & Keith, P. M. (1996). Self-concept disconfirmation,
psychological distress, and marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,
Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,
Shimizu, M., & Pelham, B. W. (2004). The unconscious cost of good fortune:
Implicit and explicit self-esteem, positive life events, and health. Health Psychology, 23,
Silverman, I. (1964). Self-esteem and differential responsiveness to success and failure. Journal
of Social Psychology, 69, 115–119.
Suinn, R. M., Osborne, D., & Page, W. (1962). The self-concept and accuracy of recall of
inconsistent self-related information. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 473–474.
Self-verification 3608 145
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self.
In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2,
pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known: The interplay of self-enhancement and
self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Foundations of social
behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408–448). New York: Guilford Press.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Chang-Schneider, C., & Angulo, S. (2007a). Self-verification in relationships
as an adaptive process. In J. Wood, A. Tesser, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The self and social
relationships (pp. 49–72). New York: Psychology Press.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K. L. (2007b). Do people’s self-views
matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 84–94.
Swann, W. B., Jr. De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings
in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality an d Soc ial Ps ychology, 66, 857–869.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S., & Gaines, B. (1987). The cognitive–affective
crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 881–889.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Hixon, J. G., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Gilbert, D. T. (1990). The fleeting gleam
of praise: Behavioral reactions to self-relevant feedback. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 17–26.
Swann, W. B., Jr. & Pelham, B. W. (2002). Who wants out when the going gets good?
Psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Self and
Identity, 1, 219–233.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth?
Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 782–791.
Swann, W. B., Jr. & Predmore, S. C. (1985). Intimates as agents of social support: Sources of
consolation or despair? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1609–1617.
Swann, W. B., Jr. & Read, S. J. (1981a). Acquiring self-knowledge: The search for feedback
that fits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1119–1128.
Swann, W. B., Jr. & Read, S. J. (1981b). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-
conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 351–372.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, B. (1992a). Why people self-verify. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392–401.
Swann, W. B., Jr. Wenzlaff, R. M., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1992b). Allure of negative
feedback: Self-verification strivings among depressed persons. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 101, 293–306.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., Poulton, R., &
Caspi, A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal
behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology,
42, 381–390.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Why do people rely on others? Social identity and social aspects of trust.
In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (Vol. 2, pp. 285–306). New York: Russell Sage
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann, W. B., Jr. Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness
always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1235–1253.
Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., Newby-Clark, I., & Ross, M. (2005). Snatching defeat from the
jaws of victory: Self-esteem differences in the experience and anticipation of success.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89, 764–780.
Wortman, C. B., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1979). Interpersonal relationships and cancer: A
theoretical analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 120–155.
Wortman, C. B., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1987). Conceptual and methodological issues in the
study of social support. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and
health (pp. 63–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
146 R. J. North & W. B. Swann
... Psychological safety is the ability to show and employ one's self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status, or career and taking interpersonal risks. Self-verification means people want others to see them as they see themselves (Swann et al. 2009). External rapport is expressing and utilizing one's identity in initial interactions with people outside the organization (Grant et al. 2014). ...
... Job titles also serve as the basis for job design and job analysis (Grant et al. 2014) and help define the organizational hierarchy (Klein et al. 2006). Organizations constrain the fundamental human impulse to self-express by imposing inadequate titles (Swann et al. 2009), therefore, job titles are a part of an employee's self-expression, shaping how they identify and express themselves within as well as outside of their organization since they are indicative of status and also used routinely (Ashforth et al. 1999). Moreover, an apt job title helps employees to better avail themselves of the unique skills they possess (Elsbach 2003). ...
The current study aims to investigate the extent to which job titles and job characteristics contribute to the job satisfaction of employees at a Midwestern United States utility and transportation company using Hackman & Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (1976) and Katz and Van Maanen’s (1977)Loci of Work Satisfaction. It assumes if job titles are designated based on these characteristics—then employees will be more satisfied and therefore more motivated and productive. The researchers undertook an ethno-phenomenological approach with a data of 25 full-time employees who were interviewed about their overall experience regarding their job and how they feel the five core dimensions of work satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) are related to their job titles using a semi-structured pattern following Kvale’s (1996) framework. Results demonstrate that employees in this organization feel that job titles significantly impact their overall job satisfaction and responded positively to all five of the core job characteristic dimensions. However, employees who feel that their job title affects their external rapport perceived a need to alter their job titles. This study was restricted to self-report measures at a single organization.
... Research states that implementing an individualized human resource management practice like extending ideals to the employees correspond with their requisite needs of competence (Ho & Kong, 2015) , autonomy (Wang, Liu, & Shalley, 2018), personal growth (Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009) etc. Additionally, the 'social comparison' (Festinger, 1954) and 'self-verification theory' (North & Swann, 2009) suggests that an employee's perception of the ideal indicate its relation to their dignity. An employee who has been successful in negotiating an i-deal from the leader, may feel valued and recognized for their competence. ...
... Social comparison theory states that people have a tendency to compare their abilities with comparable others (Festinger, 1954). Self-verification theory (North & Swann, 2009) purports the tendency of people to preserve the assumptions formed as self-views. They are motivated to maintain it in order to gain coherence, predictability and control over their worlds. ...
Full-text available
In the wake of multitude of crises that we face today, the humanistic management of organizations has become a moral imperative. Recently ‘Workplace Dignity’ has found its mention in the contemporary analyses of work, ethnographies and inquiries into humanization of work. This study introduces a leadership - dignity framework in the context of individualized human resource management (HRM) practices like Idiosyncratic deals (I-deals). A new leadership – dignity framework is presented and further, drawing upon the social comparison and self-verification theory, it examines the role of extension of I-deals in the leader- employee relationship under the dignity paradigm. The paper contributes to the leader-employee relationship literature with relevant inputs towards conceptualization of dignity at work, enhancing the overall employee experiences in organizations.
... Research states that implementing an individualized human resource management practice like extending ideals to the employees correspond with their requisite needs of competence (Ho & Kong, 2015) , autonomy (Wang, Liu, & Shalley, 2018), personal growth (Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009) etc. Additionally, the 'social comparison' (Festinger, 1954) and 'self-verification theory' (North & Swann, 2009) suggests that an employee's perception of the ideal indicate its relation to their dignity. An employee who has been successful in negotiating an i-deal from the leader, may feel valued and recognized for their competence. ...
... Social comparison theory states that people have a tendency to compare their abilities with comparable others (Festinger, 1954). Self-verification theory (North & Swann, 2009) purports the tendency of people to preserve the assumptions formed as self-views. They are motivated to maintain it in order to gain coherence, predictability and control over their worlds. ...
Conference Paper
A human-centric approach has become a priority for organizations in the post-pandemic era. Humanistic management of businesses versus economistic management has come forth and found a place in the reformed idea of societal progress. And hence employee wellbeing and dignity at work are increasingly becoming the focus of leaders globally. This study explores the role of leaders in the creation of dignified workplaces. It also attempts to understand how individual differences in employees create varied perceptions about dignity at work. This research contributes to the leader-follower relationship literature. Further, practical and theoretical contributions of the study are also discussed.
... If there will be a disconnect between social feedback and various selves it can lead to arousal of negative emotion and affects personal integrity as well (Backman 1988;MacKinnon 1994). In a study it was found that if there is incongruence in self-role then it can lead to experiences of dysphoria as well (Hochschild 1983;Schlenker 1985) and another important piece of work has proved that when there is self-role congruence, it will lead to satisfaction and commitment in the self-role (Reich and Rosenberg 2004;Chassin et al. 1985;Reich 2000;Roberts and Donahue 1994;North and Swann 2009;Sheldon et al. 1997). Once again positive correlations were reported between selfcongruence scores and satisfaction and role specific scores (Donahue and Harary, 1998). ...
Full-text available
Over the past few decades, the world has witnessed wars and conflicts between the nations and even within a nation. Harmony is needed before anything as it is the ground on which the strong pillar of a nation stands. In India, Jammu and Kashmir over the decades has witnessed huge amounts of violence and terrorism. This study has been done with the intent to explore the relationship between self and other orientation, life satisfaction, coping strategies and educational background. In a sample of 378 individuals (187 males and 191 females), a moderated meditational model was tested using influence of (self and other) on life satisfaction mediated by coping strategies and moderated by educational background. Results showed that Orientation (Self and Others) had a direct positive association with life satisfaction, ways of coping strongly mediate the relation between orientation (self and other) and life satisfaction and the educational background reduces the strength of the relationship between orientation and life satisfaction. Individual orientation towards self and others strongly influence and associate with their ways of coping and the level of life satisfaction which further mold with educational background.
... If people maintain self-concept positivity and coherence by being tuned to how self-and trait knowledge is structured, abnormalities in how people process this structure may relate to mental health symptomatology. Prior research has described aggregate reductions in positive self-views (Bernet et al., 1993;Tarlow & Haaga, 1996) and a preference for self-consistent negative information (North & Swann, 2009;Swann et al., 1992) as a function of depressive symptoms and low self-esteem. The current findings extend these observations and offer potential insight into one possibility for how reductions in self-concept positivity and coherence may emerge among individuals with depressive symptoms and low self-esteem. ...
How people self-reflect and maintain a coherent sense of self is an important question that spans from early philosophy to modern psychology and neuroscience. Research on the self-concept has not yet developed and tested a formal model of how beliefs about dependency relations amongst traits may influence self-concept coherence. We first develop a network-based approach, which suggests that people’s beliefs about trait relationships contribute to how the self-concept is structured (Study 1). This model describes how people maintain positivity and coherence in self-evaluations, and how trait interrelations relate to activation in brain regions involved in self-referential processing and concept representation (Study 2 and Study 3). Results reveal that a network-based property theorized to be important for coherence (i.e., outdegree centrality) is associated with more favorable and consistent self-evaluations and decreased ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) activation. Further, participants higher in self-esteem and lower in depressive symptoms differentiate between higher and lower centrality positive traits more in self-evaluations, reflecting associations between mental health and how people process perceived trait dependencies during self-reflection. Together, our model and findings join individual differences, brain activation, and behavior to present a computational theory of how beliefs about trait relationships contribute to a coherent, interconnected self-concept.
... An alternative explanation could be that more confident parents are driven to maintain their self-image as good parents by showing off their children and parenting skills on social media, thereby receiving positive validation from peers. This allows them to simultaneously engage in self-enhancement and self-verification, which occurs when positive feedback given to a person matches their existing view of themselves (e.g., [81]; [82]). ...
Parents posting photos and other information about children on social media is increasingly common and a recent source of controversy. We investigated characteristics that predict parental sharing behavior by collecting information from 493 parents of young children in the United States on self-reported demographics, social media activity, parenting styles, children's social media engagement, and parental sharing attitudes and behaviors. Our findings indicate that most social media active parents share photos of their children online and feel comfortable doing so without their child's permission. The strongest predictor of parental sharing frequency was general social media posting frequency, suggesting that participants do not strongly differentiate between "regular" photo-sharing activities and parental sharing. Predictors of parental sharing frequency include greater social media engagement, larger social networks with norms encouraging parental sharing, more permissive and confident parenting styles, and greater social media engagement by their children. Contrasting previous research that often highlights benefits of parental sharing, our findings point to a number of risky online behaviors associated with parental sharing not previously uncovered. Implications for children's privacy and early social media exposure are discussed, including future directions for influencing parental sharing attitudes and behaviors.
... However, online recognition additionally allows donors to receive validation from socially significant others about their donation activities that serves to perpetuate psychological coherence between how others view them and how they view themselves (North & Swann, 2009). This is important, as prior research demonstrates that when real (vs imagined) feedback is received, the accuracy of individual reflected appraisals is improved (Felson, 1985;Stets & Carter, 2011). ...
Full-text available
Nonprofit organization (NPO) marketers are now increasingly turning online to recognize donors, with little understanding as to how online donor appreciation influences behavior. A scenario-based research design using an online survey was administered to a random sample of voluntary blood donors ( n = 356). The findings contribute to identity theory by demonstrating that online recognition (digital badge shared to Facebook) can strengthen subjective impressions of identity-related behavior above a private thank-you email alone. Furthermore, outcomes of a positive identity appraisal (accountability and emotional value) were found to differentially drive NPO-benefiting activities (positive electronic word-of-mouth and donation intentions) depending on donation experience. The results strategically inform online donor appreciation activities to improve donor retention.
Purpose Utilizing a self-regulatory perspective, the authors examine how narcissism influences perceived negative inequity and the downstream effects on self-enhancement motivation and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) over time. Design/methodology/approach A total of 689 useable three-wave panel data were obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk during a three-month period. A latent growth curve modeling approach using EQS 6.4 for Windows was employed to test the hypothesized model. Findings Results illustrate that individuals with higher levels of narcissism perceive higher levels of perceived negative inequity and then form higher levels of self-enhancement motivation, which prompt more OCB directed toward the organization (OCBO) than OCB directed toward individuals (OCBI). When perceived negative inequity increases over time, narcissists experience a faster increase in self-enhancement motivation, which also leads to a faster increase in OCBO compared to the increase in OCBI. Originality/value Theoretically, this study provides theoretical and empirical insights into understanding the process through which narcissists' OCBs are motivated. Practically, this study offers several practical recommendations that help managers manage OCBs effectively in the organization.
Memory bias entails preferential recall of a certain kind of information over another. The present research explores the self-verification motive in memory bias to maintain self-esteem. It is hypothesised that people with high self-esteem will remember more positive content and people with low self-esteem will remember more negative content to maintain their self-esteem. Two experiments were conducted to test it. Experiment one (N = 48) uses two groups of high and low self-esteem based on their self-esteem score. In experiment two (N = 44), self-esteem is manipulated in the laboratory by providing positive or negative feedback to participants on a performance task. In both experiments, memory bias is measured by the number of positive or negative adjectives recalled after seeing them on a computer screen. Results of both studies confirm the hypotheses and show that people remember/recall the words that fit into their present self-schema more and forget the words which go against it.
Full-text available
Recent scholars have dismissed the utility of self-esteem as well as programs designed to improve it. The authors challenge these contentions on conceptual, methodological, and empirical grounds. They begin by proposing that the scope of recent analyses has been overly narrow and should be broadened to include specific as well as global self-views. Using this conceptualization, the authors place recent critiques in historical context, recalling that similarly skeptical commentaries on global attitudes and traits inspired theorizing and empirical research that subsequently restored faith in the value of both constructs. Specifically, they point to 3 strategies for attaining more optimistic assessments of the predictive validity of selfviews: recognizing the utility of incorporating additional variables in predictive schemes, matching the specificity of predictors and criteria, and using theoretically informed standards for evaluating predictor– criterion relationships. The authors conclude that self-views do matter and that it is worthwhile and important to develop and implement theoretically informed programs to improve them.
The hypothesis that people who seek and receive negative feedback are vulnerable to increases in depressed symptoms was tested among 100 undergraduates and their roommates. Students and roommates completed questionnaires on their views of each other and on their own levels of negative feedback seeking, depressed and anxious symptoms, negative and positive affect, and self-esteem. Three weeks later, students and roommates completed the same questionnaires. Results were, in general, consistent with prediction. Students who reported an interest in their roommates' negative feedback and who lived with a roommate who viewed them negatively were at heightened risk for increases in depressed symptoms. These results could not be explained in terms of the variables' relations to trait self-esteem. The symptom specificity of the effect was moderately supported. Implications for work on interpersonal vulnerability to depression are discussed.
Three studies investigated the relation between adult attachment security and symptoms of depression. Study 1 examined the overall magnitude of the association between adult attachment and depression, and Studies 2 and 3 tested whether this relation was mediated by dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem. Results from the three studies were consistent with a mediation model. This model suggests that insecure adult attachment styles are associated with dysfunctional attitudes, which in turn predispose to lower levels of self-esteem. Such depletions in self-esteem are directly associated with increases in depressive symptoms over time. Insecure attachment appears to lead to depressive symptoms in adulthood through its impact on self-worth contingencies and self-esteem.
Over and over, investigators have found self-esteem to be central in a broad network of constructs associated with motivation, performance, and well-being. Esteeming oneself—thinking well of oneself—has often been found to relate to more effective behavior and better adjustment than has low self-regard.
The study of family interaction in depression is perhaps 20 years behind the study of such factors in schizophrenia, particularly if one judges from the lack of guiding concepts in depression research analogous to the double bind, pseudo-mutuality, schism, and skew. There have been efforts to describe depression as an interactional phenomenon (Coyne, 1976a; McPartland & Hornstra, 1964) and to identify the social role impairments (Weissman & Paykel, 1974) and social skills deficits (Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973; Youngren & Lewinsohn, 1980) of depressed persons. The association between marital disturbance and depression has been noted (Briscoe & Smith, 1973), and in general, there is a growing appreciation of the social environment as a factor in the etiology, maintenance, and treatment of depression (Brown & Harris, 1978). Yet, there is a puzzling lack of research involving actual observations of how depressed persons interact with the people who are significant in their lives. Of necessity, therefore, the present chapter focuses as much on building a case for the further study of marital and family interaction in depression and the issues that are likely to arise in this endeavor as on reviewing the meager interactional literature that has accumulated thus far.