A good review and you are fine for two days. One cool reply and you are not. The research on this describes something more specific than low self-esteem.
Someone replies to your message with one word and no punctuation, and you spend the afternoon reading the room for signs. A piece of praise lands and you are genuinely fine, right up until the next thing. By Thursday you could not say with any confidence whether you are doing well.
The usual name for this is low self-esteem, and it is often the wrong name. Plenty of people with this pattern are not walking around thinking badly of themselves. The problem is not the level. It is what the level is attached to.
Psychologists Jennifer Crocker and Connie Wolfe set out this distinction in 2001, and it is the useful idea in the whole literature.
Level is your baseline, the general view you hold of yourself. Contingency is where that view is staked: the specific domains your worth rises and falls with. Crocker and colleagues built a scale in 2003 measuring seven of them, including other people's approval, appearance, competition, academic competence, love and support from family, virtue, and God's love.
Put those together and you get the thing that was confusing. You can hold a perfectly average opinion of yourself and still be on a daily rollercoaster, because the rollercoaster is not about how high you are. It is about how much is riding on the next piece of feedback. The term for this is contingent self-worth, and it is a better description of the experience than low self-esteem, which predicts a steady state rather than a swinging one.
Worth adding, because people get there quickly: contingent self-esteem is not fake self-esteem. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan made this point in 1995. It is real and it is fragile, which is a different thing. Fragile means it needs defending.
Not all contingencies behave the same way, and this is where the research gets specific.
Sargent and Crocker, following students through a first semester of college in 2006, found that external contingencies predicted more depressive symptoms over the term. Others' approval was one of them, along with appearance, competition and academics. The internal contingencies, virtue and God's love, did not show the same effect. Where worth was staked mattered, not just how much.
Park and Crocker found in 2008 that the more a person based their worth on others' approval, the lower their state self-esteem fell after negative interpersonal feedback, with more negative feeling and less positive feeling afterwards. Which is the Thursday afternoon, measured.
And there is a longer-run finding behind both. Unstable self-esteem, the kind that moves a lot, predicts later depressive symptoms in several studies going back to the late 1990s. The suggestion in this literature is that external contingencies are part of what produces the instability in the first place, by handing the thermostat to events you do not control.
Here is the finding worth sitting with, because it undoes the main argument people make for keeping things this way.
The argument goes: the sensitivity is the price of caring, and caring is why I do good work. Crocker and Luhtanen tested a version of that in 2003 with students whose self-worth rested on academic performance. Those students did study more. Their grades were no better for it. The correlation between academic contingency and grade point average was .00.
Read that carefully, because it is easy to overread. It does not say effort is pointless, and it is one finding in a college sample. What it says is that in that study the extra effort driven by self-worth did not convert into a better outcome. The anxiety was real and the return on it was not there.
There is a second cost in the same literature. Park and Crocker found in 2005 that people whose worth rested on academic performance became less supportive and less likable to the person they were talking to after receiving academic failure feedback. Not because they are unkind. Because defending a threatened self-worth takes up the attention that responsiveness to other people requires. The approval you are working for gets harder to earn at exactly the moment you most need it.
Related work also found people with contingent self-worth sometimes self-handicapping, giving themselves an excuse in advance so a poor result would not be about them. It is the same instinct that makes a good result feel like it does not count, which When Doing Everything Right Still Doesn't Feel Like Enough takes up from the other side.
It does not say stop caring what people think. Nobody has demonstrated that is possible, and the studies do not test it.
What the pattern points at is narrower and more doable: how much is riding on any single domain. Someone whose worth rests on approval alone has one source of information about themselves and no second opinion. Someone with several places to stand can take a bad conversation as a bad conversation.
In practice that means paying attention to what you discount. People in this pattern are often quietly selective: the things that count are the things other people witnessed, and everything done unobserved is filed as not really evidence. One concrete thing to try this week is naming a single thing you did that nobody saw and that you would still stand behind. Not as a confidence exercise. As a test of whether your own account of yourself is admissible to you at all.
The other thing to notice is the defending. The tell is not the feeling, it is the activity afterwards: rereading the message, drafting the clarification, replaying the meeting, pre-emptively apologizing. Deci and Ryan's point was that fragile self-esteem requires defense, and the defending is usually where the hours go. If you have been reading your worth off other people for a long time, When Self Criticism Becomes the Default Voice is about the commentary that tends to come with it.
Most of this research was done with American college students, much of it cross-sectional or followed over a single semester, which limits how far it stretches. The broad finding, that where self-worth is staked predicts depressive symptoms and instability, has held up across several research groups. The specific numbers should be read as findings from particular samples rather than facts about you.
If your sense of yourself keeps being decided by other people, that is a workable thing to bring to therapy, and you do not need to be depressed to bring it. It is also a pattern people have usually had long enough that it is invisible to them, which is one of the things another person in the room is actually useful for.
The Healing Effect works with clients across Arizona, in person and by telehealth for clients located in the state. There is more on our depression page, or you can reach us through our contact form.
And the distinction is worth keeping, because it changes what you are working on. The goal is not to think better of yourself. It is to stop putting the question to a vote.
If the calm on the outside is costing you a lot on the inside, our care team can help you find a therapist who fits, at your pace.
Reach OutIt describes self-worth that depends on performance in specific domains, so it rises after success there and falls after failure. Crocker and Wolfe formalized the model in 2001, and a 2003 scale measured seven domains including others' approval, appearance, competition, academic competence, family love and support, virtue, and God's love. It is distinct from the overall level of a person's self-esteem.
Not necessarily. Low self-esteem describes a low baseline, which tends to be relatively steady. Contingent self-worth describes how much rides on the next piece of feedback, which produces movement. A person can hold an unremarkable opinion of themselves and still swing sharply from one conversation to the next.
Research by Park and Crocker in 2008 found that the more someone based their worth on others' approval, the further their state self-esteem fell after negative interpersonal feedback, with more negative feeling afterwards. When approval is the main source of information about your worth, there is no second opinion available to balance it.
In one 2003 study of students whose self-worth rested on academic performance, those students did study more, but their grades were no better for it. The correlation between academic contingency and grade point average was .00. That is one finding in a college sample rather than a general law, but it does not support the idea that the sensitivity is paying for itself.
The research does not support simply stopping caring what people think, and no study tests that. What it points at is reducing how much rests on a single domain, noticing what you discount as evidence about yourself, and noticing the defending activity afterwards: the rereading, the clarifying, the replaying. Therapy can work on those directly.
The Healing Effect is not a crisis service. If you are in crisis or thinking about harming yourself, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Sources:
Crocker J, Wolfe CT. Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review. 2001;108(3):593 to 623 (the level versus contingency distinction and the motivational trade-off).
Crocker J, Luhtanen RK, Cooper ML, Bouvrette A. Contingencies of self-worth in college students: theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003 (the seven-domain Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale).
Crocker J, Luhtanen RK. Level of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth: unique effects on academic, social, and financial problems in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2003 (students with academically contingent self-worth studied more; grade point average unrelated to contingency, r = .00).
Sargent JT, Crocker J. 2006 (external contingencies, including others' approval, academics, appearance and competition, predicted more depressive symptoms over a first college semester; internal contingencies did not).
Park LE, Crocker J. 2008 (approval-contingent self-worth associated with lower state self-esteem and more negative affect after negative interpersonal feedback) and 2005 (academically contingent participants became less supportive and less likable after academic failure feedback).
Niiya Y, Brook AT, Crocker J. 2010 (self-handicapping among people with contingent self-worth).
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. 1995 (contingent self-esteem as fragile and requiring defense rather than false).
Gable SL, Nezlek JB. 1998; Kernis MH, et al. 1998; Roberts JE, Gotlib IH. 1997 (unstable self-esteem predicting later depressive symptoms).
All of the above were read through Crocker J, Park LE. Contingencies of Self-Worth, in the Handbook of Self and Identity (2011 chapter), which reports these findings and figures, rather than in the original papers.
Tell us a little about what is going on and our care team will help you find a therapist who fits, at your pace.
Reach Out