Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

How do people know who they are? Social psychologists have long noted that self-knowledge derives from social comparison processes. That is, people define their attributes based on how they perform relative to others. This perspective informs how self-identity is developed. Taken alone, social comparison perspectives might lead to the assumption that people strive to outperform others. This contrasts with research investigating an alternative perspective, the need to belong. How do self-identity and belongingness needs coexist? This entry reviews Abraham Tesser's self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) mel, a framework for understanding the interaction of these two fundamental drives.

The SEM model holds that individuals are interested in upholding a positive self-evaluation. People want to feel good about themselves. According to the model, three mechanisms interact to predict self-evaluation. These mechanisms are performance, relevance (or importance) of the domain to the person, and closeness. Generally, people feel good when they outperform others and feel poorly when outperformed. This reaction is not always true. How people react depends on the relevance of the domain they are competing on, or how important the domain is to them.

In the first example, Lilly and Oliver have a dinner party. Both cook. The guests seem to like Oliver's food but do not respond as positively to Lilly's. Lilly is outperformed on a dimension important to her. She feels bad. In the SEM model, this is an example of negative comparison. Oliver has outperformed Lilly on a dimension important to him. He feels positive, or has positive comparison.

Suppose that Oliver, a technology consultant, gets a contract for the development of a new gadget. He has outperformed Lilly. Technology is not highly relevant to Lilly. She is unlikely to feel bad. In fact, she might feel pleased to be associated with Oliver and his good performance or positive reflection. In contrast, imagine if Lilly, a medical doctor, received an award for implementing a new computer-based patient monitoring system at work. She has outperformed Oliver in a domain that is not relevant to her but is to Oliver. Her self-evaluation would be negatively affected by this knowledge.

The outcomes of these scenarios depend on how close Lilly and Oliver are. According to the SEM model, closeness intensifies reactions. Research supports this theory. Reactions are stronger when people are put in performance situations with close others versus distant others.

What do these results mean for close relationships? For instance, are people more likely to have intense emotional reactions in close relationships? Research on the SEM Model has shown that people are more likely to report negative affect when outperformed by a close other compared to a distant other and when the domain is important to the person. Negative communication in close relationships also follows SEM model predictions. One study looked at both partners' perspectives. The first condition was the most positive. The domain was relevant to the outperforming partner but not relevant to the outperformed partner. Both felt positively about the performance outcome. In the intermediate condition, the domain was relevant to both partners. The outperforming one felt positively; the outperformed individual felt poorly. In the third condition, the domain was relevant to the outperformed partner and was not relevant to the outperforming partner. Both partners experienced negative self-evaluation. Couples in the third condition expressed the highest levels of negative communication, intermediate levels of negative communication in the second condition, and low levels in the first condition.

...