Social Feedback of Fragile-High Self-Esteem Individuals – Replication - Study Plan
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SFAp(Days)
SFAn(Days)
OSF
Purpose
People with fragile high self-esteem have high explicit, but low implicit, self-esteem. They are selfaggrandizing, self-centered, and exhibit maladaptive social behavior. This study aims to replicate previous findings
that suggested that the (perceived) social environment of these individuals is essentially positive. These results were
found in my thesis, when analyzing data from attitude 3.0 (Bar-Anan & Nosek, 2014), using the self-esteem BriefIAT. Specifically, the previous study found that individuals with fragile high self-esteem (i.e., high explicit self-esteem,
low implicit self-esteem) reported that more days passed from the last time they received negative social feedback,
when compared to other forms of self-esteem (See figure 1a), but failed to show that they had lower levels of
absence, or higher recency, of positive social feedback, as those of individuals with other forms of self-esteem (See
figure 1b).
In the original study three D scores were computed: bIAT-D, Self Focal D (SFD) and Others Focal D (OFD).
bIAT-D is the D measure proposed by Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji (2003; Nosek, Bar-Anan, Sriram, Axt, &
Greenwald, 2014). SFD followed the same logic, but was computed using only blocks in which Self was a focal
category (i.e., blocks where participants saw the category labels Self and Good Words in the upper-right corner, or
the category labels Self and Bad Words, in the upper-right corner). Positive SFD scores indicate shorter response
latency in the Self-Good trials, when compared to the Self-Bad trials. In contrast, OFD was computed using only
blocks in which Others was a focal category. Positive OFD scores indicate shorter response latency in the OthersBad trials, when compared to the Others-Good trials.
By employing the same Brief-IAT scores as that of the original study, I also hope to replicate the correlational
patterns of SFD, OFD, and bIAT-D, where both SFD and OFD scores were positively correlated with bIAT D scores,
but SFD and OFD were negatively and moderately correlated.
While this study aims to replicate the previous findings, I will also add a validated measure to assess social
support, the Social Support Questionnaire Short Form (SSQ6). Social support can be defined as a person's
perceived belief that help or empathy can be obtained when needed and the satisfaction with this available support
(Sarason, 1987). The SSQ6 could serve as a validity criterion for the SFA items, and as a
-2
-1
0
1
2
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-2
-1
SFD
High RSES
Figure 1a
0
1
2
SFD
Low RSES
High RSES
Low RSES
Figure 1b
Note. Sample size is 172. RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, SFD = Self Focal D Score, SFAp(Days) = Social Feedback Absence –
positive scale values recoded to reflect the scale response in magnitude of days, SFAn(Days) = Social Feedback Absence –
negative scale values recoded to reflect the scale response in magnitude of days.
Procedure
●
●
The participants will complete direct self-esteem measure (Rosenberg), two questions about receiving
negative and positive social feedback, the Short Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ6) and a self-esteem
Brief-IAT, in random order.
First instructions screen:
○
Social feedback instructions:
○
Social feedback question:
○ Rosenberg instructions
○
Rosenberg question:
○
SSQ instruction:
○
○
bIAT instructions:
First slide of bIAT, practice block instructions:
○
A trial in the practice block:
○
First (non-practice) block of bIAT (will be counterbalanced):
○
Second block:
○
Third block:
○
Fourth block:
○
Fifth block:
○
Sixth block:
○ Seventh block:
○ Eighth block:
●
●
Manipulation: the study does not include a manipulation.
Stimuli:
● Brief Implicit Associations Test: Attitude objects stimuli. The exemplars in the bIAT will be words
pertaining to one of two category labels: Self (items: Me, Mine, Myself, and Self) or Others (items: They,
Them, Theirs, and Others). Attribute stimuli. The category labels for the attribute categories in the bIAT will
be: Good Words (items: Paradise, Pleasure, Cheer, Wonderful) and Bad Words (items: Bomb, Abuse,
Sadness, Pain).
● Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: the items of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale will be:
○ 'On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.'
○ 'At times, I think I am no good at all.'
○ 'I feel that I have a number of good qualities.'
○ 'I am able to do things as well as most other people.'
○ 'I feel I do not have much to be proud of.'
○ 'I certainly feel useless at times.'
○ 'I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.'
○ 'I wish I could have more respect for myself.'
○ 'All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.'
○ 'I take a positive attitude toward myself
● Social Feedback Absence questionnaire (SFAq): the items of the SFAq questionnaire will be:
○ When did you last receive negative feedback from another person?
○ When did you last receive positive feedback from another person?
● Social Support Questionnaire:
○ 'Whom can you really count on to be dependable when you need help?'
○ 'Whom can you really count on to help you feel more relaxed when you are under
pressure or tense?'
○ 'Who accepts you totally, including both your worst and your best points?'
○ 'Whom can you really count on to care about you, regardless of what is happening to
you?'
○ 'Whom can you really count on to help you feel better when you are feeling generally
down-in-the dumps?'
○ 'Whom can you count on to console you when you are very upset?'
●
Measures:
○ Brief implicit association test (bIAT). The bIAT procedure will follow the one described in Sriram and
Greenwald (2009), but with a shorter practice block. In the instructions slide, the bIAT will be presented
to the participants as "the IN-or-OUT game." Words will be presented one at a time with the two "IN"
categories at the top of the screen. Participants will be instructed to hit the right-response key when
they see an item belonging to the "IN" categories, and hit the left-response key when the item does not
belong to those categories. In the bIAT, only two "focal" categories are named and appear on screen.
The "OUT," non-focal stimuli always belong to the two contrasting categories. For instance, if the focal
categories are Good Words and Self, the items that did not belong to these categories were the items
representing Bad Words and Others.
The bIAT sequence will include nine blocks of trials. In each block, the first four trials are
selected from the target categories (i.e., Self, Others), and the remaining trials for each block alternate
between target categories and attributes (Good, Bad Words). The first block is a practice round of 8
total trials with mammals and birds as target categories and good and bad as attribute categories. The
other eight blocks present 24 category-attribute alternating trials. The second through fifth blocks have
the same focal attribute (e.g., Good Words) but alternate the focal category (i.e., Self, Others), such that
one appears in blocks 2 and 4, and the other appears in blocks 3 and 5. The sixth through ninth blocks
have the other attribute focal (e.g., bad) and, likewise, alternate the focal category between blocks. The
order of attributes and categories as focal will be randomized between subjects, resulting in four
between-subjects conditions (good or bad first; Self or Others first).
○ Rosenberg's self-esteem scale (RSES). Rosenberg's questionnaire is a 10-item measure assessing
global self-esteem (detailed above). Responses are rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Higher RSES scores indicate higher self-esteem.
○ Social feedback. In an attempt to assess participant's social environment, they will be asked to recall
the last time they received positive and negative feedbacks. Responses will be rated on a 6-point scale
("today", "yesterday", "less than a week ago", "over a week ago", "over a month ago", "over a year
ago"). SFA Scores are given for negative feedback (SFAn) and positive feedback (SFAp)
independently. Higher SFAn(p) scores indicate absence of negative (positive) feedback in the
individual's social environment. (do you think we should try a more sensitive scale, such as adding 'less
than 5 hours ago'/'less than an hour ago'?)
○ Social Support Questionnaire Short Form (SSQ6). The SSQ6 measures an individual’s perception of
the number of people they can turn to in times of need (SSQ-N; max 9) and their satisfaction with the
support available (SSQ-S), in six situations. The SSQ6-N score is calculated by summing the number of
persons listed for all items and dividing by six. The SSQ-S asks respondents to indicate on a six-point
Likert scale their satisfaction with the support they have. The SSQ-S score is calculated by summing
responses from all satisfaction items and dividing by six.
Sample size
● Based on the results of a previous study, the expected effect size for the interaction coefficient is small,
f2=0.03, therefore, in order to obtain 95% power, a sample of 436 participants is needed. 90% power will
require N=353, and 85% power will require N=302. We will run the study for about 2-3 weeks in Project
Implicit, which will probably provide us about 600 eligible participants, and very high power to detect the
predicted interaction.
(I'm not sure these are the correct settings. I've chosen the 'single regression coef' but other options also
seemed plausible.)
Analysis plan
multiple regression analyses will be performed to test whether discrepancies between explicit self-esteem –
measured using RSES – and implicit self-esteem – measured using SFD, OFD, and beyond-focal D – are associated
with positive and negative social feedback. This will be tested using the interaction term (Aiken et al., 1991) of
implicit and explicit self-esteem