CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,683Personality Traits and PsychologyEmotions and Moral BehaviorSocial and Intergroup Psychology

TARGET ARTICLE: Toward a Conceptualization of Optimal Self-Esteem

Kernis, Michael H.·2003·Psychological Inquiry
DOI 10.1207/s15327965pli1401_01
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, I present a theoretical perspective on the nature of "optimal" self-esteem. One of my major goals is to show that optimal and high self-esteem are different from each other. High self-esteem can be fragile or secure depending upon the extent to which it is defensive or genuine, contingent or true, unstable or stable, and discrepant or congruent with implicit (nonconscious) feelings of self-worth. Optimal self-esteem is characterized by qualities associated with genuine, true, stable, and congruent (with implicit self-esteem) high self-esteem. A second major goal is to present a conceptualization of the construct of authenticity. I propose that authenticity as an individual difference construct may be particularly important in delineating the adaptive features of optimal self-esteem. Authenticity can be characterized as the unobstructed operation of one's true, or core, self in one's daily enterprise. I argue that authenticity has 4 components: awareness, unbiased processing, action, and relational. Initial data pertaining to these components are highly encouraging. Finally, I discuss some implications of the fragile versus secure high self-esteem distinction for narcissism, defensive processing models, and cross-cultural self-esteem perspectives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327965pli1401_01

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kernis' theory of authenticity was not specific to leadership but was meant to differentiate an optimal or stable self-esteem from a fragile or defensive self-esteem.

    “Kernis' (2003) theory of authenticity was not specific to leadership but was meant to differentiate an optimal or stable self-esteem from a fragile or defensive self-esteem.”

    From Taking Stock of Moral Approaches to Leadership: An Integrative Review of Ethical, Authentic, and Servant Leadership (2019) · cites this paper as Kernis, 2003

  • Kernis' work identified four components of authenticity: self-awareness, unbiased processing of self-relevant information, behavior in accordance with one's true self, and openness and honesty in relationships.

    “Kernis' work identified four components of authenticity: self-awareness, unbiased processing of self-relevant information, behavior in accordance with one's true self, and openness and honesty in relationships.”

    From Taking Stock of Moral Approaches to Leadership: An Integrative Review of Ethical, Authentic, and Servant Leadership (2019) · cites this paper as Kernis, 2003

  • There is a risk of developing contingent self-worth insofar as individuals feel that they must live up to specific standards or attain particular outcomes to be worthy.

    “As such, there is a risk of developing contingent self-worth (Deci and Ryan 1995;Kernis 2003) insofar as individuals feel that they must live up to specific standards or attain particular outcomes to be worthy.”

    From Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions (2020) · cites this paper as Kernis 2003

  • Kernis (2003) identifies four core elements of authenticity: self-awareness, unbiased processing, relational authenticity, and authentic behavior/action.

    “identifies four core elements of authenticity: self-awareness, unbiased processing, relational authenticity, and authentic behavior/action.”

    From Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership (2005) · cites this paper as Kernis (2003)

  • Authenticity involves unbiased (balanced) processing, relational transparency/authenticity, and authentic behavior.

    “the previously discussed arguments advanced by Kernis (2003) that authenticity involves unbiased (balanced) processing, relational transparency/authenticity, and authentic behavior.”

    From Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership (2005) · cites this paper as Kernis (2003)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 136 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kernis, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Kernis, Michael H.
Venue
Psychological Inquiry
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
1-26
ISSN
  • 1047-840X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7965
DOI
10.1207/s15327965pli1401_01
OpenAlex
W1981141777
Cited by
1,683
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 109 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 111 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 97 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 84
FWCI
28.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Inquiry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
high self-esteem, authenticity, implicit self-esteem, defensive processing, narcissism, individual differences, self-awareness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review