The Sociometer Theory: What It Is And How It Explains Self-esteem
Is it useful to directly work on self-esteem? According to sociometer theory, our self-esteem would be an indicator of how socially accepted or rejected we feel more than a well-being factor in itself.
This idea would go against that applied in many workshops and books on self-esteem, which highlight that for a person to increase this psychological aspect they must “learn to love themselves.”
However, what good will it do if we love ourselves a lot if our self-esteem seems to depend on our relationships with others? Below we will look in more depth at this theory of the sociometer and what influence society has on our psychological well-being.
The sociometer theory of self-esteem, proposed by Mark Leary, is a theoretical model that proposes that self-esteem is an indicator of our adequate social relationship rather than a factor that gives us well-being That is, in this theory self-esteem is conceived not as a cause of our well-being, but rather a consequence of it, well-being directly related to the degree of acceptance or rejection that we perceive from our close environment.
The theory is really controversial, since it contradicts many of the postulates defended both in popular psychology and in the most academic and scientific, coming to say that self-esteem would not be what should be worked on if it is low, and According to this, the appropriate thing would be to promote strategies that lead us to feel and be more accepted in the reference group and if we achieve it we would have as a consequence an increase in self-esteem.
Before going deeper and seeing the details of this theory, we are going to highlight the importance of sociability in our species, an idea that may seem obvious but, in reality, having grown up in an individualistic society such as the Western one, we would never It’s unnecessary to see it.
We are social beings
One of the most shared and accepted ideas in the Western world is the individuality of each person Our view of people is that we are organisms more or less independent from the rest and that, at most, we can receive some influence from others but, in essence, our way of being and self-acceptance depends on us. If we set our minds to it, we can become isolated and independent machines, taking care of ourselves without interacting with others.
This idea has deeply penetrated several branches of psychology, including behaviorism, cognitive therapy and psychoanalysis. Psychology has taken a perspective centered on the individual, on the subject “from the inside out”, seen as an autonomous being and not a social animal. Likewise, several currents that have emphasized the person’s relationship with others cannot be omitted, such as the school of Systems Theory, applied in family therapy, or social psychology.
But although we, as Westerners, focus exaggeratedly on the individual and have reflected this in various currents of thought, evolutionary biology demonstrates the opposite: we are social beings. We come into the world as a group and we cannot develop as humans individually What’s more, our evolutionary ancestors and even the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees were social. We were social even before we were human.
This scientific fact has not been taken into account until relatively recently. In fact, a fairly shared idea in Western thought, both philosophical, political and scientific, is that at some point in history human individuals came together and gave up their individual rights in order to live in society, something that Jean-Jacques himself Rousseau states in his “The Social Contract” of 1762. But the reality is that this never happened, since our species inherited social life from its previous links.
There are several natural experiments that reveal the need for people to live with others to develop as humans, the most renowned being the cases of wild children. On more than one occasion a child has been abandoned to his or her fate accidentally or on purpose and, miraculously, has survived and grown without establishing any contact with other people. Being isolated from the rest of their peers, they lack many of the capacities that we consider properly human, such as language, the idea of “I” or an identity of their own.
Unlike the idea expressed by Rousseau himself about the noble savage, children who have grown up without human contact in critical periods of their development do not even know that they themselves are human From this we can conclude that it is not possible to understand the human qualities that we understand define us, such as the idea of “I”, identity, consciousness, language and self-esteem, in isolation from other people. They are human qualities that arise and develop by interacting with others. No one can grow or be a person if they do not relate to other people.
Self-esteem and society
Having understood the above, we can look further into what the sociometer theory of self-esteem defends. This theory starts from the social group and conceives the idea of self-esteem in a totally different way from the traditional one, taking into account the unquestionably social nature of our species. Psychology, in practically all its currents, has defended the role of self-esteem in explaining all types of psychological phenomena and mental disorders, but few had asked what function it fulfills in itself, why it exists.
As its name suggests, the sociometer theory of self-esteem considers that self-esteem works as a kind of thermostat, a “sociometer” This monitors the degree to which the individual is included or excluded by other people in their social environment, that is, social acceptance. Depending on how accepted they feel, this sociometer system motivates the person to behave in a way that minimizes the chances of being rejected or excluded from the group, tending to behave in a way considered attractive and socially pleasant.
In its most primitive state, the human being is incapable of surviving and reproducing without the help of other people. For this reason, from evolutionary psychology, it is defended that Psychological systems had to be developed that motivated people to develop and maintain a minimum level of inclusion in social relationships and groups No matter how much we say that we do not like being with others, we seek their support since, without it, we will hardly be able to survive.
To successfully maintain our relationships with others, a system is required that monitors the reactions of others to our behaviors, being especially sensitive to those signs that indicate rejection, exclusion or disapproval. This system would alert us to changes that occurred in our inclusion in the group, especially when there was less social acceptance.
To prevent social acceptance from lowering the system even further would motivate us to perform behaviors that repair or restore the original acceptance Self-esteem would be the system that would tell us how accepted we are in the group and, the lower we had it, the more it would alert us of social exclusion. This would activate us to avoid losing ties, since if this happens we would lose protection and our chances of survival would be reduced.
Understanding this, the idea would not be to maintain self-esteem in itself. Self-esteem would no longer be an indicator of how accepted we feel. If we perform actions that increase social acceptance, such as helping others, being kind, having significant achievements, our self-esteem will increase as a result of feeling more included in the group. On the other hand, if we show socially rejected behaviors, such as violating group morality, having unpleasant traits, or failing in our goals, our self-esteem will suffer and sink as a result of having fewer and poorer quality social relationships.
Thus, self-esteem, according to this model, is linked to affective and social processes. High self-esteem makes us feel good, while low self-esteem makes us feel uncomfortable. Our nature usually considers as pleasant those things that it wants us to repeat, while those that it wants us to avoid make us experience pain and discomfort. Any threat to our body, whether physical, psychological, or emotional, is associated with an aversive sensation, which motivates us to act to solve the situation.
For example, if our body is becoming dehydrated we will feel thirsty, which is an unpleasant sensation. To stop feeling it, what we will do is drink a glass of water and, thus, we will be able to quench our thirst. The same would happen with self-esteem: negative emotions would be the aversive sensation, a product of disapproval or rejection perceived in our environment. This situation would be perceived as a danger to our survival and would motivate us to solve the problem, doing more socially valued behaviors.
In short, and according to the research carried out by Leary’s group and other researchers, The main function of self-esteem would be to tell us when we run the risk of being excluded, motivating us to move to avoid such exclusion. Human beings activate themselves to avoid the unpleasant sensation of rejection more than to feel the pleasant sensation of approval, although we still invest resources to achieve this second objective.
Its repercussions
The sociometer theory of self-esteem can have practical implications, despite being understood as a highly theoretical model. In fact, It contradicts the main idea supported by many psychology books on self-esteem, self-help and other similar publications: “love yourself.”
If it is true that self-esteem is an indicator of our social relationships and the degree to which we are accepted or rejected by our environment, then it is not a cause of psychological well-being but rather a consequence of it. If so, the books, workshops and classes to work on self-esteem, although mostly well-intentioned, would have no effect since they would not be changing a factor in itself, but rather an indicator. We would be “cheating” that which tells us about our social acceptance.
So that we understand it. Let’s imagine that we are driving and the needle that indicates how much gasoline we have left is in the red. Wouldn’t it make sense to trick that needle and turn it to the maximum when the real problem is that we lack gasoline? The same would happen with self-esteem. Low self-esteem would indicate that there is a problem with social acceptance or something has been done that represents social rejection and, therefore, work must be done on it, which is still the cause of the problem.
To help a person with low self-esteem, they must be taught skills that lead them to be more socially accepted, resulting in an increase in their self-esteem: helping others, acquiring social skills, learning to play an instrument, obtaining a social achievement. valued… That is, promoting all types of behaviors that serve both to avoid social rejection and to promote social inclusion.
As we said, the philosophy of most self-esteem workshops is “love yourself,” but what good will loving ourselves do if self-esteem depends on how loved we feel by others? If no one loves us, it will be very difficult for us to love ourselves nor will we have high self-esteem, which will bring us pain.
It’s not that we shouldn’t love ourselves or accept the way we are, but to feel better the best thing is learn social skills that encourage our inclusion in the reference group, since we cannot separate ourselves from our human nature, which is indisputably social. Naturally, having faith in oneself and being optimistic will help us achieve our goals, but underneath it there has to be some truth, some ability that supports us.
If, for example, we are runners, it will not be of much use to tell ourselves how beautiful we are and that we are the best in the world just because, something that is basically what self-help resources do. We will have to show that we are good runners, that we can run long distances without getting tired and prove it to other people.
If we barely go out for a run and we are also working hard as soon as we start, we will not be able to prove anything, nor will people value us as good runners since we are not. On the other hand, if we manage to acquire the habit, we are able to run 10 kilometers without getting tired, we participate in several marathons and win them, we will be demonstrating how good we are in that area, we will be socially valued and our self-esteem will grow.
Pathological self-esteem and detection of lies
A curious and extreme case is what happens in the manic phases of typola disorder In this phase the individual is euphoric, very optimistic and happy: he feels like the master of the world. This pathological happiness can even be contagious, dragging others into a state of joy and motivation and making them see the individual with this disorder as a successful and pleasant person, since people prefer happy and optimistic people.
The problem with this extreme self-esteem is that it is a symptom, not the result of actual socially attractive skills. Since his self-esteem is not a reliable indicator of reality, when someone reproaches him that everything he claimed to be good at is not real, the person becomes irritated, feeling that he is being devalued. In the midst of a state of mania he truly believes in what he claims to be and any criticism of this is seen as a serious disdain, something that in extreme situations can make him aggressive.
It is worth mentioning that Within Evolutionary Biology there is a branch called Signal Theory, dedicated to communication between individuals and, more specifically, to the topic of honesty in signals. It is no surprise that people, even having a healthy self-esteem, present ourselves to others as more important and better than we really are. Interestingly, we are also designed not to be fooled when other people do this exact same thing.
The idea behind this is that, when we are the ones who present ourselves as more important, we accelerate the group’s approval of us, increase our self-esteem and feel like we have social protection, ensuring our survival. In case it is another person who tries to make it important, we try to see to what extent it is true to avoid deception, something that could also damage our self-esteem when we discover the deception after having trusted them.
