Deviance Deviance And Deviant Behavior - 1551 Words

Deviance is defined as any conducts that violate social norm, and those engage in deviant behavior are referred to as deviants. We must understand that deviance differs from crime. Those who engage in deviant behavior does not always violate a law, however committing a crime always involves violating a law. Crime can only be behavioral in nature, while deviance may involve unacceptable behaviors, and eccentric beliefs and mind-set. Deviance can be minor in nature (such as a traffic violation) to something major, such as murder. Deviance does not have to be a real behavior for it to be labeled deviant; however the label itself is what makes an individual deviant. People who are rich and hold more power have a great opportunity for labeling others as deviants. There are many behaviors today which are considered deviant, some of the more common ones include: stealing, cross-dressing and excessive drinking. Most crimes are measured as deviant because they go against informal norms in addition to breaking the law as a formal norm. Just recently the news media aired a story about a Georgia mother, Rachel Lehnardt, who was arrested for allegedly hosting a â€Å"naked Twister† party for her teenage daughter and her friends. Lehnardt was also accused of having sexual intercourse with two of the teenage boys, ages 16 and 18. During an Alcoholics Anonymous group session Lehnardt told her sponsor that she was â€Å"a sexual deviant and addicted to pornography (ABC13.com, para. 7).†Show MoreRelatedSocial Deviance : A Sociological Perspective On Deviant And Criminal Behavior Within Sociology1160 Words   |  5 Pageshere are my thoughts! Social deviance is the study of the violation of cultural norms in either formal or informal contexts. Social deviance is a phenomenon that has existed in all societies with norms. Sociological theories of deviance are those that use social context and social pressures to explain deviance. You’ll find these in your readings for this week. Think of the diagram fo r a functionalist approach to deviance: Great post! You did a nice job defining deviance as a whole. A theory closelyRead MoreDeviance : A Sociological Perspective824 Words   |  4 Pagesones. Deviance is used by society to evaluate behaviors that take place during everyday social norms. Usually most individuals agree or conform to certain behavior or actions. Deviance is defined is numerous ways. Researchers believe that deviance is violation of social norms. Some believe deviant behavior is when one is breaking the law or acting out in a negative manner. Individuals use specific words to classify deviant acts from a sociological perspective. There are crimes that are deviant actionsRead MoreDeviance Is A Violation Of Social Norms1637 Words   |  7 Pagesstealing. Deviance is a label for an action or behavior that violates social norms. Social norms are rules or expectations which usually guide members of society. Deviance is nonconformity to these norms. Social norms can vary from culture to culture and is defined i n numerous ways. Many researchers believe that deviance is a violation of social norms. Some believe deviant behavior is breaking the law or acting in a negative manner. Sociologists use specific words to classify deviant actions fromRead MoreThe Ever-Changing Deviant Society Essay1499 Words   |  6 Pageswrong or deviant. Why is this not deviant to this particular family though? Soon you will learn the characteristics of deviance, relevancy of deviance to society, problems arising from deviance, causes of deviance and how deviance has changed throughout the years. So what, really, is deviance? According to John Macionis in Society: The Basics (2008), deviance is â€Å"the recognized violation of cultural norms†. These norms â€Å"guide virtually all human activities, [making] †¦ the concept of deviance quiteRead MoreSexual Deviance Is Any Abnormal Sexual Act997 Words   |  4 PagesSexual deviance is any abnormal sexual act, behavior, or fantasy that falls outside of the social norm; however, who determines normal and for how long does that normal apply? Historically, intercourse described penile/vaginal penetration in the â€Å"missionary position† of a man and woman in marriage and was needed for procreation; incidentally, public discussion, display, or exposure met with disgust, disapproval, and rejection. The norm predominantly established through religion rallied againstRead MoreWhat Deviance Is Today s Society Essay1081 Words   |  5 PagesWhat defines deviance in today’s society? Is it the abnormal thin gs that people don’t usually do or is it just criminal behavior? Deviance has brought up many questions on what could be defined as it. Deviance is usually shaped by society. It can be defined as the violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms, whether folkways, mores, or codified law (OpenStax 142). Sociologist want to see why deviance has so many different areas and how it effects a group in a society. For exampleRead MoreChapter 6 Study Questions Essay1598 Words   |  7 PagesDefine deviance. How does this definition differ from how sociologists define deviance? Deviance is behavior or characteristics that violate important social norms. The difference between how the dictionary defines deviance and how sociologist define deviance is what may be deviant in one place, at one particular time, may not be deviant in another place and time. Basically with times changing something may or may not be tolerated as acceptable behavior. 2. What is situational deviance? AreRead MoreDeviance Is Not A Quality Of The Act1048 Words   |  5 PagesHoward Becker wrote that deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sometimes to an offender . The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is people so label (Winfree and Abadinsky, p. 227, 2010). Deviance occurs when an individual performs a certain act, possesses certain characteristics, or has a certain belief that will generate a negative reaction from an audienceRead MoreDeviance Theory Analysis Essay1564 Words   |  7 PagesDeviance Theory Analysis - Identify Deviance for situations and explain Within any given society, individuals are expected to behave and or conduct themselves in a given acceptable manner. However, there are instances when particular individuals act contrary to the set standards and violate the cultural norms. Such acts may include acts of crime, theft, defiance, breaking of rules, and truancy just to mention a few. Deviance could thus be viewed as the intentional or accidental violation of theRead MoreWhat Deviance Is Wrong?1654 Words   |  7 Pageswhat deviance was. I am half way through undergrad and criminology and sociology are my majors for crying out loud I should know what deviance is. But could I be anymore wrong. My definition at the beginning of the course was someone who goes against your typical norms. They don’t stick to the status quo. A deviant person relates to criminals who openly break laws, and those who break social norms such as not getting married. Now that we are in the final week of class my definition of deviance has

Is Pop Culture Really Mean - 979 Words

Popular culture, better known as pop culture, is defined by many as the latest trends in society. If you ask members of today’s generation what pop culture is, you might get answers such as: Justin Bieber, The Wop dance, The Fault In Our Stars movie, and several others. Although, if you ask an older generation, you will get different responses from Michael Jackson and leg warmers to The Breakfast Club and all the trends that made up the 1980s. It brings up a valid question, what does pop culture really mean? Pop culture can mean many different things depending on who is defining it. According to sociology professor Tim Delaney (n.d.), â€Å"It is generally recognized as the vernacular or people’s culture that predominates in a society at a point in time† (p.5). Pop culture is dynamic; it changes as the desires of generations do, especially within the youth population. Throughout the 80s decade, life was quickly changing and everything was new--new music, fashion, movies, and many other things made the 1980s one of the most unique decades of all. Music In the 1980s, pop music was one of the most prominent genres of that decade’s culture. Many unknown but talented singers were making themselves known to the world such as: Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, and Whitney Houston. One of most influential upcoming pop stars was Michael Jackson. Music was a big part of Jackson’s childhood. His music career started when he was just 5 years old. He started singing in a band withShow MoreRelatedPop Culture Mix Modes Rough Draft1471 Words   |  6 PagesRebekah Brickeen Ms. Howard AP English 11 6 December 2016 Pop Culture Mix Modes Rough Draft During the teenage years, pop culture becomes very important and has a major influence on a teen’s daily life. Pop culture begins to have negative effect on teens when they begin to change themselves to fit into the social standards created by modern TV stars, fashion icons, and musical artists. It is fine to be interested in wealthy and famous people, because they are without a doubt, interesting and itRead MorePop Art And The Pop Culture1616 Words   |  7 PagesJason Charles Francisco Humanities 332 Kim Codella Part One I believe that as a culture, our beliefs and values are reflected through various aspects of our everyday lives. During its time, pop art really exposed American culture. The pop art movement gained its prominence in the United States during the 1960’s. The pop art movement came after the abstract expressionist movement and first emerged in Great Britain during the late 1950’s but blew up in the United States. Like I already stated, I believeRead MoreThe Impact Of Media On Korean Economic1651 Words   |  7 Pagespromoted a policy relating to spread the K-pop music to other countries. The government has acknowledged that the cultural products can be used as a way to benefit the country’s export sector. According to government estimates, a US$100 increase in the export of cultural products results in a US$412 increase in the export of other consumer goods (Tuk 2012, 12). On the other hand, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism tried to expand the popularity of K-p op such as established thousands of Korean CulturalRead MoreIs K-Pop a Good Influence or Bad Influence?1425 Words   |  6 PagesDoes K-Pop Brings A Good Influence for Teenagers? What is K-Pop? K-pop or known as Korean Pop is a new music genre that was originally come from South Korea, Asia. Some say K-pop offered another style of music which has catchier and offer easy listening songs for their lovers. What makes it different too is that the style the singer has shown is something new for us and how they can deliver music on their own way that I believe none of this ever existed before. Just like how they could mix perfectlyRead MoreAndrew Warhola was born in 1928, in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. He majored in pictorial design at the1100 Words   |  5 Pagesknown as a leading figure in the visual art movement in pop art. He explored the relationships between artistic expressions, commercial advertisement, and celebrity culture in the 1960s and beyond. His views on American culture ad unique artistic expressions of the style of art had a great impact on American society by brining society’s obsession with mass culture and expanding mass media in America. Andy Warhol, the founding father of the pop arts’, created a movement that began in the late 50’sRead MoreDefinition Of Pop Culture842 Words   |  4 Pagesare six different definitions for popular culture. The first being that popular culture is culture that is well liked by a lot of people (5). Popular culture is what be left over after determining what is high culture and what isn’t (5). The third definition discussed would be that pop culture is just mass culture (8). The fourth one is that culture that originates from ‘the people’ (9). The fifth would be defined by Gramsci’s hegemony in that pop culture is the attempt of the ruling class to winRead MorePop Culture and Us1049 Words   |  5 PagesToday, America is seemingly defined by its popular culture which has become a major export to the whole wide world. The pop culture refers to all things that people usually do and talk about, manners and beliefs that make a society grow. The c ulture that is well accepted and followed by everybody in the society. For every place, there is always different style of culture that all people who lives there are subject to follow in able to fit in to that given place. America is one of the major countriesRead MorePop Art And The Art1034 Words   |  5 Pagesis known as Pop Art. Pop Art was invented by a few younger artists by the name of Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, and Roy Lichtenstein. It was brought about in the 1960s and it helped define a new form of American Realism. Its origin was sort of a lash out against Abstract Expressionism, which was a style of painting. The point of pop art was to represent life as most Americans lived it. It pointed out the simple things that Americans find themselves caught up in in everyday life. Pop Art representedRead MoreTechnology Is Laziness Essay803 Words   |  4 PagesEnglish 101-Essay 3 Mr. Fisher July 5th 2010 Laziness as Pop Culture along with Technology Let’s face it, laziness due to technological advancements is part of our Pop culture and is causing downward trending of active people and has been an increasing issue. So what’s causing this rising laziness to grow exponentially? We as human beings have an urge to invent things daily that make our lives easier and eventually take physical labor out of the equation. Most look at innovation as humanityRead MoreHip Hop And Hip Rap Music1144 Words   |  5 Pagespeace, and protest against social injustices, for the past 30 years. But exactly when and where did it begin, and what impact has it had on our society? The hip hop beats created by DJs in the 70s actually sparked what is now known as hip hop culture. Hip hop culture originally included rapping, break dancing, graffiti, beat boxing, and looping and scratching, and has now includes urban clothing and cars, speech patterns and slang, and movement styles. In the early 70s, in New York s South Bronx, the

Self Esteem Free Essays

string(180) " the various ways in which self-esteem is measured and the implications that these methods have on our understanding of what it means for a person to have high or low self-esteem\." 14 Assessing Self-Esteem Todd F. Heatherton and Carrie L. Wyland It is generally believed that there are many bene? ts to having a positive view of the self. We will write a custom essay sample on Self Esteem or any similar topic only for you Order Now Those who have high self-esteem are presumed to be psychologically happy and healthy (Branden, 1994; Taylor Brown, 1988), whereas those with low self-esteem are believed to be psychologically distressed and perhaps even depressed (Tennen Af? eck, 1993). Having high self-esteem apparently provides bene? s to those who possess it: They feel good about themselves, they are able to cope effectively with challenges and negative feedback, and they live in a social world in which they believe that people value and respect them. Although there are negative consequences associated with having extremely high self-esteem (Baumeister, 1998), most people with high self-esteem appear to lead happy and productive lives. By contrast, people with low selfesteem see the world through a more negative ? lter, and their general dislike for themselves colors their perceptions of everything around them. Substantial evidence shows a link between self-esteem and depression, shyness, loneliness, and alienation—low self-esteem is aversive for those who have it. Thus, selfesteem affects the enjoyment of life even if it does not have a substantial impact on career success, productivity, or other objective outcome measures. Given the choice, however, most people would prefer to have high self-esteem. That self-esteem is vital for psychological health is evident in the popular media and in educational policy. Indeed, some educators have changed course curricula in their attempts to instill children with high self-esteem, even to the point that in some states students are promoted to a higher grade even when they have failed to master the material from the previous grade. These social promotions are based on the belief that positive self-esteem is of cardinal importance, and that many societal ills—such as teenage pregnancy and drug use, violence, academic failure, and crime—are caused by low self-esteem. Accordingly, California enacted legislation that encouraged schools to develop self-esteem enhancement programs, the general idea being that high selfesteem would act something like a â€Å"social vaccine† that would prevent many of the serious behavioral problems facing the state (Mecca, Smelser, Vasconcellos, 1989). Although societal ills are not caused by low self-esteem, it is easy to understand why policy makers and educators are concerned with the emotional consequences of negative self-views. Those who feel ostracized 219 20 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND or rejected experience a variety of negative reactions, including physical illness, emotional problems, and negative affective states. Furthermore, social support is known to be a key ingredient of mental and physical health (Cohen Wills, 1985), and people who feel disliked may be less likely to receive support from others. Thus, even if the bene? ts of having high self-esteem have been exaggerated (see Dawes, 1994), there is little doubt that low self-esteem is problematic for those who have it. But how exactly is self-esteem measured? This chapter examines the various ways in which self-esteem is measured and the implications that these methods have on our understanding of what it means for a person to have high or low self-esteem. You read "Self Esteem" in category "Essay examples" Understanding the Construct of Self-Esteem Self-esteem is the evaluative aspect of the self-concept that corresponds to an overall view of the self as worthy or unworthy (Baumeister, 1998). This is embodied in Coopersmith’s (1967) classic de? ition of self-esteem: The evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval and indicates the extent to which an individual believes himself to be capable, signi? cant, successful and worthy. In short, self-esteem is a personal judgment of the worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the individual holds towards himself. (pp. 4–5) Thus, self-esteem is an attitude a bout the self and is related to personal beliefs about skills, abilities, social relationships, and future outcomes. It is important to distinguish self-esteem from the more general term selfconcept, because the two terms often are used interchangeably. Self-concept refers to the totality of cognitive beliefs that people have about themselves; it is everything that is known about the self, and includes things such as name, race, likes, dislikes, beliefs, values, and appearance descriptions, such as height and weight. By contrast, self-esteem is the emotional response that people experience as they contemplate and evaluate different things about themselves. Although self-esteem is related to the self-concept, it is possible for people to believe objectively positive things (such as acknowledging skills in academics, athletics, or arts), but continue to not really like themselves. Conversely, it is possible for people to like themselves, and therefore hold high self-esteem, in spite of their lacking any objective indicators that support such positive selfviews. Although in? uenced by the contents of the self-concept, self-esteem is not the same thing. Throughout the history of research on self-esteem, there have been concerns that the concept was poorly de? ed and therefore badly measured (Blascovich Tomaka, 1991). Jackson (1984) noted that â€Å"After thirty years of intensive effort . . . what has emerged . . . is a confusion of results that de? es interpretation† (p. 2). Wylie (1974), one of the chief critics of self-esteem research, blamed the area’s dif? culties on a lack of rigor in experimentation and a proliferatio n of instruments to measure self-esteem. For example, there are ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 221 a large number of self-esteem instruments, and many of the scales correlate poorly with one another. Indeed, in reviewing the history of the measurement of self-esteem, Briggs and Cheek (1986) stated, â€Å"it was obvious by the mid-1970s that the status of self-esteem measurement research had become something of an embarrassment to the ? eld of personality research† (p. 131). How a construct is de? ned has obvious implications for how it is measured. As a term that is widely used in everyday language and heavily laden with social value, perhaps it should not be surprising that idiosyncratic and casual de? nitions have contributed to the chaos of de? ing and measuring self-esteem. There is not nearly enough space in this chapter to consider all of the various ways in which self-esteem has been de? ned. In this chapter we touch on some of the central conceptual issues that are relevant to the measure of self-esteem, including the proposed source of self-esteem, possible gender differences in which factors are most important, and differential views of the dimensionality and sta bility of self-esteem. Sources of Self-Esteem There are many theories about the source of self-esteem. For instance, William James (1890) argued that self-esteem developed from the accumulation of experiences in which people’s outcomes exceeded their goals on some important dimension, under the general rule that self-esteem = success/pretensions. From this perspective, assessment has to examine possible discrepancies between current appraisals and personal goals and motives. Moreover, self-perceived skills that allow people to reach goals are also important to assess. Thus, measures ought to include some reference to personal beliefs about competency and ability. Many of the most popular theories of self-esteem are based on Cooley’s (1902) notion of the looking-glass self, in which self-appraisals are viewed as inseparable from social milieu. Mead’s (1934) symbolic interactionism outlined a process by which people internalize ideas and attitudes expressed by signi? cant ? gures in their lives. In effect, individuals come to respond to themselves in a manner consistent with the ways of those around him. Low self-esteem is likely to result when key ? gures reject, ignore, demean, or devalue the person. Subsequent thinking by Coopersmith (1967) and Rosenberg (1965, 1979), as well as most contemporary self-esteem research, is well in accord with the basic tenets of symbolic interactionism. According to this perspective, it is important to assess how people perceive themselves to be viewed by signi? cant others, such as friends, classmates, family members, and so on. Some recent theories of self-esteem have emphasized the norms and values of the cultures and societies in which people are raised. For instance, Crocker and her colleagues have argued that some people experience collective self-esteem because they are especially likely to base their selfesteem on their social identities as belonging to certain groups (Luhtanen Crocker, 1992). Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs (1995) have proposed a novel and important social account of self-esteem. Sociometer theory begins with the 222 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND assumption that humans have a fundamental need to belong that is rooted in our evolutionary history (Baumeister Leary, 1995). For most of human evolution, survival and reproduction depended on af? liation with a group. Those who belonged to social groups were more likely to survive and reproduce than those who were excluded from groups. According to the sociometer theory, self-esteem functions as a monitor of the likelihood of social exclusion. When people behave in ways that increase the likelihood they will be rejected, they experience a reduction in state self-esteem. Thus, self-esteem serves as a monitor, or sociometer, of social acceptance–rejection. At the trait level, those with high self-esteem have sociometers that indicate a low probability of rejection, and therefore such individuals do not worry about how they are being perceived by others. By contrast, those with low self-esteem have sociometers that indicate the imminent possibility of rejection, and therefore they are highly motivated to manage their public impressions. There is an abundance of evidence that supports the sociometer theory, including the ? nding that low self-esteem is highly correlated with social anxiety. Although the sociometer links selfesteem to an evolved need to belong rather than to symbolic interactions, it shares with the earlier theories the idea that social situations need to be examined to assess self-esteem. Gender Differences in Self-Esteem A number of studies suggest that boys and girls diverge in their primary source of self-esteem, with girls being more in? uenced by relationships and boys being more in? uenced by objective success. Stein, Newcomb, and Bentler (1992) examined participants in an eight-year study of adolescent development. During adolescence, an agentic orientation predicted heightened self-esteem for males but not for females, whereas a communal orientation predicted heightened self-esteem for females but not for males. Men and women show this same pattern. Josephs, Markus, and Tafarodi (1992) exposed men and women to false feedback indicating that they had de? cits either on a performance dimension (e. g. , competition, individual thinking) or on a social dimension (e. g. , nurturance, interpersonal integration). Consistent with predictions, men high in self-esteem enhanced their estimates at being able to engage successfully in future performance behaviors, whereas women high in self-esteem enhanced their estimates at being able to engage successfully in future social behaviors. Overall, then, it appears that males gain self-esteem from getting ahead whereas females gain self-esteem from getting along. In terms of another salient gender difference in feelings about the self across the lifespan, women tend to have lower body image satisfaction than men. Women are more likely than men to evaluate speci? c body features negatively, to attempt weight loss, to report anxiety about the evaluation of their physical appearance, and to have cosmetic surgery (Heatherton, 2001). Body image dissatisfaction among women usually is related to perceiving oneself to be overweight. More than three quarters of American women would like to lose weight and almost none would like to gain weight. Believing ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 223 oneself to be overweight, whether one is or is not, is closely related to body image dissatisfaction. Beginning in early adolescence, women compare their body shape and weight with their beliefs about cultural ideals. A discrepancy from the ideal often motivates people to undertake dieting to achieve a more attractive body size. Dieting is rarely successful, with fewer than 1% of individuals able to maintain weight loss over ? e years (NIH Technology Assessment Conference Panel, 1993). Repeated failures may exacerbate body image dissatisfaction and low self-esteem (Heatherton Polivy, 1992). Women with perfectionistic tendencies and low self-esteem are particularly affected by dissatisfaction, such that these personality traits in combination have been linked to increased bulimic symptoms (Vohs, Bardone, Joiner, Abramson, Heatherton, 199 9). Black women are less likely to consider themselves obese and are more satis? ed with their weight than are White women despite the fact that Black women are twice as likely to be obese. These women also rate large Black body shapes more positively than do White women rating large White body shapes (Hebl Heatherton, 1998). In contrast to women, men are more likely view their bodies as instruments of action and derive self-esteem from self-perceived physical strength (Franzoi, 1995). Therefore, in terms of assessing personal feelings about body-esteem issues, researchers need to be sensitive to the differential determinants of body image for women and men. Dimensionality of Self-Esteem Self-esteem can refer to the overall self or to speci? aspects of the self, such as how people feel about their social standing, racial or ethnic group, physical features, athletic skills, job or school performance, and so on. An important issue in the self-esteem literature is whether self-esteem is best conceptualized as a unitary global trait or as a multidimensional trait with independent subcomponents. According to the global approach, self-esteem is considered an overall self-att itude that permeates all aspects of people’s lives. In this regard, Robins, Hendin, and Trzesniewski (2001) developed a single-item measure of global self-esteem. It merely consists of the statement, â€Å"I have high self-esteem,† with a 5-point scale. They found that this single item correlated to a similar extent as the most widely used trait scale with a variety of measures, including domain-speci? c evaluations, personality factors, and psychological well-being. Self-esteem also can be conceptualized as a hierarchical construct such that it can be broken down into its constituent parts. From this perspective, there are three major components: performance self-esteem, social self-esteem, and physical self-esteem (Heatherton Polivy, 1991). Each of these components, in turn, can be broken down into smaller and smaller subcomponents. Performance self-esteem refers to one’s sense of general competence and includes intellectual abilities, school performance, self-regulatory capacities, selfcon? dence, ef? cacy, and agency. People who are high in performance selfesteem believe that they are smart and capable. Social self-esteem refers to 224 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND how people believe others perceive them. Note that it is perception rather than reality that is most critical. If people believe that others, especially signi? ant others, value and respect them, they will experience high social self-esteem. This occurs even if others truly hold them in contempt. People who are low in social self-esteem often experience social anxiety and are high in public selfconsciousness. They are highly attentive to their image and they worry about how others view them. Finally, physical self-esteem refers to how people view their physi cal bodies, and includes such things as athletic skills, physical attractiveness, body image, as well as physical stigmas and feelings about race and ethnicity. How are these subcomponents of self-esteem related to global self-esteem? William James (1892) proposed that global self-esteem was the summation of speci? c components of self-esteem, each of which is weighted by its importance to the self-concept. In other words, people have high self-esteem to the extent that they feel good about those things that matter to them. Not being good at tennis is irrelevant to the self-concept of the nonathlete, whereas doing poorly in school may have little impact on some innercity youth who have disidenti? ed from mainstream values (Steele, 1997). On this point, Brett Pelham (1995) and Herbert Marsh (1995) have debated the value of global versus speci? component models. Pelham’s research has generally supported the Jamesian view that the centrality of self-views is an important predictor of the emotional response to self (i. e. , one’s feelings of self-esteem), whereas Marsh has claimed that domain importance does not relate strongly to self-esteem. Although the jury is still out on this issue, the concept of domain importance is a central feature of most theories of self-esteem. Stability of Self-Esteem Another issue in the measurement and de? nition of self-esteem is whether it is best conceptualized as a stable personality trait or as a context-speci? state. Most theories of self-esteem view it as a relatively stable trait: if you have high self-esteem today, you will probably have high self-esteem tomorrow. From this perspective, self-esteem is stable because it slowly builds over time through personal experiences, such as repeatedly succeeding at various tasks or continually being valued by signi? cant others. A number of studies, however, suggest self-esteem serves as the dependent rather than the independent or classi? cation variable (Wells Marwell, 1976). These studies assume that self-esteem can be momentarily manipulated or affected. Others suggest that self-esteem is not manipulable by de? nition. According to subsequent views, however, self-esteem can be viewed as a â€Å"state† as well as a trait (Heatherton Polivy, 1991). Around a stable baseline are ? uctuations; although we might generally feel good about ourselves, there are times when we may experience self-doubt and even dislike. Fluctuations in state self-esteem are associated with increased sensitivity to and reliance on social evaluations, increased concern about how one views the self, and even anger and hostility (Kernis, 1993). In general, those with a fragile sense of self-esteem respond extremely favorably to positive feedback and extremely defensively to negative feedback. ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 225 Individuals Difference Measures of Self-Esteem Given the importance attached to self-esteem by many people and the fact that it also has de? ed consensual de? nition, it is not surprising that there are many measures of self-esteem Unfortunately, the majority of these measures have not performed adequately, and it is likely that many of them measure very different constructs because the correlations between these scales range from zero to . , with an average of . 4 (Wylie, 1974). Some self-esteem measures are better than others. Crandall (1973) reviewed 33 self-esteem measures in detail and judged four to be superior: Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the Janis–Field Feelings of Inadequacy scale (Janis Field, 1959), the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (1967); and the Tennessee S elf-Concept scale (Fitts, 1964). Except for the Rosenberg, which measures global self-esteem, the others are multidimensional and measure various affective qualities of self-concept. In a test of eight measures of self-esteem (including projectives, interviews, self-report, and peer ratings), Demo (1985) found that the Rosenberg and Coopersmith scales performed best in factor analysis. Blascovich and Tomaka’s (1991) careful examination of numerous measures of self-esteem led them to conclude that no perfect measure exists and that few of the conceptual and methodological criticisms had been answered. They recommended a revision of the Janis–Field scale (described shortly) as one of the better measures of trait self-esteem. They noted, however, that the Rosenberg scale is the most widely used in research. We next describe both measures as well as the State Self-Esteem scale (Heatherton Polivy, 1991). Revised Janis–Field Feelings of Inadequacy The original Janis–Field Feelings of Inadequacy scale (JFS) was a 23-item test developed in 1959 to be used in attitude change research (Janis Field, 1959). This multidimensional scale measures self-regard, academic abilities, social con? dence, and appearance (Fleming Watts, 1980). The split-half reliability estimate by Janis and Field was . 3, and the reliability was . 91. The items from the JFS have been modi? ed a number of times (e. g. , Fleming Courtney, 1984; Fleming Watts, 1980), such as changing the format of the responses (5- or 7-point scales, etc. ) or adding questions for other dimensions of self-esteem, such as academic ability (Fleming Courtney, 1984). A thorough review by Robinson and Shaver (1973) identi? ed the JFS as one of th e best for use with adults, and Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) selected the Fleming and Courtney (1984) version as one of the best measures to use. We recommend it for studies in which researchers wish to examine multiple components of self-esteem (see the JSF in Appendix 14. 1). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale The Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) is the most widely used measure of global self-esteem (Demo, 1985). It was used in 25% of the 226 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND published studies reviewed in the previously mentioned review by Blascovich and Tomaka (1991). The RSE is a 10-item Guttman scale with high internal reliability (alpha . 92). Rosenberg (1979) reported that the scale is correlated modestly with mood measures. Carmines and Zeller (1974) identi? ed one potential problem with the RSE; they identi? ed separate â€Å"positive† and â€Å"negative† factors. Unfortunately, those questions that were worded in a negative direction loaded on the â€Å"negative† factor and those that were worded in a positive manner loaded most heavily on the â€Å"positive† factor, thereby suggesting a response set. Because both factors correlated almost identically with a criterion variable (in strength, direction, and consistency), however, they seem to be tapping the same general construct (Rosenberg, 1979; see the RSE in Appendix 14. ). State Self-Esteem Scale The State Self-Esteem scale (SSES: Heatherton Polivy, 1991) is a commonly used measure that is sensitive to laboratory manipulations of self-esteem. The SSES consists of 20 items that tap momentary ? uctuations in self-esteem. The scale (see Appendix 14. 3) has acceptable internal consistency (alpha = . 92) and it is responsive to temporary changes in self-evaluation (see Crocker, Cornwell, Major, 1993). Psychometric studies show the SSES to be separable from mood (Bagozzi Heatherton, 1994). Con? matory factor analysis reveals that the SSES is made up of three factors: performance, social, and appearance self-esteem (Bagozzi Heatherton, 1994). The SSES is labeled â€Å"current thoughts† to minimize experimental demands. Of course, measures of trait and state self-esteem are highly correlated, and therefore in neutral settings scores on the SSES will be highly related to trait measures. The decision to use a trait or state measure of self-esteem, therefore, depends on whether one is interested in predicting long-term outcomes or in the immediate effects associated with feelings about the self. Alternative Conceptualizations: Implicit Self-Esteem The validity of explicit measures increasingly has come under challenge because, by de? nition, such measures rely on individuals’ potentially biased capacity to accurately report their attitudes and feelings. As a result, implicit measures of attitudes, including self-esteem, attempt to tap into the unconscious, automatic aspects of self. People do not necessarily have access to their internal mental states, and therefore self-presentational motives or other beliefs may produce bias or distortion, both intended and unintended. Greenwald and Banaji (1995) de? ed implicit self-esteem as â€Å"the introspectively unidenti? ed (or inaccurately identi? ed) effect of the self-attitude on evaluation of self-associated and self-dissociated object† (p. 10). A variety of evidence supports the idea of implicit positive attitudes about the self. For instance, people show a positive bias for information about the self, such as pr eferring their own initials (Koole, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, 2001) and preferring members of their in-group more than those from an out-group, even when the groups are determined arbitrarily (Greenwald Banaji, 1995). In essence, ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 227 anything associated with the self is generally viewed as being especially positive. A number of different methods have been developed to assess implicit selfesteem (Bosson, Swann, Pennebaker, 2000), but the most widely known and used is the Implicit Associates Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, Schwarz, 1998). The IAT involves making paired-word associations; when used to measure self-esteem, the distinctions are between self-related words, such as me, and other-related words, such as your, and between pleasant words, such as sunshine, and unpleasant ones, such as death. Self-esteem is a function of difference between the reaction time to make self-pleasant (and otherunpleasant) associations and the reaction time to make self-unpleasant (and other-pleasant) associations. The IAT has been shown to be modestly reliable, and correlates positively but weakly with explicit measures. A factor analysis indicated that they are different constructs (Greenwald Farnham, 2000). The validities of the IAT and other implicit measures of self-esteem are unknown. There are reasons to favor implicit measures, given their immutability to self-presentation or ognitive processes, but available evidence does not exist to justify selecting them over the more widely used explicit measures. At another conceptual level, it is dif? cult to know what to expect from implicit measures. There are thousands of studies in which explicit measures have been used to predict speci? c outcomes, with reasonable consistency obtained when similar scales are used. This has allowed researche rs to make generalizations about what it means to have high or low self-esteem (Baumeister, 1998). Should implicit measures lead to the same conclusions? If so, there is little need of them. But if implicit measures lead to different conclusions than explicit measures, how can we know which is really the better way to assess self-esteem? Future Developments Despite the popularity of the self-esteem construct and its potential value to understanding the positive aspects of human nature, the measurement of selfesteem has been problematic for decades. A proliferation of poorly validated scales has posed signi? cant challenges for scholars trying to investigate the consequences of self-esteem for behavior, thought, and emotion. A major problem inherent in the measure of self-esteem is the extent to which self-reports are in? enced by self-presentational concerns. One strategy might be to use measures of defensiveness or social desirability to tease out the variance associated with self-report biases. Although some researchers have pursued this approach, no single method has established itself to be empirically useful. Indeed, it may well be that socially desirable responding is a legitimate component of self-esteem and therefore separating it out using statistical procedures would create an artifactual situation. The development of implicit measures may address self-presentational concerns. Much work remains to be done, however, before we know whether implicit measures are valid. At minimum, research on implicit self-esteem has forced researchers to re? ect on what exactly a good measure of self-esteem ought to predict in terms of behavioral or cognitive outcomes. This reassessment of the basic de? nitional issues related to the construct of self-esteem is long overdue. 228 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND Appendix 14. 1 Revised Janis and Field Scale Each item is scored on a scale from 1–5 using terms such as â€Å"very often, fairly often,† â€Å"sometimes,† â€Å"once in a great while,† or â€Å"practically never† or â€Å"very con? dent,† â€Å"fairly con? ent,† â€Å"slightly con? dent,† â€Å"not very con? dent,† â€Å"not at all con? dent. † Most items are reverse-scored so that a high self-esteem response leads to higher scores. Items with (R) are not reverse-scored. Some researchers use 7-point scales wi th different anchors, depending on the wording of the item. 1. How often do you feel inferior to most of the people you know? 2. How often do you have the feeling that there is nothing you can do well? 3. When in a group of people, do you have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about? 4. How often do you feel worried or bothered about what other people think of you? . In turning in a major assignment such as a term paper, how often do you feel you did an excellent job on it? (R) 6. How con? dent are you that others see you as being physically appealing? (R) 7. Do you ever think that you are a worthless individual? 8. How much do you worry about how well you get along with other people? 9. When you make an embarrassing mistake or have done something that makes you look foolish, how long does it take you to get over it? 10. When you have to read an essay and understand it for a class assignment, how worried or concerned do you feel about it? 11. Compared with classmates, how often do you feel you must study more than they do to get the same grades? 12. Have you ever thought of yourself as physically uncoordinated? 13. How con? dent do you feel that someday the people you know will look up to you and respect you? (R) 14. How often do you worry about criticisms that might be made of your work by your teacher or employer? 15. Do you often feel uncomfortable meeting new people? 16. When you have to write an argument to convince your teacher, who may disagree with your ideas, how concerned or worried do you feel about it? 17. Have you ever felt ashamed of your physique or ? ure? 18. Have you ever felt inferior to most other people in athletic ability? 19. Do you ever feel so discouraged with yourself that you wonder whether you are a worthwhile person? 20. Do you ever feel afraid or anxious when you are going into a room by yourself where other people have already gathered and are talking? 21. How often do you worry whether other people like to be with you? 22. How often do you have trouble expressing your ideas when you have to put them into writing as an assignment? 23. Do you often feel that most of your friends or peers are more physically attractive than yourself? ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 229 24. When involved in sports requiring physical coordination, are you often concerned that you will not do well? 25. How often do you dislike yourself? 26. How often do you feel self-conscious? 27. How often are you troubled with shyness? 28. How often do you have trouble understanding things you read for class assignments? 29. Do you often wish or fantasize that you were better looking? 30. Have you ever thought that you lacked the ability to be a good dancer or do well at recreational activities involving coordination? 31. In general, how con? dent do you feel about your abilities? R) 32. How much do you worry about whether other people regard you as a success or failure in your job or at school? 33. When you think that some of the people you meet might have an unfavorable opinion of you, how concerned or worried do you feel about it? 34. How often do you imagine that you have less scholastic ability than your classmates? 35. Have you ever been concerned or worried about your ability to attract members of the opposite sex? 36. When trying to do well at a sport and you know other people are watching, how rattled or ? ustered do you get? Note. From Fleming and Courtney (1984). Copyright 1984 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission of the publisher. 230 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND Appendix 14. 2 Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 3 strongly agree 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 2 agree 1 disagree 0 strongly disagree I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. (R) I am able to do things as well as most people. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. (R) I take a positive attitude toward myself. On the whole, I am satis? d with myself. I wish I could have more respect for myself. (R) I certainly feel useless at times. (R) At times I think that I am no good at all. (R) For the items marked with an (R), reverse the scoring (0 = 3, 1 = 2, 2 = 1, 3 = 0). For those items without an (R) next to them, simply add the score. Add the scores. Typical scores on the Rosenberg scale are around 22, with most people scoring betw een 15 and 25. Note. Copyright 1965 by the Morris Rosenberg Foundation. ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 231 Appendix 14. 3 Current Thoughts This is a questionnaire designed to measure what you are thinking at this moment. There is, of course, no right answer for any statement. The best answer is what you feel is true of yourself at this moment. Be sure to answer all of the items, even if you are not certain of the best answer. Again, answer these questions as they are true for you RIGHT NOW. 1 = not at all 2 = a little bit 3 = somewhat 4 = very much 5 = extremely 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I feel con? dent about my abilities. am worried about whether I am regarded as a success or failure. (R) feel satis? d with the way my body looks right now. feel frustrated or rattled about my performance. (R) feel that I am having trouble understanding things that I read. (R) feel that others respect and admire me. am dissatis? ed with my weight. (R) feel self-conscious. (R) feel as smart as others. feel displeased with myself. (R) feel good about myself. am pleased with my appearance right now. am worried about what other people thin k of me. (R) feel con? dent that I understand things. feel inferior to others at this moment. (R) feel unattractive. (R) feel concerned about the impression I am making. R) feel that I have less scholastic ability right now than others. (R) feel like I’m not doing well. (R) am worried about looking foolish. (R) Note. From Heatherton and Polivy (1991). Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted with permission of the publisher and author. 232 HEATHERTON AND WYLAND References Bagozzi, R. P. , Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to self-esteem. Structural Equation Modelling, 1, 35–67. Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds. , The handbook of social psychology (pp. 680–740). New York: Random House. Baumeister, R. F. , Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. P sychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Blascovich, J. , Tomaka J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson P. R. Shaver (Eds. ), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115–160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bosson, J. , Swann, W. B. , Jr. , Pennebaker, J. (2000). Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 631–643. Branden, N. (1994). The six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam Books. Briggs, S. R. , Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148. Carmines, E. G. , Zeller, R. A. (1974). On establishing the empirical dimensionality of theoretical terms: An analytical example. Political Methodology, 1, 75–96. Cohen, S. , Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and social order. New York: Charles Scribner Sons. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Crandall, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson P. Shaver (Eds. ), Measurements of social psychological attitudes (pp. 45–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Crocker, J. , Cornwell, B. , Major, B. (1993). The stigma of overweight: Affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 60–70. Dawes, R. (1994). Psychological measurement. Psychological Review, 101, 278–281. Demo, D. H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Re? ning our methods, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1490–1502. Fitts, W. H. (1964). Tennessee Self-Concept scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Fleming, J. S. , Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404–421. Fleming, J. S. , Watts, W. A. (1980). The dimensionality of self-esteem: Some results for a college sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 921–929. Franzoi, S. (1995). The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex Roles, 33, 417–437. Greenwald, A. G. , Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. Greenwald, A. G. , Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Associate Test to measure selfesteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038. Greenwald, A. G. , McGhee, D. E. , Schwarz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Body image and gender. In N. J. Smelser P. B. Baltes (Eds. ), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 1282–1285). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Heatherton, T. F. , Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910. Heatherton, T. F. Polivy, J. (1992). Chronic dieting and eating disorders: A spiral model. In J. H. Crowther D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds. ), The etiology of bulimia nervosa: The individual and familial context (pp. 133–155). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Hebl, M. , Heatherton, T. F. (1998). The stigma of obesity in women: The difference is black and white. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 417–426. ASSESSING SELF-ESTEEM 233 Jackson, M. R. (1984). Self-esteem and meaning. Albany: State University of New York Press. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology, Volume 1. New York: Henry Holt. James, W. (1892). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Henry Holt. Janis, I. L. , Field, P. B. (1959). Sex differences and factors related to persuasibility. In C. I. Hovland I. L. Janis (Eds. ), Personality and persuasibility (pp. 55–68). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Josephs, R. A. , Markus, H. R. , Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391–402. Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological functioning. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed. ), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 167–172). New York: Plenum Press. Koole, S. L. , Dijksterhuis, A. van Knippenberg, A. (2001). What’s in a name: Implicit selfesteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 669–685. Leary, M. R. , Tambor, E. S. , Terdal, S. K. , Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518–530. Luhtanen, R. , Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. Marsh, H. (1995). A Jamesian model of self-investment and self-esteem: Comment on Pelham. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 69, 1151–1160. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mecca, A. M. , Smelser, N. J. , Vasconcellos, J. (Eds. ). (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley: University of California Press. NIH Technology Assessment Conference Panel. (1993). Methods for voluntary weight loss and control. Annals of Internal Medicine, 199, 764–770. Pelham, B. W. (1995). Self-investment and self-esteem: Evidence for a Jamesian model of selfworth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1141–1150. Robins, R. W. , Hendin, H. M. , Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. Robinson, J. , Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Steele, C. (1997). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. In L. H. Peplau S. E. Taylor (Eds. ), Sociocultural perspectives in social psychology: Current readings (pp. 359–371). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stein, J. A. , Newcomb, M. D. , Bentler, P. M. (1992). The effect of agency and communality on self-esteem: Gender differences in longitudinal data. Sex Roles, 26, 465–483. Taylor, S. E. , Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Tennen, H. , Af? eck, G. (1993). The puzzles of self-esteem: A clinical perspective. In R. F. Baumeister, (Ed. , Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 241–262. ) New York: Plenum Press. Vohs, K. D. , Bardone, A. M. , Joiner, T. E. , Abramson, L. Y. , Heatherton, T. F. (1999). Perfectionism, perceived weight status, and self-esteem interact to predict bulimic symptoms: A model of bulimic symptom development. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 695–700. Wells, L. E. , Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. How to cite Self Esteem, Essay examples Self Esteem Free Essays Mark Liljeros, Section 125-003, March 6, 2013, Application Paper #2 – Self Esteem In Chapter Two, the text book looks at one of the most vital aspects, in regards to interpersonal communication, which is self-esteem. Self-esteem is the back bone of communication and the perception of who we are as individuals. According to Charles Berger, â€Å"A. We will write a custom essay sample on Self Esteem or any similar topic only for you Order Now R. Cohen it has been suggested that people with extremely high self-esteem and people with extremely low self-esteem, in contrast to people with moderate self-esteem, tend to be more defensive when faced with ego threatening information (Berger 286). â€Å"The concept of self is perhaps our most fundamental possession. Knowing who we are is essential, because without a self-concept it would be impossible to relate to the world (Adler and Proctor 41). † Self-esteem has been proven to be what our net worth is of ourselves. According to Adler and Proctor, â€Å"research suggests that personality is, to a large degree, part of our genetic makeup (44). † This is saying that children that grow up shy or timid usual carry these traits onto their adulthood. There are very distinct personality traits that go with being extroverted or introverted. These traits do determine what type of person we become. Self-esteem development at a young age, helps a child to develop their â€Å"self-concept† of who they are, and how we believe others see them. As a society we need to help the children of tomorrow, and be role-models in their self-esteem by encouraging every kid we come across in our lives. It is vital for a child to develop their self-esteem for optimum health and growth while young. Back in 1975, I can remember being shy and timid for the whole year in kindergarten. I did not say a word basically all year and I would just stare at the ground. The school held me back for another year of kindergarten. After that first year in kindergarten, my mother signed me up for baseball that spring, thinking that baseball may help my self-esteem. The first t-ball coach I had was the nephew of a professional baseball player who was Rick Monday. Rick played for the Los Angeles Dodgers. So at a young age, I was exposed to professional athletes who had a great deal of self-esteem and feelings of net worth. After that season, I was able to talk to classmates, and not be shy and timid any longer. Over the course of my youth, and teenage years growing up in Orange County, California, I was exposed to several professional athletes from the Angels to the Rams. Having these role-models in my life coach and mentoring me sure brought out my self-esteem and developed me into a team leader on my sports teams for my years. This has helped me develop, into the out-going, driven man, which has a full head of steam on life. In conclusion, self-esteem is a vital part of the communication process in society today. Some may be genetically low on self-esteem, the time to develop it is at a young age. And, whether one is learning it from a coach, teacher, parent or another kid, self-esteem is a most in order to live a healthy and happy life. Work Cited Adler Ronald B. , Proctor Russell F. , â€Å"Looking Out Looking In. † Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Print. 2007. Berger Charles R. , Attributional Communication, Situational Involvement, Self-Esteem and Interpersonal Attraction. The Journal of Communication Vol. 23, September 1973, p. 284405. University of Northwestern. Print. 1973. Cohen, A. R. , â€Å"Some Implications of Self-Esteem for Social Influence. â€Å"In C. I. Hovland and I. L. Janis (eds. ) Personality and Persuasibility. New Haven: Yale University Press. Print. How to cite Self Esteem, Papers

Define and Evaluate Law of Evidence

Questions: 1.Describe and evaluate the reasons why a warning may be given to a jury?2.Describe and discuss the effect of the Evidence Act 2008 on corroboration warnings?3.Identify and assess the circumstances under which a judge may still give corroboration warning?4.Determine the fundamentals in the preparation of the case?5.Identify the important elements of collection, forms and content, in the gathering of proof of evidence and assess for application?6.Identify the process in compelling the production of evidence and evaluate for application?7.Determine the processes for tendering types of evidence, such as; documents; photographs; maps; and plans; real evidence, and views?8.Describe and discuss the purpose and content of opening and closing addresses?9.Research and document the history of the development of Uniform Evidence Legislation?10.Research and discuss the objectives and justifications for the introduction of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)?11.Identify and describe the structure and pro visions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and its relationship with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and assess for the application to practice? Answers: 1. A warning to the jury panel is given in the cases where an allegation is made regarding a sexual assault. This is because such cases are traumatic in nature for a number of individual and for varied reasons[1]. The warning is given in such cases so that a jury can be made aware about the effects which may result on an accused, as a result of delay between the crime that has been alleged and the trial[2]. 2. The persisting requirement as per which the evidence had to be corroborated, with the sole exception of the perjury cases, the requirement has been abolished as a result of Section 164[3] of the Evidence Act 2008[4]. So, a jury is not required to warn that to act on uncorroborated evidence is dangerous or even give a warning about the same. Section 164(4) provides that a judge should not direct the jury about the corroborations absence[5]. 3. Section 164(2) states that the provisions contained in this section are not applicable on perjury offences or such related offences[6]. Further as per section 164(5), the judge is required to direct the jury that the individual accused could only be found guilty, when they have been satisfied regarding the evidence, which can prove the guilt and such an evidence is corroborated[7]. Even when there is a prohibition over corroborative directions, in cases where the jury has been warned regarding the possible unreliability of the witness, and in addition to this, there is presence of evidence which can support or confirm the evidence of the witness, then it is considered as fitting for the jury to look for supportive evidence, as was seen in the case of R v Connors[8] and R v Milton[9]. 4. The preparation of the case helps in winning half the battle. So, the fundamentals of preparation for a case are to be followed properly before the case is actually presented before a court of law. The first and foremost aspect in this is to analyze the strength, as well as, the weakness of the case. The next step is to prepare the documents and the evidence for the trial. The witnesses are a key to any case, and they have to be properly identified and prepared beforehand. Lastly, the key points of the case have to be practiced over and over again[10]. 5. There are certain crucial elements while gathering the proof of any kind of evidence and these relate to its collection, form and contents. Evidence consists of a range of items, and primarily has three forms, which are real evidence, testimony and documents[11]. The real evidence is collected to prove charges made in a crime, and its contents include the collection of things like tissues, semen, saliva, fingerprints and blood[12]. The evidence law operates over the rules regarding the proof of facts in criminal, as well as, civil trials[13]. 6. As per Section 45 of the Evidence Act 2008, an individual can be compelled to produce a document or such other evidence which is available to the party, before the court or to some other party, through an order of the court[14]. The evidence can be compelled to be produced only in cases where a party has cross examined a witness or is doing so presently, regarding a preceding representation or an inconsistent statement, which has been allegedly made by another person or the witness, respectively, and which has been properly recorded in a document[15]. The evidence that has been produced would then be examined by the court and the direction regarding its use is also given by the court. The court, at its discretion can also admit such produced evidence, even when the same has not been tendered by the party[16]. 7. The common law rule, subject to some exceptions, provides that the original documents have to be tendered in evidence so that their contents can be proved. This rule is also known as the original document rule, however, the Uniform Evidence Act in Victoria, through its section 51 abolishes this rule[17]. This act provides that the evidence can be entered by tendering the document under section 48 of this act[18]. The methods or process of tendering the documents has been covered under this section. For instance, tendering a transcript of a recording, or a copy of a document, is taken as tendering of evidence. Section 53 contains the provisions regarding tendering of views, in manner of demonstration or inspection[19]. 8. The opening and closing addresses acts as the opportunity of addressing the jury directly in any case, which allows the chance to give the jury an understanding regarding the role of the party in the case, and the role of the evidence that has been presented before the court of law[20]. The opening statement introduces the dispute to the jury members and acts as a general road map on how the entire trial would be unfolded. A closing statement on the other hand contains the summary of the proceedings and reminds the jury of the key evidence that has been presented so that the jury can be persuaded to give a favorable decision[21]. 9. The origin of the Uniform Evidence Law can be traced back to the inquiry which began in the year 1979 of the ALRC, i.e., the Australian Law Reform Commission, which was charged with the review of the applicable laws of evidence to the proceedings of the courts. NSWLRC or the New South Wales Law Reform Commission had its own inquiry in this matter. Their work was suspended in the year 1979 as the ALRCs review outcome was pending. The final report of NSWLRC was produced in 1988 which required that in New South Wales, the recommendations of ALRC should be implemented. The Governments of New South Wales and the Commonwealth, in 1991, developed the bills to give effect to the recommendations of the ALRC. However, none of these bills were passed. The Parliaments of New South Wales and the Commonwealth, in 1995, enacted new Evidence Acts. Both the ALRC and NSWLRC reviewed the operations of both the New South Wales and the Commonwealth Act. After a review of the Evidence Act by both these, a report was published in February 2006. The Victorian Law Reform Commission also published a report after which, this law was formulated[22]. 10. The objective behind the introduction of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) was to introduce an act which presented a uniform evidence law in Victoria. The justification for bringing out this act was to present new provisions for law of evidence, which were uniform with the law in this regard, with that of the New South Wales and the Commonwealth[23]. 11.The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) has been divided into parts, within which contains the relevant provisions to a particular part. For instance, the application of the act is the Part 1.2, which contains all the provisions relating to this matter[24]. An example of this can be seen in Section 7 of this act, which binds the crown[25]. So, the relevant provisions on a particular topic have been clubbed together in parts. The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) is related to Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)[26], as it is a modified and better version of the 1995 act. The provisions of the later act have a wider reach in comparison to the previous legislation. However in large parts, the 2008 act is uniform with the 1995 act[27]. Bibliography Cases R v Connors [2000] NSWCCA 470 at [133] R v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195 Legislation Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) Others Grey A, Not-So-Uniform Evidence Law: Reforming Longman Warnings (2007) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2007/25.pdf Judicial College of Victoria, Introduction to the Uniform Evidence Act in Victoria: Significant Changes (2009) https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/IntroductiontotheUEA.pdf Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Checklist of Jury Directions (15 June 2015) https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sexual_assault/checklist_of_jury_directions.html Rottenstein Law Group LLP, What are closing statements or closing arguments? (2017) https://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-are-closing-statements-or-closing-arguments/ Rutkowski L, How to Prepare Yourself to Present Your Case (22 June 2015) https://www.peoples-law.org/how-prepare-yourself-present-your-case UN Women, Evidence collection (2012) https://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/1136-evidence-collection.html United States Courts, Differences Betweeen Opening Statements Closing Arguments (2017) https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/differences Victoria University, Bachelor of Laws: Evidence (2015) https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/law/evidence [Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Checklist of Jury Directions (15 June 2015) https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sexual_assault/checklist_of_jury_directions.htmlAlice Grey, Not-So-Uniform Evidence Law: Reforming Longman Warnings (2007) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2007/25.pdfEvidence Act 2008, s 164 Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) Evidence Act 2008, s 164(4)Evidence Act 2008, s 164(2) Evidence Act 2008, s 164(5)[2000] NSWCCA 470 at [133] [2004] NSWCCA 195Lauren Rutkowski, How to Prepare Yourself to Present Your Case (22 June 2015) https://www.peoples-law.org/how-prepare-yourself-present-your-caseVictoria University, Bachelor of Laws: Evidence (2015) https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/law/evidenceUN Women, Evidence collection (2012) https://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/1136-evidence-collection.htmlEvidence Act 2008, s 48Evidence Act 2008, s 45(2) Evidence Act 2008, s 45(1 Evidence Act 2008, s 45(3Judicial College of Victoria, Introduction to the Unif orm Evidence Act in Victoria: Significant Changes (2009) https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/IntroductiontotheUEA.pdfEvidence Act 2008, s 48Evidence Act 2008, s 53Rottenstein Law Group LLP, What are closing statements or closing arguments? (2017) https://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-are-closing-statements-or-closing-arguments/United States Courts, Differences Betweeen Opening Statements Closing Arguments (2017) https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/differencesAt 17Evidence Act 2008, s 1 Evidence Act 2008, Part 1.2 Evidence Act 2008, s7 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)